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.

> 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?

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?

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?

THE CLOSET VERSE REGARDING TRINITY IN THE BIBLE HAS BEEN THROWN OUT . The Verse in the Bible which is closest to Trinity and is often quoted by Christian missionaries is first Epistle of John Chapter 5 Verse 7 ... "**For there are three that bear record in heaven, the father, the word and holy ghost; and these three are one**" In the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, revised by 32 Christian Scholars of the highest eminence backed by 50 different cooperating denominations, this verse which is the keystone of the Christian faith has been removed as an interpolation, as a fabrication, as a concoction. According to them this verse does not exist in the original manuscripts, therby eliminating another lie from the English R.S.V... P. S : You can't have a word of God being corrupted like that?? Do you?

By an [Occam's razor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor) interpretation of 1 Samuel 28, I mean an interpretation that is as straightforward as possible, which doesn't require making unnecessary assumptions or special pleadings in the way the passage is interpreted. For example, if the author says literally and plainly that "X happened", well, the straightforward interpretation is that X happened and that's it. Applying this to 1 Samuel 28 ESV (pay attention to the bold text): > In those days the Philistines gathered their forces for war, to fight against Israel. And Achish said to David, “Understand that you and your men are to go out with me in the army.” 2 David said to Achish, “Very well, you shall know what your servant can do.” And Achish said to David, “Very well, I will make you my bodyguard for life.” > > 3 **Now Samuel had died**, and all Israel had mourned for him and buried him in Ramah, his own city. And Saul had put the mediums and the necromancers out of the land. 4 The Philistines assembled and came and encamped at Shunem. And Saul gathered all Israel, and they encamped at Gilboa. 5 When Saul saw the army of the Philistines, he was afraid, and his heart trembled greatly. 6 And when Saul inquired of the Lord, the Lord did not answer him, either by dreams, or by Urim, or by prophets. 7 Then Saul said to his servants, “Seek out for me a woman who is a medium, that I may go to her and inquire of her.” And his servants said to him, “Behold, there is a medium at En-dor.” > > 8 So Saul disguised himself and put on other garments and went, he and two men with him. And they came to the woman by night. And he said, “Divine for me by a spirit and bring up for me whomever I shall name to you.” 9 The woman said to him, “Surely you know what Saul has done, how he has cut off the mediums and the necromancers from the land. Why then are you laying a trap for my life to bring about my death?” 10 But Saul swore to her by the Lord, “As the Lord lives, no punishment shall come upon you for this thing.” 11 Then the woman said, “Whom shall I bring up for you?” **He said, “Bring up Samuel for me.”** 12 **When the woman saw Samuel**, she cried out with a loud voice. And the woman said to Saul, “Why have you deceived me? You are Saul.” 13 The king said to her, “Do not be afraid. What do you see?” And the woman said to Saul, “I see a god coming up out of the earth.” 14 He said to her, “What is his appearance?” And she said, “An old man is coming up, and he is wrapped in a robe.” **And Saul knew that it was Samuel, and he bowed with his face to the ground and paid homage**. > > 15 **Then Samuel said to Saul**, “Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?” Saul answered, “I am in great distress, for the Philistines are warring against me, and God has turned away from me and answers me no more, either by prophets or by dreams. Therefore I have summoned you to tell me what I shall do.” 16 **And Samuel said**, “Why then do you ask me, since the Lord has turned from you and become your enemy? 17 The Lord has done to you as he spoke by me, for the Lord has torn the kingdom out of your hand and given it to your neighbor, David. 18 Because you did not obey the voice of the Lord and did not carry out his fierce wrath against Amalek, therefore the Lord has done this thing to you this day. 19 Moreover, the Lord will give Israel also with you into the hand of the Philistines, and tomorrow you and your sons shall be with me. The Lord will give the army of Israel also into the hand of the Philistines.” > > 20 Then Saul fell at once full length on the ground, filled with fear because of **the words of Samuel**. And there was no strength in him, for he had eaten nothing all day and all night. 21 And the woman came to Saul, and when she saw that he was terrified, she said to him, “Behold, your servant has obeyed you. I have taken my life in my hand and have listened to what you have said to me. 22 Now therefore, you also obey your servant. Let me set a morsel of bread before you; and eat, that you may have strength when you go on your way.” 23 He refused and said, “I will not eat.” But his servants, together with the woman, urged him, and he listened to their words. So he arose from the earth and sat on the bed. 24 Now the woman had a fattened calf in the house, and she quickly killed it, and she took flour and kneaded it and baked unleavened bread of it, 25 and she put it before Saul and his servants, and they ate. Then they rose and went away that night. Assuming that 1 Samuel 28 is inspired text and that the author is telling us about events as they actually happened, a straightforward interpretation of the passage reveals the following facts: - Samuel was already dead (v3) - Saul asked the medium to invoke Samuel (v11) - The medium saw Samuel (v12) - Saul was convinced that it was Samuel (v14) - Samuel spoke to Saul (v15, v16) - The words that were spoken were from Samuel (v20) As we can see, the author is telling us, literally and plainly, that Samuel spoke to Saul. An Occam's razor interpretation of this passage should therefore lead us to conclude that, if the author is telling us that Samuel spoke to Saul (even though he was already dead), then, well, Samuel spoke to Saul. As simple as that. That's literally, unambiguously stated in the text. And keep in mind that this is not a Parable or other kind of passage full of symbolic language that would warrant having second thoughts on the meaning of words. ### Question According to 'soul sleep' adherents, what's wrong with this straightforward approach to 1 Samuel chapter 28? If the author is telling us that "X happened", what's wrong with concluding that "X happened"? If this "Occam's razor" interpretation of 1 Samuel 28 is not justified, are there any other examples of non-parabolic, non-symbolic passages in which a similar straightforward interpretation is not justified? Is there a hermeneutical principle that justifies not always being straightforward in our interpretation of a non-symbolic, non-parabolic passage?

Did St. Rose of Lima (✝1617)—called the Patroness of the Americas and the 1st canonized saint of the Americas—know about (or have a devotion to) Our Lady of Guadalupe (1531), called the Empress of the Americas (*Emperatriz de las Américas* )?

I hope one of you can answer a theological question I have! My question is: how are sins of thought, and sins depicted in media, distinguished by species/kind? As an example: let’s imagine a person watched a horror movie that had graphic scenes of murder and torture. Since those are two distinct ‘species’, or ‘kinds’ of sin in real life, are they also distinct sins when consumed through media? And my question is the same in regard to sins of thought: as an example, let’s say a person indulged impure thoughts. Is their species, or kind, simply a ‘lustful thought’? Or are they distinguished by the thoughts’ contents (ex. Adultery, rape, etc.)? Those are just two examples, but my question pertains to all instances where thoughts, or media consumption, are sinful. This question is also important in regards to the sacrament of Confession. As Catholics, we are obliged to confess our mortal sins in “number and kind”—how are these sins distinguished by “kind”, so we know how to properly confess them (in the event they are mortally sinful)? Is there any church teaching or definite answer on this matter that you can reference? Thank you and may God bless you all!

I find the Catholic title "Mother of God" for the Virgin Mary confusing. It is clear that she was the mother of Jesus, the Son. But the title suggests (indeed, not literally, but still) that Mary is mother of God as a Trinity. Is that correct? If so, it creates the problem that a human (or is there reason to say that Mary wasn't (entirely) human?) gave birth to God, while God created mankind. This problem doesn't exist when Mary is only mother of Jesus, because then it could be merely a way of speaking to say that Mary was the one through whom the Word became flesh, which would be the Protestant view as described in https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/15779/5729

I am an Assemblies of God protestant and am very close friends with a catholic girl. Would cross denominational marriage like this be a good idea? I know that the bible says to not be unequally yoked. But my relationship with her is literally shaking all of what I thought I've known as sure facts in my beliefs. Have any cross denominational marriages worked out in the past? What does the bible have to say about cross denominational marriages?

The "Clarity Principle" ensures a message be told clearly without any iota of confusion or ambiguity. It seems Jesus' alleged divinity claims (that were forcefully attributed to him) don't follow that principal, which is quite highly unlikely of God to do. If Jesus was God, there would have been non metaphorical verses in the Bible clearly stating Jesus was God, but we find 0. What does this signify? Why did God have to be so shy and hesitant in claiming his divinity that he didn't once order in clear cut non ambiguous terms or told his folks to worship him? P. S : Kindly don't refer to metaphorical verses of Bible that in no case seem convincing enough to be deemed as monotonous when related to other verses or read in full context

In Romans 3:8, Paul teaches that it is wrong to do evil to achieve good: > And why not say—as we are accused and as some claim we say—that we should do evil that good may come of it? Their penalty is what they deserve. This principle is explicitly reaffirmed by the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1789 . However, in Catholicism, a distinction is drawn between *physical evil* and *moral evil*. "Physical evil" is what St. Thomas Aquinas would call "corruption* and defect" ("*corruptio et defectus*"), corruption being the change from existence to non-existence.**
*cf. "What are “generation and corruption” in Aristotle's philosophy? "
\*\**Summa contra Gentiles* III cap. 71 ("That divine providence does not entirely exclude evil from things") **According to Catholicism, is it ever permissible to produce physical evil so that good may result?** My understanding is that the answer is yes. For example, when performing a medical surgery, it is acceptable for the surgeon to intentionally damage the patient's skin (physical evil) as a means to saving the patient's life (a good end). I want to make sure I'm thinking about this correctly. I would most appreciate answers drawing on quotes from the Magisterium, but I'd also appreciate relevant quotes from Catholic theologians.

I previously posed the question https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/101219/61679 , an [answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/101246/61679) to which contended that one doesn't need to rely on Biblical inerrancy or a specific exegetical method to assert a young Earth. Instead, it suggested that the purportedly ample scientific evidence is enough to support this conclusion. To substantiate its position, the linked answer cited the article titled [The 10 Best Evidences from Science That Confirm a Young Earth](https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/10-best-evidences-young-earth/) published on Answers in Genesis. The article opens by asserting the following: > The earth is only a few thousand years old. That’s a fact, plainly revealed in God’s Word. So we should expect to find plenty of evidence for its youth. And that’s what we find—in the earth’s geology, biology, paleontology, and even astronomy. > > Literally hundreds of dating methods could be used to attempt an estimate of the earth’s age, and the vast majority of them point to a much younger earth than the 4.5 billion years claimed by secularists. The following series of articles presents what Answers in Genesis researchers picked as the ten best scientific evidences that contradict billions of years and confirm a relatively young earth and universe. The article then proceeds to list ten lines of evidence supporting a young Earth: 1. [Very Little Sediment on the Seafloor](https://answersingenesis.org/geology/sedimentation/1-very-little-sediment-on-the-seafloor/) 2. [Bent Rock Layers](https://answersingenesis.org/geology/rock-layers/2-bent-rock-layers/) 3. [Soft Tissue in Fossils](https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/3-soft-tissue-in-fossils/) 4. [Faint Sun Paradox](https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/sun/4-faint-sun-paradox/) 5. [Rapidly Decaying Magnetic Field](https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/5-rapidly-decaying-magnetic-field/) 6. [Helium in Radioactive Rocks](https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the-earth/6-helium-in-radioactive-rocks/) 7. [Carbon-14 in Fossils, Coal, and Diamonds](https://answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/7-carbon-14-in-fossils-coal-and-diamonds/) 8. [Short-Lived Comets](https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/comets/8-short-lived-comets/) 9. [Very Little Salt in the Sea](https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/9-very-little-salt-in-the-sea/) 10. [DNA in “Ancient” Bacteria](https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/antibiotic-resistance/10-dna-in-ancient-bacteria/) Are there published responses from Old-Earth Creationists and/or Theistic Evolutionists addressing the Young-Earth Creationist interpretation of these ten lines of evidence? I'm particularly interested in understanding why OEC and TE advocates do not find the scientific evidence presented by YEC advocates compelling. References to books or other authoritative publications are welcomed (and encouraged).