Genesis 4 discusses the descendants of Cain: >"Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. When he built a city, he called the name of the city after the name of his son, Enoch. To Enoch was born Irad, and Irad fathered Mehujael, and Mehujael fathered Methushael, and Methushael fathered Lamech. And Lamech took two wives. The name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah. Adah bore Jabal; he was the **father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock**. His brother's name was Jubal; he was the **father of all those who play the lyre and pipe**. Zillah also bore Tubal-cain; he was **the forger of all instruments of bronze and iron**. The sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah." Genesis 4:17-22 Why are we given details about what the descendants of Cain did? Is there some special significance to these details?

In the story of Gideon (Judges 6-8), near the end it talks about Gideon building an ephod out of the gold earrings from the spoils of the battle against the Midianites. What is an ephod, and why did gideon build one. Is it significant?

This question is addressed to people of trinitarian sects. If Jesus is part of a trinity, why are there so many examples of Him referring to Himself as something distinct from God? Some examples are Him on the cross saying "My God, my God, why have You forsaken Me?" and when He refers to God as greater than Himself when speaking to the twelve prior to being taken into custody. There are more that I've noticed but these two come to mind first. Furthermore, Jesus is repeatedly said to sit at the right hand of the Father. Doesn't the phrase "sit at the right hand" imply that the Son is not equal to the Father? I'm aware of there being counter-examples such as Him saying that He and the Father are one and of course, chapter one of John ("the Word was God"). Admitting these counter-examples support trinitarianism, how do Trinitarians explain the way Jesus speaks of God as if He is something distinct from God? Am I the only one who gets the impression that He speaks in this way? The way I see it right now is that Jesus is the Father's proxy. All authority was given to Him to execute the Father's will. He was created by the Father (I've heard some say that He was "begotten, not made", but He is referred to as Firstborn of Creation) as God's self-expression or image (Col. 1:15). In this sense, He is a functional equivalent to the Father, but in another sense, He is not essentially equivalent because He came from the Father. Is this the same way Trinitarians see it?

> Pescetarianism is the practice of following a diet that includes fish > or other seafood, but not the flesh of other animals. ([Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pescetarianism)) Any insights would be really helpful, thanks. To specify, I'm asking from a Methodist point of view.

Virtually all resources published these days make Biblical citations in the same way: "John 3:16" with the chapter and verse numbers in Arabic numerals, separated by a colon and with no other punctuation. However, when I read books printed a long time ago (maybe from 100 years ago or so), I find many other ways of referencing Biblical passages. As some examples: > "John iii. 16" - used in this 1885 translation of 1st Clement and throughout that collection of the Ante-Nicene fathers. > > "John 3. 16" - used in the 1917 printing of the Scofield Reference Bible . > > "John, iii, 16" - used in the 1912 printing of the Catholic Encyclopedia . When and why did the modern convention become standard?

I have been encountering more and more often news about charismatic churches, which I understand are part of the Pentecostal movement, and their connection with the supernatural and modern politics. Is there a good book about the history of these churches and the alleged miracles? On Amazon, for instance, there are several books, but they appear to have been self-published by these churches; thus, I won't rely on them for an objective evaluation of their work. Thank you

> 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. > > Ephesians 1:3-4 In the above verse the Apostle Paul writing to the believers at the church in Ephesus is declaring that God the Father chose 'us' i.e. the believers, before the foundation of the world. If that were the case all the believers whoever was and is and will be believing in Jesus and thus become believers only those people were chosen to become believers much before their creation. That's basically predestination of certain individuals to become believers. However, that effectively leaves out all those who are not chosen by God to go to hell. In other words, it is God who creates certain individuals meant to go to heaven and others to hell. If the above statements were to be true, then, God will be unjust and unloving. Furthermore, it will be unfair for God to command his people to preach the gospel to all creation. In the light of the above conundrum how to understand "God chose us before the foundation of the world?"

In all the different Bibles that I've looked at, except the New World Translation, they all declare with relative simplicity that Jesus Christ is God, mostly indirectly or by proxy but also directly. The NWT is so heavily edited that there are only a few ways in which it infers that Jesus is God. In Isaiah God says that he is the only Savior and beside him there is no Savior, but the New Testament, even the NWT, declares that Jesus Christ is the Savior. The NWT also states that all things were made FOR Jesus, making God a respecter of persons (partial), if Jesus isn't God. Jesus calls men and women sons and daughters. Jesus said He who sees him sees the One who sent him, John 12:45. Do they think all other linguists are in error?

Job 26:10 (KJV) says: >"He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end." This verse has also been translated as: >"He hath set a compass upon the face of the waters, until the day and night come to an end." (alternative rendering from some KJV printings) The phrase "compassed the waters with bounds" or “set a compass” seems to describe God establishing a limit or boundary over the waters. I’m trying to understand what this means. What is the Hebrew word translated as “bounds” or “limit” in this verse, and what are its possible interpretations?

The question is above. The term Sola Scriptura: Belief that Scripture is the final and only infallible authority for the Christian in all matters of faith and practice. While there are other authorities, they are always fallible and the must always be tested by and submit to the Scriptures. The Adherents are generally speaking Reformed Protestants/Evangelicals --- Please note, This is not directed at those who believe in **solo** scriptura: The Belief that Scripture is the sole basis and authority in the life of the Christian. Tradition is useless and misleading, and creeds and confessions are the result of man-made traditions.

How should I as a born again Christian begin to practice messianic Christianity?

Baptists not the only denomination where it is common for the male children of the pastor to go to seminary and enter the pastorate as well. It appears somewhat common not only for nationally known ministers but also ministers of local congregations to have some of their children follow in their footsteps. The question is for Baptists for scoping purposes. I could not find any actual statistics regarding how commonly this occurs and therefore ask only from the standpoint of personal observation. Given that the Bible indicates pastors and teachers are gifted by God and called into that position rather than it being handed down from father to son like regular vocations (Grandpa was a carpenter, dad was a carpenter, and I am a carpenter), how do Baptists reconcile the relative frequency of a pastor's son becoming a pastor himself?

According to the Wikipedia article on [Territorial spirit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_spirit) : > **Territorial spirits** are national angels, or demons, who rule over certain geographical areas in the world, a concept accepted within the Charismatic movement, Pentecostal traditions, and Kingdom Now theology. This belief has been popularized by the novel, *This Present Darkness* by Frank Peretti, as well as by the ministry of Peter Wagner. The existence of territorial spirits is viewed as significant in spiritual warfare within these Christian groups. > Peter Wagner promotes **"Strategic-Level Spiritual Warfare"** (SLSW) which involves the practice of learning the names and assignments of demonic spirits as the first step to effective spiritual warfare. Opponents of this theological construct, and associated beliefs in "spiritual warfare", point out that while the Bible may describe some form of demonic control over geography, it does not prescribe many of the behaviors and teachings that proponents advocate in response. There is no mention in either the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament of believers banding together and praying a form of "spiritual warfare" against particular territorial demons. The battles occurring in the spiritual realms (as described in Daniel 10) have no Biblically identified link to the actions and prayers of God's people in the physical world. Are the belief in "territorial spirits" and the practice of "Strategic-Level Spiritual Warfare" innovations of the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement? Did they borrow these ideas from prior sources? Can we find evidence of similar beliefs being held in other periods of church history? _____ **Note**: an interesting book that reports the alleged application of these ideas in the context of the Argentine Pentecostal Revival is [*Listen to Me, Satan!*](https://www.amazon.com/Listen-Me-Satan-Carlos-Annacondia/dp/1599792346) by Carlos Annacondia (an interview is available at [Carlos Annacondia: The evangelist at the forefront of revival](https://www.premierchristianity.com/home/carlos-annacondia-the-evangelist-at-the-forefront-of-revival/2092.article) , and a YouTube documentary called [Carlos Annacondia - "Listen to Me Satan"](https://youtu.be/gaK67UFQ6kI)) .

The Anglican communion has split in two as far as I can tell, divided between anglican churches aligning themselves with the current organizations known as the Anglican Communion, and a new one, GAFCON. What practical implications does this split have on a local level?

Do you know of any other books (besides those by John Sailhamer) that advocate for Historical Creationism?

*Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy* (IEP) article on Philo claims that Philo > “laid the foundations for the development of Christianity … as we know it today.” It says > “Philo’s primary importance is in the development of the … foundations of Christianity.” More specifically, it claims that the Logos theology , that became the standard explanation of Jesus after the church became Gentile dominated in the second century, was inspired by Philo, namely, that Philo, by synthesizing Judaism and Greek philosophy, developed concepts which formed the basis for the Christian interpretation of Jesus Christ. The IEP article mentions > “Clement of Alexandria, Christian Apologists like Athenagoras, Theophilus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and by Origen” as Christian theologists who used Philo’s concepts to explain the Biblical Son of God. Furthermore, and much more important, the IEP article claims that Philo influenced the Bible itself. (Philo lived and wrote a few decades before the writers of the New Testament.) The article says Philo > “may have influenced Paul, his contemporary, and perhaps the authors of the Gospel of John … and the Epistle to the Hebrews.” To justify these statements, the IEP article points to the following similarities between Philo and the New Testament: Same Titles ----------- In Philo, the Logos exists before everything else and, therefore, is called the “first-born” (IEP), “the ‘first-born’ of God” (Blogos ), and the first-begotten Son of the Uncreated Father (IEP). Consequently, both Philo's Logos and Jesus Christ are called: - Logos (the Word - John 1:1), - The first-born (Col 1:15; Heb 1:6), and - Son of God. Eternal ------- In both Philo and the NT, the Logos is eternal: - In the NT, the Son "was" in “the beginning” (John 1:1-2) and is “the First and the Last” (Rev 1:17). “His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity” (Micah 5:2). The Arians liked to add, “From everlasting I was established” (Prov 8:23). - Similarly, in Philo, the Logos was begotten from eternity (IEP). The Logos has an origin, but as God’s thought, it also has eternal generation (IEP). God begat the Logos eternally because it is a manifestation of God’s thinking-acting (IEP). Created and Maintains All Things -------------------------------- In both Philo and the NT, the Logos created and still maintains all things: - In Philo, the Logos is “the organizing principle of matter” (Blogos), the power by which God made and ordered all things (IEP), and the bond holding together all the parts of the world (IEP). - In John, God created all things through the Logos (John 1:1-3; cf. Col 1:16; Heb 1:2; 1 Cor 8:6) and also maintains all things through His Son (Heb 1:3; Col 1:17). Entrusted Power --------------- In both Philo and the NT, the Logos receives His power from God: - In Philo, the Logos has no autonomous power, only an entrusted one (Wikipedia ). - Similarly, in the New Testament, the miracles which Jesus performed were performed by God “through Him” (Acts 2:22). God “seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion” (Eph 1:17-21). The Angel of the Lord --------------------- In both Philo and the NT, the Logos is the Old Testament Angel of the Lord: - Many Christians identify the Old Testament Angel of the LORD as the pre-existent Christ. - Similarly, Philo describes the Logos as the revealer of God symbolized in the Scripture by an angel of the Lord (IEP). Reveals God ----------- In both Philo and the NT, the Logos reveals the invisible and incomprehensible God to the created things: - In Philo, “God is revealed to His creation through the Logos” (Blogos). - Similarly, in the New Testament, God “alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see” but the Son is “the exact representation” of God’s nature (Heb 1:3); “the (visible) image of the invisible God” (Col 1:15). Therefore, Jesus said, “He who has seen Me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). Light ----- In both Philo and the NT, the Logos illuminates the soul: - In Philo, the Logos illuminates the human soul and nourishes it with a higher spiritual food (Wikipedia ). In the mind of a wise man thoroughly purified, it allows preservation of virtues in an unimpaired condition. (IEP) - Similarly, Jesus said, “I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness” (John 8:12). And John wrote: “In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.” “There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man” (John 1:4, 9). Begotten -------- In both Philo and the NT, the Logos is neither uncreated as God nor created as men: - In Philo, "the ontology of the Logos would most closely resemble an emanation from the divine essence” (Blogos), and “an extension of a divine being” (IEP). The Logos is more than a quality, power, or characteristic of God; it is an entity eternally generated as an extension (IEP). Therefore, the Logos … is neither uncreated as God nor created as men (IEP). - Similarly, in the NT, the Son is the only being ever “begotten” by the Father. If we interpret this fairly literally, it seems to indicate that He came out of the being of God. The Nicene Creed interprets “begotten” as that He was not created but came from the substance of the Father. The anti-Nicenes warn that humans do not understand what “begotten” of God means and that we should not introduce non-Biblical words or thoughts. Mediator between God and man ---------------------------- In both Philo and the NT, the Logos is the mediator between God and man: - In Philo, the Father is the Supreme Being and the Logos, as his chief messenger, stands between Creator and creature (IEP). The Logos is a perfect being, procuring forgiveness of sins and blessings (IEP); the mediator between God and men (IEP). “The Philonic Logos is the bridge between the infinite God and finite creation” (Blogos). - Similarly, in the New Testament, “there is one God, and ***one mediator*** also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim 2:5; cf. Heb 8:6; 9:15). Everything that the creation receives from God, including existence, sustenance, knowledge, and salvation, flows through His Son. Also, through Christ, we draw near to God and worship Him. Question -------- It is fairly common knowledge that the pre-Nicene Fathers (the Apologists ) explained the Son of God in terms of Greek philosophy. My main question is whether Philo influenced the formulation and contents of the New Testament. Perhaps I can frame the question like this: Jesus and Philo lived at the same time. Jesus said that all power and all judgment have been given Him but He never said that He is the Logos or that God created all things through Him. However, Philo, at that same time, taught that the High God created all things through His Logos. So, did John, Paul, and Hebrews get the idea that Jesus is the Logos and that God created all things through Him from Philo?

There's a Christian podcast on YouTube named [*A Stronger Faith*](https://www.youtube.com/@AStrongerFaith/) , which also has a [website](https://www.astrongerfaith.org/) . The podcast focuses on interviewing Christians about their spiritual experiences, conversion experiences, their testimonies, and so on. The host is [Stacy McCants](https://www.astrongerfaith.org/about) . My question is motivated by Stacy's reference to John 17:3 in this [short video](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/5Ctpqezp0Nk?feature=share) : > You can experience God, so whatever doubts you might have in your mind of "am I just believing something that I've been taught because just in case there really is a hell I don't wanna go there" or have an encounter and experience him. You experienced God. People kind of get in our comments sometimes and talk about "don't be trying to go for the emotional experiences." I think God wants us to experience him. I think a lie of the enemy is that we should not seek experiences with God. That it should just be from an intellectual "just get the book, believe what the book says" perspective. And I can't read what Jesus said in John 17:3 and then say he doesn't want us experiencing him. He says "this is eternal life, that they know you, the one true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." Not that they know *about* you, and *about* Jesus. He says that they *know you*, and know his son. You cannot know somebody without experiencing them. Stacy posits that you cannot know someone without experiencing them. If we apply this to God, then John 17:3 would implicitly suggest that eternal life involves knowing God and Jesus, which, by his logic, means we ought to experience God and Jesus. Interestingly, Stacy McCants's podcast *A Stronger Faith* largely revolves around spiritual or supernatural experiences shared by the Christians he interviews. I suspect Stacy is a charismatic Christian, which might suggest a charismatic bias in his interpretation of John 17:3. **What are the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church's interpretations of John 17:3? Is knowing God and Jesus typically understood as involving experiences, and if so, what kinds of experiences are usually understood to be implied?** **Are there significant differences and/or similarities between both churches as to how they interpret John 17:3?**

Approaching this from a Catholic perspective, what are good signs that God is calling you to the vocation of priesthood, in other words, what must one look for to know whether you are called to the priesthood?

It is common to hear phrases such as "God exists outside of time" used to explain away anachronism or avoid addressing it altogether--for example, the idea that God has in the past progressed to become Who He Is today is sometimes dismissed as nonsensical because being "outside of time" is interpreted to preclude such contemplation. But if that were true, then why do Scriptures make reference to the acts of God within time, and ascribe causality at all to His acts and attributes? We might take license from such expressions so as to hand-wave further understanding of the true nature of God out of our minds. However, numerous passages in the Bible describe God and His acts in time, including His progression and development. The law of causality is never violated. For example, Luke 2:52 states, "And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man." The central message of the Bible is that the Son of God came down from the presence of His Father, took upon Himself a tabernacle of flesh, and submitted to the Father in all things, including paying the price for sin so that we could be redeemed on conditions of repentance. For all we might say about being "outside of time", an assertion that God does not obey or is not consistent with laws of causation is clearly untenable. What Bible verse or verses suggest that God "exists outside of time", or gives a sensible definition to what that might more appropriately mean? I am not asking for philosophical interpretations, lawyerisms or hand-waving references to what so-called "mainstream Christianity" teaches. I am asking what the Bible says. Note that verses saying or suggesting that God has always existed or is eternal (which I accept) are not the same as saying He has never changed or is "outside of time". Such verses explicitly mention notions of time and causality as being valid and applicable to God as well as everything else.

I have heard the term "Lordship Salvation" several times now, including in an answer I read recently. Can anyone explain to me what this is? Is this the official position of any major churches? Is this a term only used by critics of the view? (Like "easy believism" or "cafeteria Christianity" - terms nobody would actually associate ***themselves*** with!)