When you read Numbers 25 and then view the middle east through that lens….. the actions of the middle east don’t feel as extreme. I definitely do not agree with the extremes of the middle east culture, but I am also shocked and dismayed at the extremes of what are written in Numbers 25. Yet God said…. > 4 ……. “Take all the leaders of the people and execute[b] them in broad daylight before the LORD so that his burning anger may turn away > from Israel.” > > 7 …….Aaron the priest, saw this, he got up from the assembly, took a > spear in his hand, 8 followed the Israelite man into the tent,[c] and > drove it through both the Israelite man and the woman—through her > belly. > > 11 …….Aaron the priest, has turned back my wrath from the Israelites > because he was zealous among them with my zeal,[d] so that I did not > destroy the Israelites in my zeal.* > > 17 “Attack the Midianites and strike them dead. 18 For they attacked > you with the treachery that they used against you in the Peor > incident. How do I as a Christian, defend this to a nonbeliever (or someone who questions Christianity). “This” being the fact that the God I serve, directed this….condoned this….. and rewarded this.

In Matthew 24:13, Jesus says: >“But the one who endures to the end will be saved.” This appears to place a condition on salvation—namely, perseverance. It seems to imply that failing to endure could result in not being saved. Additionally, in Galatians 3:3, Paul rebukes believers: >“Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?” This raises concerns about those who begin in faith but do not continue rightly. Other passages such as Hebrews 3:14 (“we have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end”) also seem to connect salvation with continued faithfulness. **Question:** How do proponents of the doctrine that salvation cannot be lost (e.g., “once saved, always saved”) reconcile these passages with their view? Specifically, how are conditional statements about enduring to the end understood within that framework?

The modern state of of Israel has this flag: Wikipedia says: > In the Middle Ages, mystical powers were attributed to the pentagram and hexagram, which were used in talismans against evil spirits. Both were called the "Seal of Solomon", but the name eventually became exclusive to the pentagram, while the hexagram became known as a symbol associated with the Israelite king David. Later, it began to appear in Jewish art. In 1648, Ferdinand II of the Holy Roman Empire permitted the Jews of Prague to fly a "Jewish flag" over their synagogue; this flag was red with a yellow Star of David in the middle. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Israel Is there any biblical scripture which has any hint to this flag or any part of it?

In the Lord’s Prayer (Matthew 6:9), Jesus teaches: “Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name.” The phrase seems to emphasize honoring or sanctifying God’s name. In its original context, this likely carried specific meaning related to reverence for God in Jewish tradition. However, in modern Christianity, practices and interpretations vary across denominations. **How do contemporary Christian traditions interpret and practically apply the idea of “hallowing” God’s name in daily life or worship?** Are there common theological understandings, or does this vary significantly between groups? Answers from multiple traditions (e.g., Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant) are especially helpful.

In several passages, Jesus describes judgment using the phrase “weeping and gnashing of teeth” (e.g., Matthew 13:42, Matthew 25:30). At the same time, some Christian traditions—particularly those that hold to annihilationism or conditional immortality—understand the “lake of fire” as resulting in the eventual destruction of the wicked rather than ongoing conscious torment. My question is: How do proponents of annihilationism reconcile their view with Jesus’ description of “weeping and gnashing of teeth”? Specifically: - Do they interpret this phrase as referring to a temporary conscious experience before destruction? - Or is it understood metaphorically (e.g., representing regret, judgment, or exclusion rather than ongoing conscious suffering)? I am looking for answers that explain how this phrase is interpreted within annihilationist theology, ideally with references to biblical or theological sources.

There have been a lot of new methodologies developed in medicine that isolates specific fractions of blood for use in specific needs of individuals. Whole blood is rarely transfused anymore. My understanding is that a wide variety of fractions of blood are now being accepted as medical therapy by Jehovah's Witnesses. What exactly is the official position of JWs now as regards use of blood and blood products for patients?

Millions of dollars have been made off the **Left Behind** books and movies. I would like to ask who was the first person to associate Matthew 24:40-41 with the rapture?

> The most important duty of the Freemason must be to glorify the > **Jewish** Race, which has preserved the unchanged divine standard of wisdom. You must rely upon the **Jewish** race to dissolve all > frontiers. Le Symbolism, July 1928. See The Age of Confusion by Seamus bin Shylockeen, 2020. > Masonry is based on **Judaism**. Eliminate the teachings of > **Judaism** from the Masonic ritual and what is left? The Jewish Tribune, New York, October 28, 1927. See Bloody Zion by Edward Hendrie. Great Mountain Publishing, 2012. p. 182. > Freemasonry is founded on the ancient law of **Israel**. Israel has given > birth to the moral beauty which forms the basis of Freemasonry. The Freemason, April 2, 1930, quoting Br. Rev. S. McGowan. See The Age of Confusion by Seamus bin Shylockeen, 2020. > The spirit of Freemasonry is the spirit of **Judaism** in its most > fundamental beliefs; it is its ideas, its language, it is mostly its > organization, the hopes which enlighten and support **Israel**. It’s > crowning will be that wonderful prayer house of which Jerusalem will > be the triumphal centre and symbol. La Verite Israelite, Jewish paper, 1861, IV, p. 74. See The Kings of the Earth and the High Ones On High by Allan Cornford, 2019. > Masonry is a **Jewish** institution whose history, degrees, charges, passwords and explanations are **Jewish** from the beginning to the end. Isaac Mayer Wise. The Israelite, August 3, 1866.

God's name for himself is a form of "I AM", and he is referred to by a form of "HE IS" (YHWH), as in **Exodus 3:13-14**: > **13**… The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them? **14**And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. When Jesus used the expression, the Jewish leaders wanted to kill him for blasphemy, as described in **John 8:58-59**: > **58**Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. > **59**Then took they up stones to cast at him … In comic strips and animated cartoons, the character Popeye frequently said: > I YAM WHAT I YAM AN' THA'S ALL THAT I YAM or some variation thereof. When it first appeared (1933 or perhaps earlier) did anyone protest that this expression was blasphemous?

How was tithing done in the Old and New Testaments? In the New Testament, it seems it was put in the γαζοφυλάκιον or "treasury" (cf. Mk. 12:41,43 & Lk. 21:1 , the parable of the widow's offering). But in either Testaments, were tithes ever give directly to individual priests, or were they only given to the priests collectively? If an individual priest received a tithe, was he obliged to put it in the "treasury", or did priests have individual "accounts"?

Why can't God exist as One when there's no point of Him existing in 3 forms that too after death of Jesus. Why is Trinity necessary as it gets confusing everytime you try to pray to God. Furthermore, there are many questions (Look at them ) than answers when it comes to Jesus calling God as one at many places in the Bible. My question is if God can manifest in 3 forms, there is a higher chance of him existing in more than 3 forms? Isn't it. Why stop at 3? So it would have been much better if God existed as one in all respects for there would be no contradictions. If God is Sufficient in all Respects, then What's the need of Holy Spirit Or Jesus to exist. What's their role in running the affairs of this Universe. Ain't God as one, sufficient?

Looking at the different translations of Proverbs 8:22, it describes the "Artisan or Wisdom" as separate from God in Proverbs 8:30: >**Douay-Rheims Bible** I was with him forming all things: and was delighted every day, playing before him at all times; >**New American Standard Bible** Then I was beside Him, as a master workman; And I was His delight daily, Rejoicing always before Him, >**Catholic Public Domain Version** I was with him in composing all things. And I was delighted, throughout every day, by playing in his sight at all times, >**New American Bible** then was I beside him as artisan; I was his delight day by day, playing before him all the while, From the different Bible translations, it clearly describes the "artisan or Wisdom" is a separate spirit being, beside God. **Which denomination or Church interprets Wisdom in Proverbs 8:22 as a "created Spirit"?**

Calvin, among his other points, includes the point that Atonement is Limited; i.e., that Christ's death was sufficient for all but only effective for the elect. What is the Biblical basis for this doctrine?

> Ezekiel 21:18-23 > > New American Standard Bible 1995 > > The Instrument of God’s Judgment > > 18 The word of the Lord came to me saying, 19 “As for you, son of man, > make two ways for the sword of the king of Babylon to come; both of > them will go out of one land. And make a signpost; make it at the head > of the way to the city. 20 You shall mark a way for the sword to come > to Rabbah of the sons of Ammon, and to Judah into fortified Jerusalem. > 21 For the king of Babylon stands at the parting of the way, at the > head of the two ways, to use divination; he shakes the arrows, he > consults the household idols, he looks at the liver. 22 Into his right > hand came the divination, ‘Jerusalem,’ to set battering rams, to open > the mouth for slaughter, to lift up the voice with a battle cry, to > set battering rams against the gates, to cast up ramps, to build a > siege wall. 23 And it will be to them like a false divination in their > eyes; they have sworn solemn oaths. But he brings iniquity to > remembrance, that they may be seized. The Ezekiel 21:18-21 bible passage is interesting , and a bit strange. The reason being is that in Ezekiel 21:18 states God’s command to the Prophet Ezekiel to somehow prophecy and proclaim that the Babylonian king will attack the cities of Rabbah, Ammon and Jerusalem, Judah(Southern Israelite Kingdom). It’s sort of interesting that the immediate subsequent Ezekiel 21:21-22 indicate that the Babylonian king will “use divination”, “consults the household idols”, etc., which are all pagan practices & rituals of divination. However, Ezekiel 21:21-22’s bible passage seems to suggest that the Israelite God’s Will sometimes is manifestly prophetically expressed via divination pagan rituals & practices. Please understand that my question posting is in **No** way an indication of support and/or acceptance of practices & rituals of Nonbelievers, NonChristians &/or pagans. However, the Ezekiel 21:18-23 bible passage is interesting for Christians in today’s world because it gives Christians an idea as to how the Israelite God may at times guide/communicate with Nonbelievers, NonChristians &/or pagans who naively &/or unwittingly just do Not know &/or do Not understand Him. What can the bible reader infer from Ezekiel 21:18-23? Within the context of Nonbelievers, NonChristians &/or pagans who naively &/or unwittingly just do Not know &/or do Not understand the Israelite God, could it be that Israelite God does occasionally allow for His Will & Prophecies to be manifestly prophetically expressed via divination pagan rituals & practices?

1 John 2:2 (ESV) > He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. Understanding the "ours" as referring to the universal church of believers, it would seem that John is saying that Christ "propitiated" for everyone's sins. Calvinism, through the doctrine of limited, or definite, or particular, atonement, says that Christ died only for the elect. How would a five-point Calvinist understand this passage?

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

This is my first post here so I am not sure if this is the right place for this but here I go. I am looking into doctoral programs at the moment. I am looking at a few Universities in the UK. I am also looking at some schools here in the US. One school I have applied to and been accepted to is Kairos University. Their ThD program has a faculty assigned by the school. However, they also require the student to recruit two additional academic mentors. They do not have to be people with formal education. They just need to be experts in the subject. Which for me is Patristics. I have been told that I will not be able to complete, or even really start, the program without all three mentors. These two additional mentors are not compensated by the school. The school even claims that many mentors refused to accept payment when they were offering it. I have found the opposite. That many people who have that expertise would like compensation for their time. They are ATS accredited and I do think their format has some real potential. However, I have some concerns about them requiring outside, unpaid support from whatever they define as an expert. Do you believe that this is acceptable? I am working on other programs and hoping to get a scholarship. Thank you all for your help.

In Romans 3:23, Scripture states that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," a point emphasized throughout the New Testament regarding the universal human condition. However, the Catholic Church dogma of Papal Infallibility (defined during Vatican I) suggests that under specific conditions (ex cathedra), the Pope is preserved from error. From a Catholic theological perspective: Does the Church distinguish between impeccability (sinlessness) and infallibility (erroneous teaching)? If the Pope is considered a "sinner" like any other man, what is the scriptural or tradition-based mechanism that prevents his fallen nature from affecting these specific formal definitions of faith and morals? I am looking for an explanation of how these two concepts coexist in Catholic teaching without contradicting the biblical narrative of universal human fallibility

On a different question I got an answer and some comments. One of which said: > Generally, when a Christian says that Jesus is the "Son of God" they are referring to the doctrine of the Trinity, where Jesus is a person of a three-part godhead. It's a complicated doctrine that necessitates antinomy. As for your friend's reasoning, it is sound, and is the same reason we call Adam, from Genesis, the son of God also, for he also had no human father, instead God fashioned him from the clay of the Earth and breathed life into him. – fredsbend yesterday If that is what Trinitarians usually mean when they call Jesus the "Son of God", what do non-trinitarians mean when they say it?

The "L" in the TULIP acronym of Reformed Theology stands for Limited Atonement, which the Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms defines as : > Sometimes called 'particular redemption,' the view that Jesus' death > secured salvation for only a limited number of persons (the elect), > in contrast to the idea that the work of the cross is intended for all > humankind (as in “unlimited atonement”). This view resulted from the > post-Reformation development of the doctrine of election in Calvinist > circles. Proponents claim that because not everyone is saved, God > could not have intended that Christ die for everyone. We already have a question asking for the Biblical basis **for** Limited Atonement , so my question is what is the Biblical argument **against** Limited Atonement?