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?

In reading the answers to a [recent question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/113053/why-do-some-believers-form-factions-despite-scriptures-warning-against-division) here, the Great Schism was brought up, and consequently the filoque: which added the words to the creed, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father *and the Son*. In researching the filoque, it occurred to this writer that perhaps it was a needless divide. It seems that man is trying to parse and define the undefinable. The bottom line seems to be the understanding of what Jesus meant by "proceeds." >But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me. ‭‭John‬ ‭15‬:‭26‬ ‭NKJV‬‬ The commentaries weren't very helpful - the ones that would be, mostly used the Greek which was useless to me. The lexicons give several meanings, as does the English dictionaries. Generally I use all of that plus, most importantly, *context* to try to figure out what a passage means. But the context doesn't help, even considering other passages, and I am still flummoxed. I wonder if we are going beyond Scripture in trying to figure out the nature of the Trinity. In an answer to a similar question, [What does "proceeds" mean to Greek Orthodox?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/53159/what-does-proceeds-mean-to-eastern-orthodox) this was said: >Regarding the precession of the Holy Spirit as well as the pre-eternal begetting of the Son, Gregory of Nazianzus (known as Gregory the Theologian) (329-390) is reputed to have cautioned: >>When was this begetting and this procession? This was before when itself. You have heard that the Spirit proceeds from the Father; do not be curious to know how He proceeds. Oration 20 This made the most sense to me. I wonder if he added being cautious about adding the filoque as well. How am I wrong? Why did the church divide over this? Note: [This commentary](https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/gab/john-15.html) by Gaebelein was somewhat helpful, but still seems presumptuous to me. >In saying: whom I will send, Jesus is necessarily thinking of His approaching reinstatement in the divine condition; and in adding: from the Father, He acknowledges His subordination to the Father, even when He shall have recovered that condition. ...Most of the modern interpreters, Meyer, Luthardt, Weiss, Keil, refer the words: who proceeds from the Father, to the same fact as the preceding words: whom I will send you from the Father, to the sending of the Holy Spirit to the disciples. The attempt is made to escape the charge of tautology by saying that the first clause indicates the relation of the Spirit to Christ, and the second His relation to God ( Keil); as if in this latter were not already contained the from God, which, repeated in the second clause, would form the most idle pleonasm. It must be observed that the second verb differs entirely from the first; ἐκπορεύεσθαι , to proceed from, as a river from its source, is altogether different from to be sent: the ἐκ , out from, which is added here to παρά , from the presence of, also marks a difference. But especially does the change of tense indicate the difference of idea: whom I will send and who proceeds from. He whom Jesus will send (historically, at a given moment) is a divine being, who emanates (essentially, eternally) from the Father. An impartial exegesis cannot, as it seems to me, deny this sense. It is that the historical facts of salvation, to the view of Jesus, rest upon eternal relations, as well with reference to Himself, the Son, as to the Spirit. They are, as it were, the reflections of the Trinitarian relations. As the incarnation of the Son rests upon His eternal generation, so the mission of the Holy Spirit is related to His eternal procession from the very centre of the divine being. The context is not in the least contradictory to this sense, as Weiss thinks; on the contrary, it demands it. What Jesus sends testifies truly for Him only so far as it comes forth from God.

The Catholic Church depicts the Crucifixion in a series of images known as the [*Stations of the Cross*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stations_of_the_Cross) , and many other denominations celebrate with passion plays and Easter Pageants. which include descriptions of the events surrounding the Crucifixion. As depicted in the Bible, that day almost feels like a sacred ceremony being performed, with each character briefly entering the stage, playing a role, and then exiting. Historically, was there a related ceremony that reflects the events of that day?

## Background Inspired by https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/29919/what-important-mormon-doctrines-are-taught-in-the-book-of-mormon-that-we-couldn The Hebrew bible contains history , religious laws , sensual poetry , creation stories, and more. But scholars have long noted a lack of systematic theology compared with other religious books (not that there isn't theology contained in the Hebrew bible). On the other hand, authors of the New Testament make extensive and explicit theological arguments, a clear example is *Epistle to the Hebrews* which marked the line in the theological sand between proto-Christianity and 1st/2nd Century Judaism. ## Question What are doctrines or ideas, small or large, which are only found in the New Testament? I am interested in all perspectives on doctrines, theology, etc that are 'new' in the New Testament. This question will require an amount of good faith from any answerers, since a *post-hoc* reading of the Hebrew bible ***could*** gin up support for any number of NT innovations. I'm looking for ideas that are clear in the NT but unclear or not found in the Hebrew bible. ## Example answer An example could be: >> For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it *James 2:10* > The idea that breaking any one of the commandments is equivalent to breaking all of them is not found in the Hebrew bible and appears to be a new doctrine found only in the New Testament

In a recent debate between Dr. James White and Dr. Justin Smith , Dr. James White argues for a Trinitarian interpretation of 1 Corinthians 8:6, claiming that Paul deliberately echoes the Shema (“Hear, O Israel: YHWH our God, YHWH is one” – Deut 6:4) and “expands” it. According to this argument, Paul: - Retains the Shema’s monotheistic framework - Identifies “one God” with the Father - Identifies “one Lord (κύριος)” with Jesus Christ - Uses the same κύριος / θεός vocabulary found in the Septuagint rendering of Deut 6:4 This is taken to imply that Paul includes Jesus within the unique divine identity of YHWH, without abandoning Jewish monotheism. **My question is directed to Christians who affirm the doctrine of the Trinity:** **Apart from later creeds or patristic theology, what exegetical and hermeneutical arguments support reading 1 Corinthians 8:6 as a deliberate reworking or “expansion” of the Shema?** More specifically: - Does the immediate literary context of 1 Corinthians 8 support this reading? - What linguistic or intertextual indicators suggest Paul is intentionally alluding to Deuteronomy 6:4? - How should the distinction between “one God, the Father” and “one Lord, Jesus Christ” be understood without collapsing them into modalism or separating them into two gods? Would you agree with Dr. White’s interpretation? If so, on what biblical and contextual grounds, rather than post‑biblical theological developments? If not, what other interpretations of 1 Corinthians 8:6 exist that are in support of the trinity doctrine, and on what biblical and contextual grounds, rather than post‑biblical theological developments?

In preterist interpretations, many of Jesus’ prophecies—especially those concerning the destruction of Jerusalem (e.g., in the Olivet Discourse)—are understood to have been fulfilled in AD 70. However, I am curious about how preterists treat the prophecies found in the Book of Revelation, traditionally attributed to John. One point of tension I am trying to understand is this: when Jesus spoke about “all things that are written” being fulfilled (e.g., Luke 21:22), the Book of Revelation had not yet been given to John and therefore had not yet been written. This seems to raise the question of whether Jesus’ statement can be applied to Revelation at all, since it was, at that time, still unwritten. Given that, do preterists (especially full preterists) include the prophecies of Revelation among the things fulfilled in AD 70? Or do they distinguish between what was already written at the time of Jesus’ statement and later revelations given to John? Additionally: - Is this one of the reasons partial preterists typically do not see Revelation as fully fulfilled in AD 70? - How do full preterists respond to the argument that Jesus referred only to what had already been written, not to future writings like Revelation? I am looking for answers grounded in specific preterist interpretations, along with scriptural and/or historical reasoning.

Rather than busting out a KJV and a JST and comparing them verse by verse I am lazily hoping that there is, somewhere, a list which has already been generated providing all of the verses from the Bible which the JST has modified or allegedly 'restored'?

What is a good analogy for God being outside of time but not completely controlling it? We have heard the analogy of God being on the bank of the river of time. Revelation Lad wrote about God looking down on the solar system and seeing us experience day and night without His experiencing them (https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/111175/102058) . I have a different analogy. I read that if one wants comments on a write-up, they should post it as the answer to a question, making up an appropriate question, if necessary. When I ask a question, the system says, "Answer your own question – share your knowledge, Q&A-style". So, please comment on my answer. **Conclusion** Rather than my analogy, I prefer Mimi's analogy that God can travel back and forth through time. Thus God can - 1. Know the future without controlling it. 2. Change the future in response to our prayers. 3. Change the past (although I am not aware of His having done this). **Comments** 1. This does not represent my personal beliefs, only a simple way of understanding one set of beliefs. 2. This does not appear to be a salvation issue. Those of us with a proper relationship with Jesus should end up in the New Jerusalem, regardless of whether we believe that a. God doesn't completely know the future, b. God completely knows the future but doesn't completely control it, or c. God completely knows the future because He completely controls it. 3. Googling a definition of absolute sovereignty got me the following: >absolutism political system Also known as: absolute monarchy, autocracy Written and fact-checked by The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica Last Updated: Oct. 11, 2025 •Article History Britannica AI Icon Britannica AI Ask Anything >absolutism, the political doctrine and practice of unlimited centralized authority and **absolute sovereignty**, as vested especially in a monarch or dictator. The essence of an absolutist system is that the ruling power is not subject to regularized challenge or check by any other agency, be it judicial, legislative, religious, economic, or electoral. King Louis XIV (1643–1715) of France furnished the most familiar assertion of absolutism when he said, “L’état, c’est moi” (“I am the state”). Absolutism has existed in various forms in all parts of the world, including in Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler and in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin. Please notice that the definition requires only that the rule be unchecked. It says nothing about how much control the ruler chooses to apply. Each of the three groups listed in comment 2 tends to agree that God has absolute sovereignty, that He can do and have done whatever He chooses, and no one can interfere. Using "absolute sovereignty" such that it applies to only one of the three groups in comment 2 is unfair and misleading.

I've recently encountered the claim from a full preterist that... > It is well established by their own writings and history that the Apostles and the earliest church fathers like Eusebius, Athanasius, and Clement all held a Preterist theology. They understood that the fall of Jerusalem was the end and fulfillment of all scripture, as it says in Luke. However I've been unable to independently verify this claim. Unless this person is avoiding saying "full preterist theology" as a kind of safeguard. Regardless of the reason, the question is as written in the title. Were any church fathers (or other such as heretics, apostates, etc) full preterists?

For context, Heb 11:1-5 (NIV): > "Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for. By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. By faith Abel brought God a better offering than Cain did. By faith he was commended as righteous, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith Abel still speaks, even though he is dead. ... https://www.bible.com/bible/2692/HEB.11.NASB2020 https://www.bible.com/bible/2692/HEB.10.NASB2020

> **“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.

To be clear, I'm interested to know if there is anyone throughout church history who claimed to be Christian (whether a group, individuals or a notable figure) who taught that *the Holy Spirit is **not** a divine person who is distinct from the Father and the Son* and were still considered to be within the bounds of Christian orthodoxy i.e. not excommunicated or deemed a heretic? Edit/ additional info: When I say "deemed a heretic" I mean, deemed to be a heretic by any church denomination or other group of Christians. ---------- **FYI: I'm a traditional trinitarian Christian. I believe the Holy Spirit is a distinct divine person of our triune God. I am only asking this question because I've encountered people who deny this, and I have become more interested in the topic to defend my belief.**

I have heard it described as cutting off a limb to describe the agony, separating conjoined twins... I believe it is far more painful, physically, emotionally, and spiritually. However, not sure what analogy to use. Thank you in advance. Sincerely, Perry

(If we need to specify denomination, Catholic works, but I think other Christian perspectives will work too.) C. S. Lewis said "The bad psychological material is not a sin but a disease. It does not need to be repented of, but to be cured." So at least one of us thinks psych and Christianity can be compatible, and in areas that don't quite overlap. I can go with that, but it seems to me Christianity and Jungianism or depth psychology do overlap, and have different approaches to changing one's character. Christianity takes every thought captive for Christ; discards the old man for the new; buries one's sinful nature and is raised in baptism; puts off works of darkness. How can Christians incorporate Jung into their practices? (Not doctrines !) Talking to the part that wants to sin and asking it what it wants and can it get that a better way doesn't sound a lot like Jesus or St. Paul! It almost feels like Christianity shoves things into shadow from a Jungian perspective, and Jungianism tolerates sin from a Christian perspective. Yet Jesus tells us about projection well before Jung was on the scene (the "mote in your brother's eye" thing), and Jung reminds us to extend the mercy God calls us to offer to each other, to parts of the psyche.

Scripture clearly warns believers to avoid divisions and those who cause them. For example, Paul writes: >“Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them.” — Romans 16:17 (NKJV) Yet throughout history, we see Christians forming separate factions or denominations. A notable example is the Eastern Orthodox Church, which formally split from the Roman Catholic Church in the Great Schism of 1054 over issues including papal authority, doctrinal disputes, and cultural differences. Given this, how do Christians understand the tension between the biblical call for unity and the historical reality of denominational splits? What principles should guide believers today in maintaining unity without compromising essential doctrine?

In Revelation 12:1–2, a woman is described as being “clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and a crown of twelve stars on her head.” Some interpretations identify this woman symbolically as the nation of Israel (e.g., relating the twelve stars to the twelve tribes). Which Christian denominations or theological traditions explicitly interpret the woman as representing the nation of Israel and the dragon’s flood (Revelation 12:15) as a form of Jewish persecution throughout history? Additionally, how do these groups justify this interpretation from the text?

Dispensationalism is often understood to distinguish between God’s plan for Israel and for the Church, and some formulations suggest differences in how the gospel is administered or understood across dispensations. However, several biblical passages seem to emphasize a single, unified gospel message and consistent basis for salvation: - Galatians 1:8–9 — Paul warns against “another gospel,” strongly affirming that there is only one true gospel. - Ephesians 4:4–6 — speaks of “one body… one Lord, one faith, one baptism.” - Acts 10:43 — Peter declares that “everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins through His name.” - Romans 3:22–30 — emphasizes justification by faith for both Jews and Gentiles, with God being “one.” - John 3:16 — presents belief in Christ as the basis for eternal life universally. Given these passages, how do dispensationalists interpret texts that emphasize a single gospel and unified means of salvation? Do they understand these verses as applying universally across all dispensations, or do they interpret them within a specific dispensational context?

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.

I'm doing a study on grace and the fulfilment of the Law at present, and wonder if someone can assist: some texts definitely state that it is not humanly possible to perfectly keep the Law. Thus Paul in Romans 7:14-23, 9:31-32, Peter’s words in Acts 15:10, that the Law was a burden that the Israelites could not bear, etc. However, other texts seem to indicate that keeping the Law was possible. For instance, concerning the Law and the choice between obedience and disobedience proffered to the Israelites, Moses says (Deuteronomy 30:11), > ‘Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or > beyond your reach.’ In other words, they have no excuse for disobedience. Also, in Philippians 3:6 Paul, in giving his credentials as an impeccable Pharisee, avers that he was, ‘as for righteousness based on the law, faultless.’ There is also the argument and thrust from Romans 7 to 8 that, as heeding of the Law is not possible, the solution is through the power of the Holy Spirit (thus 8:1-4). A related query might be, then: did the OT Israelites for over 1,000 years go through the same sense of guilt, frustration, and inability to keep the Law as did Paul (cf. Romans 7), because of the absence of the indwelling Spirit? This would seem unfair, but would be in line with the Romans 7 theology of difficulty in keeping the Law. However, how would this square with Moses’ parting exhortation that the Law was ‘not difficult’ (Deut 30.11)? A thought: might Paul's (and Peter's) comments perhaps have something to do with an attempt at perfectionism, which is attested in the Talmud among first century rabbis?

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?