With ascension day coming up so quickly, I have a question: According to the Bible, why did Jesus leave? I've read some ideas but few have any actual Biblical backing. Could anyone point me in the direction of this?

During a recent small group meeting recently, several questions about the life of Jacob came up: 1. If God had already chosen Jacob to be blessed, why did God still chose to wrestle with Jacob? So that he could repent and be able to be blessed? 2. When Jacob do not want to let go of God until after the "wrestling", asking for a blessing first, did God give in? Did God bless Jacob so that he would let go? 3. If God showed himself to Jacob, how come it didn't become a "big deal" the way later appearances did? Is there a article/commentary the tackles this question?

This is an honest question and I would just like to know why "Jesus". "God sent his Son as Redeemer and Savior. In his Son and through him, he invites men to become, in the Holy Spirit, his adopted children and thus heirs of his blessed life." (CCC-1) Weren't we always his children and heirs? It does not make sense that He had to send Jesus. This is what I found in the Gospel: Matthew 5:17 >Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. But why, it does not seem like a good enough reason to be crucified for. Luke 12:51 >Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division. Between good and evil, God knew already who is good and who is evil. Why did he need to send Jesus to divide? Matthew 10:34 >Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. Okay, this I get to come and punish the people physically on earth, but God can do that from anywhere and have done it before. Why send Jesus to do it? Mark 2:17 >Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners. All the prophets before him did the same thing, why send Jesus? Luke 5:32 >I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance. All the prophets before him did the same thing, why send Jesus? Mark 10:45 >For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. To give His life in exchange for ours, so we might be saved. This doesn't make sense because just believing in Jesus and repenting is the same as believing in God and repenting why introduce an extra step? Why make it more complicated and divide even people more? Luke 4:18-19 >The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor. This made the most sense to me, people at that time did not understand what God wanted. God sent Jesus to explain to the people that it's not just about following rules but cultivating a relationship and that everything that you do matters. You cannot say that you are a Christian but you value money or other things more than Me. You cannot say you are Christian but there are more important things in your life than God. He sends Jesus to make the people understand what is it to believe and to be Christian. He sent Him as an example. That is what I think, and I think this scripture relates to my own thoughts. Many of the previous prophets did the same, what I don't get is why sent Jesus to do this task if John or some of the other prophets could have done it also. Luke 19:10 >For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost. Same thoughts as Luke 4:18-19. John 3:17 >For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Same thoughts as Luke 4:18-19. John 6:38-40 >For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. I don't understand this. John 9:39 >Jesus said, “For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind.” Same thoughts as Luke 4:18-19. John 10:10 >The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly. Same thoughts as Luke 4:18-19. John 12:46 >I have come into the world as light, so that whoever believes in me may not remain in darkness. Same thoughts as Luke 4:18-19. John 18:37 >Then Pilate said to him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world—to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.” I don't understand.

Adam was created in the original state of justice and holiness, he have a pure heart originally, a sinless creature. >The concept that Adam was created in a state of original justice and holiness is a doctrine rooted in the biblical narrative of Genesis 1-3 and supported by New Testament reflections on the image of God. >Key Bible verses and theological points supporting this doctrine include: Ecclesiastes 7:29: "Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions" (KJV). This verse is widely cited as direct scriptural evidence that humanity’s original condition was one of moral integrity, righteousness, and innocence. Genesis 1:26-27, 31: God creates man in His own image and likeness and declares all of creation, including humanity, "very good." This state is interpreted as original justice—a harmonious relationship with God, oneself, and creation. >Ephesians 4:24: While referring to the "new self" in Christ, this verse highlights the original state intended for humanity: "...put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness" (NIV). This implies that the restoration of humanity brings them back to the original holiness Adam possessed. >Colossians 3:10: Speaks of being "renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator," referencing a return to the original righteous state. >Genesis 2:25: "And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed." This describes a state of innocence, internal harmony, and lack of sin before the Fall. >**Key Aspects of Original Justice:** >Original Holiness: Friendship with God and sharing in God's own life (sanctifying grace). >Original Justice: Harmony between Adam and Eve, inner harmony of the human person (reason, will, and desires were aligned), and harmony with creation. >Preternatural Gifts: Freedom from sickness, suffering, and death. >The Council of Trent (Session V, 1511) formally affirmed that Adam lost this "holiness and justice" through disobedience. It would seems that Adam was created with a pure heart before the fall, and there's no obstacle for him to see the face of God. **Did Adam saw the face of God before the fall?** This question is open for Catholicism, Protestant and Christians who have a source or writings that stated, Adam had seen the face of God before the fall.

> **“Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God."** - Matthew5:8 **IMPORTANT NOTE:** We cannot add nor subtract any word from the bible. When Jesus said this beatitude, He said this promised to all the living not dead nor this promise can only be gain after death. Jesus did not said, *"Blessed are the pure of heart, for they will see God,* ***after death***." Archangel Gabriel have faculties to see the state of soul of every human being. Archangel Gabriel saw the majestic soul of Mary, and proclaimed that it was *"full of grace"*. Mary was seen having the most pure heart. > [**Mary: Woman of Most Pure Heart**](https://carmelite.org/spirituality/mary-woman-most-pure-heart/) > > As well as regarding Our Lady, the Blessed Virgin Mary, as patron of our Order, we Carmelites revere her under a number of special titles such as ‘Beauty of Carmel’, ‘Sister’, and ‘Woman of Most Pure Heart’. > > Purity of Heart (Puritas Cordis in Latin) is an important concept in Carmelite spirituality, and Mary is seen as its greatest exemplar and embodiment. For this reason medieval Carmelites were among the most fervent promoters of the doctrine of Mary’s ‘Immaculate Conception’, which was not formally proclaimed a dogma of the Catholic Church until 1854. > > Carmelites have always sought to imitate Mary in her purity of heart. The medieval Carmelite writer Felip Ribot said that the goal of the Carmelite life is to offer to God a holy heart purified from all stain of sin. The purpose of this is to achieve, by God’s grace, union with God. Mary, the Most Pure Virgin, is seen as the perfect model of one who was totally available for union with God. > > To explain the significance of purity from a Carmelite perspective, the Irish theologian Chris O’Donnell, O.Carm., uses the image of a milk jug. The purpose of a milk jug is to dispense milk. In order to do so properly, it must be clean; if the milk jug is dirty, then the milk will become infected. However, there is no point in the milk jug being clean simply for the sake of it; if the purpose of a milk jug is to dispense milk, then it can be as clean as you like but if it’s empty then it isn’t useful. This is an analogy of the human heart. Its purpose is to pour out love for others. If our hearts are impure, then what we ‘pour our’ to others will be infected. But there is no point is having a pure heart simply to leave it empty; the point of purity is not an end in itself but a means to be useful for others. > > This is what Carmelites mean by purity: having a heart undivided for God, free from our own motives and desires so that God’s will be done in us. Today’s society often associates ‘purity’ with puerile notions of sex. Carmel teaches us that purity is more a matter of the heart than the rest of the body. > > *Maria Purissima*, Mary Most Pure, is the great example of purity, in that her heart is totally given over to God and pours out love towards those around her. **Looking for Protestant Founders like Luther,Calvin, Zwingli, etc. also theologians and biblical scholars outside of Catholic Church, before reformation and early reformation era, who look upon the Blessed Virgin Mary as having a pure heart**." A citation from Protestant Founders and Theologians in harmony with Early Church and Church Fathers would be a perfect answer.

Ordinarily, I would go to Wikipedia for this sort of question, but unfortunately the information therein is paltry. It is clear that Luther consistently believed in Mary as *Theotokos*, as this continues to be the normal belief of all branches of Protestantism till the modern day. This answer on another question indicates, but without adequate citations, that Luther's views on the Immaculate Conception changed over time. I have seen this from other sources as well, but nothing very clear. **I am looking for an overview of how his views on Mary, especially the sinlessness and/or immaculate conception, may have changed over the course of his career.** *Note: I have researched this question a bit myself. I have had a lot of difficulty sorting through polemics (from both sides) to find accurate information. Some verified references to primary sources would be most helpful.*

**IMPORTANT NOTE:** The OP is not looking to justify the Immaculate Conception of Mary, rather, the OP is looking for passages, significant bible passages that explicitly prove that "Mary is a sinner", meaning Mary had committed sins. This is in no way a duplicate question as commented. If Luther, Zwingli and Calvin who uphold the dignity of the Blessed Virgin Mary were still alive, during the proclamation of the Dogma of Immaculate Conception, I'm pretty sure, the three of them will also embraced this Truth even the Assumption of Mary into Heaven, like what they did to the Dogma of Theotokos and Perpetual Virginity. Sad to say, the Modern Day Protestant and the Bible Alone Believers that I normally encounter in the social media, are simply drinking the shallow arguments, citing this two shallow passages. >"All have sinned." - Romans 3:23 and > "“None is righteous, no, not one; 11 no one understands; no one seeks for God. 12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.” - Romans 3:10-12 In CSE, I've seen a lot of good exegesis, but when it comes to this two passages, they seem to become an elementary student or even a kindergarten in giving a thorough exegesis on this particular verse. Romans 3:10-12 can easily be refuted by God Himself in Job 1:1 >There was a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job. And this man was blameless and upright, fearing God and shunning evil. -Job 1:1 The "All have sinned", can easily be debunk by the Doctrine of Original Sin, as the word "sinned" here pointed to "actual sin", on which no Protestant, Modern Day Protestant and all Bible Alone Believers can justify against the Blessed Virgin Mary. Proof? Lets simply ask them a direct question. *What is the nature of sin committed by Mary and when? Please cite bible passages, and you wil see that none of them can cite a single verse, and they will simple go back to Romans 3:23 and Romans 3:10-12.* **In view of the above, I am looking for any wise Protestant and Bible Alone Believers here in CSE to cite significant verses aside from Romans 3:23 and Romans 3:1-12, to support their stance that Mary is a sinner.** Of course, I forgot the Magnificat... >My spirit rejoices in God my savior.." Careful to cite this passage, as Mary claimed to be saved already in this particular passage even before Jesus offered His life on the Cross. So, in this particular passage, the Savior of Mary is God the Father and not Jesus per se, and God the Father is outside of time, and can apply the merit of Christ in whatever ways He deemed appropriate according to His Divine Plan.

In **1 Corinthians 6:9–10**, Saint Paul lists behaviors and types of people who “will not inherit the kingdom of God.” The relevant portion reads: > Μὴ πλανᾶσθε· οὔτε πόρνοι οὔτε εἰδωλολάτραι οὔτε μοιχοὶ οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται > οὔτε πλεονέκται οὔτε κλέπται οὔτε μέθυσοι οὐ λοίδοροι οὐχ ἅρπαγες βασιλείαν θεοῦ οὐ κληρονομήσουσιν. A common English rendering is: > Do not be deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor *malakoi*, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. My question concerns the meaning of **μαλακοί (*malakoi*)** in verse 9. Modern translations vary widely. Some render it as: * “effeminate _men_” (KJV and ASV) * “male prostitutes” (NLT and ISV) * “catamites” (NKJV footnote) * “homosexuals” (NKJV) * “boy prostitutes” (NAB) * “passive homosexual partners.” (NET) The NIV, NASB, CSB, and ESV seem not to translate it at all. Here is an excerpt from the NIV for an example: _"the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers [malakoi missing here] nor men who have sex with men"_. This is quite strange considering it is found in the Greek editions of Nestle-Aland, Westcott-Hort, and Robinson-Pierpont. Regarding translating *malakoi* as _"homosexuals"_ (as the NKJV does), the term immediately following (*arsenokoitai*) is understood to refer to male same-sex relations (from *arsen* meaning *"male"* and *koite* meaning *"bed"*). Therefore, translating *malakoi* as homosexual seems redundant. When consulting lexicons such as **LSJ** and **Abbott-Smith**, I primarily find meanings related to **“soft”**, either physically or metaphorically, such as “morally weak” or “lacking self-control.” These sources do not clearly support some of the more specific sexual translations. Strong’s Concordance mentions the term as a euphemism for a catamite but does not provide a cited source. Another interesting footnote is that Saint Jerome (chief translator of the Latin Vulgate) seems to have translated this very literally as _molles_ or _"soft"_; whereas the Syriac Peshitta uses ܡܚܰܒ݁ܠܶܐ (mḥabble’) meaning _"destroyed"_ (although this word is used to refer to topics as broad as a "deflowered" girl or a miscarried child.) **Question:** What is the most defensible translation or interpretation of *μαλακοί* in 1 Corinthians 6:9 based on lexical evidence and historical usage? How was the term understood in contemporary Greek literature and in early Christian interpretation?

Many moons ago, I was surfing through the ocean of Wikipedia and found the page for "[Great Lent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Lent) ." While reading, I found [this quote](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Lent#:~:text=The%20Church%20Fathers%5Bwhich%3F%5D%20have%20referred%20to%20fasting%20without%20prayer%20as%20%22the%20fast%20of%20the%20demons%22%5Bcitation%20needed%5D%20since%20the%20demons%20do%20not%20eat%20according%20to%20their%20incorporeal%20nature%2C%20but%20neither%20do%20they%20pray.) : > "The Church Fathers have referred to fasting without prayer as "the fast of the demons" since the demons do not eat according to their incorporeal nature, but neither do they pray." I have absolutely fallen in love with this idea but have completely failed to find where it came from. I have a feeling it is hidden somewhere in the depths of the PG or PL and even the most advanced AIs can not find it. Does anyone happen to know where this quote has come from?

A while back I read the book ***Remembrances of a Journey in Tartary, Tibet and China***. The book chronicles two French Catholic Missionaries in these regions during the years 1844, 1845, and 1846. In order to avoid too much reprisals from locals Father [Evariste Huc](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Évariste_Régis_Huc#Works) and Father Joseph Gabet darkened their skin and donned the robes traditionally worn by religious [Buddhists lamas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lama) of these regions and called themselves ***lamas of the western skies*** (meaning Europe). > When his Chinese was considered sufficient, he disguised himself for work on the mainland by growing out his hair, cutting it into the obligatory queue, wearing loose Chinese garments, and dyeing his skin to a yellower shade. He took a ship up the Pearl River to Guangzhou ("Canton") and oversaw a mission in the southern provinces for a time. He then traveled north to Beijing ("Peking"), where he improved his Mandarin. > > In Mongolia > > He then settled in the Valley of Black Waters or Heishui, 300 miles (480 km) north of Beijing and just within the borders of Mongolia. There, beyond the Great Wall of China, a large but scattered population of native Christians had taken refuge from the persecutions of the Jiaqing Emperor ("Kia-king") who had added Christianity to China's list of condemned superstitions and cults, threatening missionaries with execution and converts with enslavement to the Muslims of Xinjiang. Huc devoted himself to the study of the dialects and customs of the "Tartars," for whom he translated several religious texts. - [Évariste Régis Huc](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Évariste_Régis_Huc#Works) My question is as follows: **What are the unique ways Catholic Missionaries are employing in Mongolia nowadays to expand the Christian faith?** I am also leaving this question open to other Christian denominations in Mongolia, seeing that the Christian population of tthis country is extremely small.

In the Magnificat, Mary refers to God as *her* Savior. According to Roman Catholic doctrine, Mary was born sinless and remained sinless throughout her life. So, why does Mary refer to God as **her Savior** if she was sinless (and therefore would not have need of a Savior or even have one). > And Mary said: > > “My soul exalts the Lord, And my spirit has rejoiced in **God my > Savior**. For He has had regard for the humble state of His > bondslave; for behold, from this time on all generations will count me > blessed. For the Mighty One has done great things for me; and holy > is His name. And His mercy is upon generation after generation Toward > those who fear Him. He has done mighty deeds with His arm; He has > scattered those who were proud in the thoughts of their heart. He > has brought down rulers from their thrones, And has exalted those who > were humble. He has filled the hungry with good things; And sent away > the rich empty-handed. He has given help to Israel His servant, In > remembrance of His mercy, As He spoke to our fathers, To Abraham and > his descendants forever.” (Luke 1:46-55)

If Mary was born without original sin and remained sinless, even so Jesus was her savior, for she said, > “My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my > Savior..." (Luke 1:46-47) What do Catholics claim that Mary needed to be saved from? I imagine natural disasters, murderers, and Satan might be in the list, plus the grief of seeing her son executed. What does the church teach?

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

On page 145 of [*Works of the Seraphic Father St. Francis of Assisi*](https://ia600408.us.archive.org/4/items/SeraphicFatherStFrancisOfAssisi/SeraphicFatherStFrancisOfAssisi.pdf) , we find the following sentence: >"IV. Fly from creatures, if thou desirest to possess creatures." QUESTION: What does St. Francis of Assisi mean by this quote? --- The context is: > ## FAVOURITE SENTENCES OF THE HOLY FATHER ST. FRANCIS.‡ > > - I. THESE are the weapons by which the chaste soul is overcome: looks, speeches, touches, embraces. > - II. He who retires into the desert avoids three combats: seeing, hearing, and detraction. > - III. Beloved, in this vale of misery may you possess nothing so fair and so delightful that your soul would be entirely occupied with it. > - IV. Fly from creatures, if thou desirest to possess creatures. > - V. Fly from the world, if thou wilt be pure. If thou art pure, the world does not delight thee.† > - VI. Fly, keep silence, and be quiet. > - VII. If thou excusest thyself, God will accuse thee; and if thou accusest thyself, God will excuse thee. > - VIII/ He is not perfectly good who cannot be good among the wicked. > - IX. Temptation, when it is not consented to, is matter for the exercise of virtue, > - X. Love makes all heavy things light, and all bitter things sweet. > - XI. The love of God is never idle. > - XII. Rich clothing and sumptuous dwellings, eating, drinking, sleep, and idleness, enervate men, and foster luxury. > - XIII. When I say 'Hail Mary,' the heavens smile, the angels rejoice, the world exults, hell trembles, the devils fly. > - XIV. As wax melts before the heat of the fire, and dust is scattered by the wind, so the whole army of the evil spirits is dispersed by the invocation of the holy Name of Mary. > - XV. Let every creature become more despicable to the heart, that the Creator may become more sweet. > > ‡ These *Sentences* were frequently used by St. Francis in instructing his Brethren. Some are his own, others are taken from the holy Fathers of the Church, or composed according to their doctrine. > > † The play upon the words is lost in the translation. 'Fuge *mundum*, si vis esse *mundus*. Si tu es *mundus*, jam non delectat te *mundus*.'

Can you explain Will of God according to Holy Bible's verses? It is been observed that Good humans die young and they go to the Heaven. This could be because of accidents, pandemic, uncured diseases etc. Was it God's will to take them to heaven? Good humans would have continued their good work in form of charity,helping the poor and downtrodden etc on planet earth. But they die young at a tender age of 30s and 40s. Do you agree?

Those who believe in a pre-tribulation rapture often claim that it is clearly taught by the Scriptures, and the only possible interpretation for those who take the Bible at face value seriously. However, the arguments used to prove a pre-trib rapture are extremely complex and difficult for me to follow. Proponents generally acknowledge that no passage of Scripture teaches it plainly, but rather that it is an inference from a collage of different passages. Fair enough; I don't want to go into a full discussion of the arguments for/against here. Rather, I was struck while reading *Amillennialism and the Age to Come: A Premillennial Critique of the Two-Age Model* by Matt Waymeyer by this argument he presents rebutting a particular amillennialist argument regarding the meanings of "first" and "second" within Rev.20: > The third difficulty with this argument relates to the **perspicuity of Scripture.** Simply stated, it is difficult to imagine that any interpreter would ever have taken this approach...prior to its discovery in the second half of the 20th century. How could even the most diligent of Bible students be expected to reach this conclusion? Why would the apostle John use such obscure language, demanding such a convoluted interpretive process?...As Harold Hoehner observes, "The complexity of this view makes it suspect." > > (*Amillennialism and the Age to Come* page 221, emph. added) (*Note: this is not Waymeyer's argument against Amillennialism as a whole, nor any key part of it, but rather against a particular interpretation of the words "first" and "second" used in Rev. 20:5-6*.) Waymeyer is himself a dispensationalist and a believer in a pre-trib rapture. But I cannot see how his argument here does not apply equally to the pre-trib rapture. I am wondering how he might respond to his own argument: - It is difficult to imagine anyone taking this approach prior to its discovery in the 1800s. - How could even the most diligent of Bible students be expected to reach this conclusion? - Why would Jesus and the apostles use such obscure language, demanding such a convoluted interpretive process? - The complexity of this view makes it suspect. To be clear, **I am not asking about the correctness of the pre-trib rapture**. Rather, I am asking **how adherents reconcile this belief with the doctrine of perspicuity of Scripture**, when it is the conclusion of an extremely complex reasoning process, and there is little-to-no evidence that anyone took this view prior to modern times. ---- *Update in response to comments:* The comments have suggested two possible reconciliations: 1. The perspicuity of Scripture is false, or 2. The pre-trib rapture theory is not an important enough issue for perspicuity to be relevant (as perspicuity properly only applies to central doctrines). Both of these would resolve the issue, but I do not think many who believe in a pre-trib rapture would take either option. Waymeyer certainly would not, as he uses perspicuity as an argument against a minute detail in the whole amillennialist argument, demonstrating both that he believes in perspicuity of Scripture and that he thinks it may be applied to issues not of central importance.

At John 13:1-30 we see the narrative of the last Passover meal that Jesus partook with his disciples, in which Judas is identified as the one who would betray him : > .... After saying this Jesus was troubled in spirit, and declared, “Very truly, I tell you, one of you will betray me.” .... So while reclining next to Jesus, he (John ) asked him, “Lord, who is it?” . Jesus answered, “It is the one to whom I give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish.” So when he had dipped the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas son of Simon Iscariot. After he received the piece of bread, Satan entered into him. Jesus said to him, “Do quickly what you are going to do.” ... So, after receiving the piece of bread, he immediately went out. And it was night Now, the Gospel according John does not contain an explcit narration of the Institution of Holy Eucharist . Reading that with I Corinthians 11:25 which says that the supper had been ended as Jesus took the cup calling it the new covenant of His Blood, one is inclined to believe that Judas had left the venue even before the Eucharist was constituted. My question therefore, is: **Does the Catholic Church categorically teach that Judas Iscariot participated in the First Eucharist instituted by Jesus at the Last Supper?** If it does not, why do the images of Last Supper that we have, contain the picture of twelve Apostles?

Brigham Young taught in April 1852 (as recorded in contemporary journals) that “Adam is Michael or God ... and all the God that we have any thing to do with” (see Wilford Woodruff journal entry dated 1852‑04‑09). Later LDS leaders publicly denounced what they called the “Adam‑God theory” (e.g., Spencer W. Kimball, 1976; Bruce R. McConkie, 1980). In modern discussion, it is often claimed that Brigham Young learned this doctrine from Joseph Smith. Some historians also note that Brigham appears to have believed this attribution, whether or not the transmission can be demonstrated in surviving documents. Question: *What extant primary sources (sermons, diaries, minutes, letters, temple instruction notes, etc.) from Joseph Smith’s lifetime (before June 1844) explicitly teach or clearly imply that Adam is God the Father / the father of human spirits (“the God with whom we have to do”)?* If there are no surviving Joseph‑era documents that state this directly, what are the earliest post‑1844 primary sources that attribute this teaching to Joseph Smith, and what exactly do they say (with dates and provenance)? Please: - Cite primary sources with date and repository (JSP, diaries, archives, etc.). - Distinguish this claim from narrower teachings such as “Adam is Michael” or “Adam is the Ancient of Days,” which might not the same as directly saying Adam being God the Father. I do realize that the Encyclopaedia Judaica shows evidence otherwise and connects them as do other sources, but I'm looking for additional more direct LDS quotes. - Focus on documenting the historical record rather than arguing whether the doctrine is true.

I read [an article by Russell Moore in Christianity Today](https://www.christianitytoday.com/2026/01/christians-romans-13-ice-shooting-minneapolis/) explaining that Christians shouldn’t abuse Romans 13, particularly in the Minneapolis ICE shooting. When I read verses 1-7, specifically verse it seems to apply directly to this tragedy, specifically verses 3-4: >“For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.” Renee Good was engaged in criminal behavior as she blocked law enforcement with her vehicle, disobeyed official orders to get out of her vehicle, and ultimately hit law enforcement with her vehicle. I struggle to understand Russell Moore’s explanation that applying Romans 13 here is abuse. Romans 13 does not seem complicated, but he seems to over-complicate the text.

In the book of Genesis where you can read how Satan tempt eve and eve passed to Adam and in the book of Isaiah and the book of revelation.