I’ve been considering the problem of divine hiddenness and the problem of evil, and I’ve have come up with a sort of war strategy explanation. We know that intellectual belief in God doesn’t necessarily make a person good, or “save” them. In fact, The bible makes it clear that demons, and the devil, intellectually believe in God; but they are in rebellion against God: making them enemies of God. This brings me to the problem of evil, where many people argue that if God were good: he would act differently. Implying that if God exists, he is not good (or he is weak) and that morally inclined humans know better than God. Implicit in the problem of evil is this form of rebellious misotheism and/or hubris where you believe that you know better than God. If God were to reveal himself to a person while they hold on to hubris, and/or misotheistic beliefs: he would likely create a rebellious human enemy, not a faithful believer. Taking this into consideration, we shouldn’t be surprised when God doesn’t reveal himself to people who reference philosophical issues like the problem of evil; I’m sure there are exceptions, but it seems to me that someone would have to show a willingness to drop any tendencies of hubris and/or misotheistic beliefs before they expect any sort of revelation from God.

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)) .

According to an Orthodox that replies to someone else in an exchange regarding marital sex, he states, "Remember the words of Psalm 50" (Psalm 51 in Masoretic-based Bibles): > I was conceived in iniquity and in sins did my mother bear me We were never meant to have sex before the fall, so at some level no sexual activity could be considered "pure." After asking him about this view that no sexual activity could be considered pure because we weren't meant to have sex before the fall, he produces an amount of quotes from the early church fathers about the matter: > Saint Gregory of Nyssa, from *On the Making of Man*: > > > Now the resurrection promises us nothing else than the restoration of the fallen to their ancient state; for the grace we look for is a > certain return to the first life, bringing back again to Paradise him > who was cast out from it. If then the life of those restored is > closely related to that of the angels, it is clear that the life > before the transgression was a kind of angelic life, and hence also > our return to the ancient condition of our life is compared to the > angels. Yet while, as has been said, there is no marriage among them, > the armies of the angels are in countless myriads; for so Daniel > declared in his visions: so, in the same way, if there had not come > upon us as the result of sin a change for the worse, and removal from > equality with the angels, neither should we have needed marriage that > we might multiply; but whatever the mode of increase in the angelic > nature is (unspeakable and inconceivable by human conjectures, except > that it assuredly exists), it would have operated also in the case of > men, who were "made a little lower than the angels," to increase > mankind to the measure determined by its Maker. > > Saint Gregory Palamas, from his homily *On the Annunciation*: > > > God sent the archangel to a virgin and made her, who continued a virgin, His mother by means of a salutation alone. If He had been > conceived from seed, He would not have been a new man, nor sinless, > nor the Saviour of sinners. The flesh's impulse to reproduce is not > subject to our minds, which God has appointed to govern us, and is not > entirely without sin. That is why David said, "I was shapen in > iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me" (Ps. 50:5). So if the > conception of God had been from seed, He would not have been a new > man, nor the author of new life which will never grow old. If He were > from the old stock and inherited its sin, He would not have been able > to bear within Himself the fullness of the incorruptible Godhead or to > make His flesh an inexhaustible source of sanctification, able to wash > away even the defilement of our First Parents by its abundant power, > and sufficient to sanctify all who came after them. > > The same saint, from the homily *On the Gospel Reading for the > Seventeenth Sunday of Matthew About the Canaanite Woman*: > > > What is the starting point of our coming into the world? Is it not almost the same as for irrational animals? Actually it is worse, > because the procreation of animals did not originate from sin, whereas > in our case it was disobedience that brought in marriage. That is why > we receive regeneration through holy baptism, which cuts away the veil > which covers us from our conception. For although marriage, as a > concession from God, is blameless, yet our nature still bears the > tokens of blameworthy events. For that reason one of our holy > theologians [Saint Gregory the Theologian] calls human procreation, > "nocturnal, servile, and subject to passion", and before him David > said, "I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me" > (Ps. 50:5) > > Saint John Chrysostom, from *On Virginity*: > > > When he was created, Adam remained in paradise, and there was no question of marriage. He needed a helper and a helper was provided for > him. But even then marriage did not seem to be necessary... Desire for > sexual intercourse and conception and the pangs and childbirth and > every form of corruption were alien to their soul. > > The same saint, from *Homilies on Genesis*: > > > Whence, after all, did he come to know that there would be intercourse between man and woman? I mean, the consummation of that > intercourse occurred after the Fall; up till that time they were > living like angels in paradise and so they were not burning with > desire, not assaulted by other passions, not subject to the needs of > nature, but on the contrary were created incorruptible and immortal, > and on that account at any rate they had no need to wear clothes . . . > Consider, I ask you, the transcendence of their blessed condition, how > they were superior to all bodily concerns, how they lived on earth as > if they were in heaven, and though in fact possessing a body they did > not feel the limitations of their bodies. After all, they had no need > for shelter or habitation, clothing or anything of that kind . . . > > In another place, he says: > > > “Now Adam knew Eve his wife.” Consider when this happened. After the disobedience, after their loss in the Garden, then it was that the > practice of intercourse had its beginning. You see, before their > disobedience they followed a life like that of the angels, and there > was no mention of intercourse. How could there be, when they were not > subject to the needs of the body? > > And again: > > > Why did marriage not appear before the disobedience? Why was there no intercourse in Paradise? Why not the pains of childbirth before the > curse? Because at that time these things were superfluous. The > necessity arose later because of our weakness, as did cities, arts and > skills, the wearing of clothes, and all our other numerous needs. > > Saint John of Damascus, from *An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox > Faith*: > > > Carnal men abuse virginity , and the pleasure-loving bring forward the following verse in proof, Cursed be every one that raises not up > seed in Israel. But we, made confident by God the Word that was made > flesh of the Virgin, answer that virginity was implanted in man's > nature from above and in the beginning. For man was formed of virgin > soil. From Adam alone was Eve created. In Paradise virginity held > sway. Indeed, Divine Scripture tells that both Adam and Eve were naked > and were not ashamed. But after their transgression they knew that > they were naked, and in their shame they sewed aprons for themselves. > And when, after the transgression, Adam heard, dust you are and unto > dust shall you return , when death entered into the world by reason of > the transgression, then Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and > bare seed. So that to prevent the wearing out and destruction of the > race by death, marriage was devised that the race of men may be > preserved through the procreation of children. > > > But they will perhaps ask, what then is the meaning of “male and female,” and “Be fruitful and multiply?” In answer we shall say that > “Be fruitful and multiply ”does not altogether refer to the > multiplying by the marriage connection. For God had power to multiply > the race also in different ways, if they kept the precept unbroken to > the end. But God, Who knows all things before they have existence, > knowing in His foreknowledge that they would fall into transgression > in the future and be condemned to death, anticipated this and made > “male and female,” and bade them “be fruitful and multiply.” Let us, > then, proceed on our way and see the glories of virginity: and this > also includes chastity. > > Saint Athanasius, from his commentary on the Psalms (specifically > Psalm 50:5 in this case): > > > The original intention of God was for us to generate not by marriage and corruption. But the transgression of the commandment introduced > marriage on account of the lawless act of Adam, that is, the rejection > of the law given him by God. Therefore all of those born of Adam are > “conceived in iniquities,” having fallen under the condemnation of the > forefather. > > Saint Symeon the New Theologian, from the *Ethical Discourses*: > > > There was no one, you see, who was able to save and redeem him. For this very reason, therefore, God the Word Who had made us had pity on > us and came down. He became man, not by intercourse and the emission > of seed – for the latter are consequences of the Fall – but of the > Holy Spirit and Mary the Ever-Virgin. > > Saint Maximus the Confessor, from *Ad Thalassium*: > > > He [Christ] appeared like the first man Adam in the manner both of his creaturely origin and his birth. The first man received his > existence from God and came into being at the very origin of his > existence, and was free from corruption and sin – for God did not > create either of these. When, however, he sinned by breaking God’s > commandment, he was condemned to birth based on sexual passion and > sin. Since henceforth constrained his true natural origin within the > liability to passions that had accompanied the first sin, as though > placing it under a law. Accordingly, there is no human being who is > sinless, since everyone is naturally subject to the law of sexual > procreation that was introduced after man’s true creaturely origin in > consequence of his sin. > > Tertullian, from *On the Resurrection of the Flesh*: > > > To this discussion, however, our Lord's declaration puts an effectual end: "They shall be," says He, "equal unto the angels." As > by not marrying, because of not dying, so, of course, by not having to > yield to any like necessity of our bodily state; even as the angels, > too, sometimes. Were "equal unto" men, by eating and drinking, and > submitting their feet to the washing of the bath-having clothed > themselves in human guise, without the loss of their own intrinsic > nature. > > I could go on, if you want, but I believe this is enough. My question is, *why did the early church fathers think that sex was a consequence of the Fall?* if we think that Adam and Eve did have sex before the fall According to this reply in Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange to *Did Adam and Eve not have sex in the Garden of Eden?* (granted, they can be wrong as they are not the Church fathers).

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

### Introduction The Law of Moses/Torah of Moses are a body of commandments and laws which were given to the nation of Israel at Mount Sinai by God. Observant Jews continue to follow these laws as understood through rabbinic traditions and interpretations, while most major Christian denominations more or less do not. The Old Testament/Hebrew Bible contains many scriptures which seem to indicate that the Mosaic law is eternal and uses the same word used elsewhere that describes God being eternal: **Exodus 31:16–17 (NRSV)** indicates observance of the Sabbath is an eternal activity: > Therefore the Israelites shall keep the Sabbath, observing the Sabbath throughout their generations, as a **perpetual covenant**. It is a sign **forever** between me and the Israelites that in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed. **Leviticus 16:29-34** indicates Yom Kippur should be observed forever: > This shall be a statute to you **forever**: In the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you shall humble yourselves ... This shall be an **everlasting statute** for you, to make atonement for the Israelites once in the year for all their sins. And Moses did as the Lord had commanded him. **Deuteronomy 29:29** seems to indicate that all the words of the law should be followed for all time by the children of Israel: > The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the revealed things belong to us and to our children **forever**, to observe all the words of this law. **Jeremiah 31:31** makes a promise that the Jews will have the Mosaic law written on their heart in the future: > The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant that I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt—a covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, says the Lord. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: **I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts**, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. No longer shall they teach one another or say to each other, “Know the Lord,” for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the Lord, for I will forgive their iniquity and remember their sin no more. **Esther 9:28** says the celebration of Purim will never end: > These days should be remembered and kept throughout every generation, in every family, province, and city, and these days of Purim should never fall into disuse among the Jews, nor should the commemoration of these days cease among their descendants ### Question Do Christians believe that the Hebrew Bible prophesied that the commandments it called eternal would one day end? Is there an Old Testament basis for believing observance of the Mosaic law would not be forever? Views from all denominations welcome.

I am asking this question because the entire comment thread in which I asked the question appears to have gone missing, including references to Aquinas (*Summa Theologica* q. 35 a. 6 ), Ludwig Ott (*Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma* bk. 3, pt. 3, ch. 2, §5, 2.), Pohle (*Mariology* pt. 2, ch. 1, §3, Theses II), and others. Wikipedia lists St. Lucia of Syracuse (283-304) as the patron saint of of the blind within Roman Catholicism. She is venerated, along with St. Agnes (patron saint of virgins) among Roman Catholics, Anglican, Lutheran, and Eastern Orthodox churches. She is one of only 8 women explicitly commemorated by Roman Catholics in the Canon of the Mass. There is, within the tradition regarding St. Lucia, the possibility that she was assigned to defilement within a brothel by the Governor of Syracuse. Paschasius ordered her to burn a sacrifice to the emperor's image. When she refused, Paschasius sentenced her to be defiled in a brothel; a particularly heinous crime against someone who had dedicated her chastity to God. In a question regarding the Catholic tradition that Mary (Jesus' mother) did not suffer pain in childbirth (https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/7451/where-does-the-catholic-tradition-that-mary-did-not-have-pain-giving-birth-to-je?noredirect=1#comment225832_7451) , included in the comments of a particular answer, came the assertion that, even if Lucia was raped and even if she had survived and produced a child from this violation, she would still be honored by name in the Catholic Mass as a martyred virgin even though her bodily integrity was ruined . This was explained as because an intact hymen is accidental to virginity while the commitment of the will is essential to virginity. In other words the taking of sexual liberty by force and against one's will does nothing to impinge upon one's state of virginity even though it may change the state of one's bodily integrity. Therefore the state of one's bodily integrity has nothing to say, directly, to one's virginal condition. The reference to St. Lucia came about as the bodily integrity of Mary (i.e. no ruptured hymen in childbirth) was indicated as integral to her "perpetual virginity" which is in turn linked to her sinlessness which is in turn linked to her painless childbirth. It seems to me, however, that if an intact hymen is accidental to virginity then a ruptured hymen must surely be accidental to the birth of a virginally conceived child. If St. Lucia would still retain her virginal status in the eyes of the Catholic Church regardless of the state of her bodily integrity following rape, why is it so important for Mary's bodily integrity to remain intact as regards her "perpetual" virginity during childbirth?

There is an article coming from Archbishop Paglia, saying, **"For Catholics, who say that Judas is in hell, is a heresy."** [Vatican Official: It’s Heresy to say Judas is in Hell](https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/vatican-official-claims-its-heresy-to-say-judas-in-hell) When Ab. Paglia stated **"hell"** it means the **"real hell of the damned"**, the question is, was Judas really a damned soul and deserve to be put in real hell of the damned? Remember, when Judas died, he was not cast out in real hell of the damned but only in Hades or hell, a prison. Further reading of scriptures, we know that the Catholic Church teaches in **Catechism (CCC 632k-635)**, that Jesus descended into hell/Hades to preach the gospel. Contemplating the passages, we will see, that Judas encounter Jesus in hell or Hades. The next important question is, if we place ourselves in the shoes of Judas, will we approach Jesus to ask for forgiveness, for betraying him? Judas certainly repented in **Matthew 27:3-4**, with perfect contrition, as he first acknowledge his sins, regretted his sins, and return the money, completing the acts of perfect contrition. > Then Judas, his betrayer, seeing that Jesus had been condemned, deeply regretted what he had done. He returned the thirty pieces of silver* to the chief priests and elders, > saying, “I have sinned in betraying innocent blood.” They said, “What is that to us? Look to it yourself.” Jesus descended into hell where Judas was cast out, to preach the gospel and to offer God's mercy, on all souls including Judas. Did Jesus have a saving plan for Judas, why? Because, Jesus was the one who pushes Judas to commit the sins of betrayal, how? Jesus said to Judas, > What you are going to do, do quickly." (John 13:27) If Jesus commanded Judas to commit the sins of betrayal, knowing Judas will forever be torture in eternal hell, that would present a Jesus contradicting the Will of the Father, as the Father sent Jesus not to condemn but to save souls in John 3:17, and the Father desires all men be saved in 1 Timothy 2:4. If Jesus has no saving plan for Judas knowing he will be cast out into hell, then Jesus will contradict His very own words, as He said, **"I lay down my life for my friends"**, and Judas was a friend of Jesus, even after his betrayal. On the night of his arrest, Jesus called Judas **"friend"** despite of his acts of betrayal, and so, Jesus lay down His life also to save Judas, because He still a friend of Jesus. And for the second time, Jesus again commanded Judas to execute his plan of betrayal with a kiss. > Jesus responded by saying: "Friend, do what you are here to do." - Matthew 26:50 We can see that twice, Jesus commanded Judas to fulfill and execute his plan of betrayal, wouldn't this be inappropriate if Jesus could no longer save Judas, as it appears that Judas was condemn to hell because Jesus pushes him to do it, not just once but twice. Jesus could have said in the Last Supper, *"Judas I know your betrayal plan for me, you are my friend, and I don't want you to suffer the eternal fire in hell, please stay here, do not execute your betrayal, because if you do so, then I can no longer save you in hell..."* In view of the meditation or pondering of Judas fate and Jesus commands to Judas, is there any article supporting the minor view that Judas is in Heaven, because if the Catholic Church saw that anyone who say Judas is in hell, is a heresy, then, definitely, there's only one way for Judas, either he will be purge in purgatory after he accepted God's mercy offered by Jesus in hell, and it's over 2000 years now, Judas might have finish the purging now, and there's only one way up, but to Heaven. Judas is in Heaven now, because Jesus has a saving plan for him, that is in line with the Will of the Father, desiring all men be saved. And Jesus clearly said, > I have come not to do my own will but the Will of the Father who sent me. (John 6:38) **Is there any article written, seeing Judas is in Heaven now?**

Why were ousia and hypostasis synonymous in the Nicene Creed? ---- In the original 325 A.D. Nicene Creed, an anathema is included which has ousia and hypostasis as synonymous. In this case, the Trinity is one hypostasis ( = homoousios). >And in the Holy Spirit. But as for those who say, There was when He was not, and, Before being born He was not, and that He came into existence out of nothing, or who assert that the Son of God is of a ***different hypostasis or substance*** (ὑποστάσεως ἢ οὐσιάς) or created, or is subject to alteration or change these the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes. Source: https://earlychurchtexts.com/public/creed_of_nicaea_325.htm It seems also the meaning of υποστασις in Hebrews 1:3. >He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his ***nature*** (υποστασις) (ESV). The ASV has "substance". However, in later centuries hypostasis began referring to the "person", not the "nature" or "being" of the Trinity. **Why did such change in definition occur?** It would be helpful to address the semantical development of υποστασις on how it changed from "substance" (nature/essence) to "person". >The Church confesses is that God is three Persons (hypostasis) in one Essence (ousia). Source: https://www.google.com.ph/amp/s/exploringthedepthsofthedivine.wordpress.com/2015/08/12/god-as-trinity-orthodox-trinitarianism/amp/

The book of Esther is included in both the Jewish canon and Christian canons of all denominations. However, it seems to have enjoyed a questionable status for much longer than any other of the now-accepted writings. For example, it is the only Old Testament book not to be found at Qumran, it is one of the few OT books not referenced by Sirach, it is omitted from Melito of Sardis's canon, and Athanasius also expressly categorized it with the Apocrypha as useful but not canonical. Jerome, whose opinion is often cited by Protestants in discussions of the canon, counted Esther as canonical but not the deuterocanonical books (although it seems he changed his opinion on the deuterocanonical books at some point in his career). I haven't read Jerome's comments myself but, usually his reason is explained to be that the canonical books were the ones where the Hebrew manuscripts still existed while the others were only preserved in Greek (or were composed in Greek). However, Jerome seems to have known of Hebrew manuscripts of 1st Maccabees, so there must be something else going on to distinguish it from Esther. Protestants usually cite as the main criterion for OT canonicity some prophetic authority guaranteeing the divine inspiration of a book. However, Esther has no association with the prophets, unlike any other book of the Protestant OT canon. However, Esther was included in the canon by the Council of Rome (382) and by all subsequent streams of Christian thought. Why? What reasoning lead the Church to set aside the doubts specifically about the book of Esther that apparently had existed for quite a while prior? **This is a historical question.** I am not asking why it is included in the canon by Protestants or Catholics today, but rather why it was included starting in the 4th century, i.e. **why the doubt which originally surrounded the book was cleared up.**

Science is supposed to be our observations that give an answer to the world around us. Since Darwin there have been many scientists who have sought to explain natural history through theories that exclude God, or limit His ability to create. If this is the case than psychologically couldn't we assume that their findings are biased? They often will point to the fact that since there are fossils that have been found with striking similarities, there must have been an evolutionary leap from one species to another. How can we justify this position since we can only observe the fossils, rather than first hand observation of the process? On top of this some Christians have adopted a position of theistic evolution. Again I would as how this is not contrary to this Biblical account? Why is this not considered a concession to the scientific community in an effort to appear more legitimate? If you start a study with the presupposition that there can be no supernatural causes you have automatically dismissed half of the argument. If you explanation for this is because supernatural theories are to difficult to believe you have missed the point of the word supernatural. Supernatural simply put means the cause of some event cannot be explained by a natural cause and thus since we cannot observe this would mean we might have a difficult time understanding it. Thus it might appear to be illogical, but when you observe it from a philosophical view it begins to make a bit more sense.

In light of ongoing global events—such as wars (e.g., the conflict involving Russia), geopolitical instability, and widespread moral and social upheaval—many Christians interpret these as signs that the “end times” are approaching. My questions are twofold: Imminence of Christ’s return: Within mainstream Christian theology, do these kinds of events meaningfully support the belief that Christ’s return is near? How have passages such as Matthew 24; Luke 21; 1 Thessalonians 5:1–6; and Revelation 6–16 traditionally been understood in relation to historical events versus recurring patterns throughout history? Christ’s presence before the Parousia: Is there any biblical basis for the idea that Christ is presently “walking the earth” prior to His return, possibly until all believe in Him as the Christ? How do texts like Matthew 28:20 (“I am with you always”), John 14–16 (the coming of the Holy Spirit), Acts 1:9–11, and Revelation 1:12–18 inform orthodox interpretations of Christ’s presence now versus His future, visible return? I am seeking answers grounded in Scripture and recognized Christian interpretive traditions (e.g., patristic, Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant), rather than speculative or purely contemporary prophetic claims.

In Genesis 12:10–20, during a famine, Abraham (Abram) goes to Egypt and tells Pharaoh that Sarah is his sister because he fears he will be killed on account of her beauty. Pharaoh takes her into his house, and God intervenes by sending plagues before she is returned. Later, in Genesis 20:1–18, Abraham again identifies Sarah as his sister while sojourning in Gerar. King Abimelech takes her, and God warns him in a dream, after which Sarah is restored to Abraham. Given that Abraham is later commended in Scripture as a model of faith (e.g., Romans 4; Hebrews 11), how should Christians understand these repeated episodes? What do these narratives teach about the relationship between fear and faith in a believer’s life?

> The Spirit immediately drove him out into the wilderness. And he > was in the wilderness forty days, being tempted by Satan. And he was > with the wild animals, and the angels were ministering to him. (ESV) > > Mark 1:12–13 In this verse, the Holy Spirit sent Jesus into the wilderness to be tempted by Satan. Given that Jesus was the Son of God, the Holy Spirit must have known that Jesus could withstand the temptation. Why did the Holy Spirit do that then?

> Romans 12:20 - "On the contrary: "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head." > > Proverbs 25:22 - "In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head, and the LORD will reward you." Do these two verses have the same contextual meaning or are Paul and the author of Proverbs saying different things? And what might the meaning be given their context?

### Background Zechariah 12:10 is cited in the New Testament as an explicit prophecy for Jesus's crucifixion by the Gospel of John: > These things occurred so that the scripture might be fulfilled, “None of his bones shall be broken.” And again another passage of scripture says, “**They will look on the one whom they have pierced**.” *John 19:36-37 (NRSV)* Christians through the ages cite Zechariah 12:10 as one of the clearest prophecies of Jesus's death, down to the details of him being pierced. However a close reading of Zechariah 12, starting just a few verses earlier seems to indicate more to the prophecy than simply someone being pierced: > On that day **the Lord will shield the inhabitants of Jerusalem** so that the feeblest among them on that day shall be like David, and the house of David shall be like God, like the angel of the Lord, at their head. > > And **on that day I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem**. > > **And I will pour out a spirit of compassion and supplication on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem so that, when they look on the one[a] whom they have pierced**, they shall mourn for him as one mourns for an only child and weep bitterly over him as one weeps over a firstborn. *Zechariah 12:8-10 (NRSV)* Critically this passage appears to promise that Jerusalem will be divinely protected, and that the nations who come against Jerusalem will be destroyed by God. This is extremely curious since Jerusalem was famously destroyed a few years after Jesus's death. ### Question How do Christians who believe Zechariah 12:10 applies to Jesus interpret Zechariah 12:8 and 9? Do they believe Jerusalem was miraculously protected in 33 CE and her enemies destroyed? What parts of this passage actually came true in Jesus's time?

I live in a country where the dominant religion is not Christianity and where adherents of all other religions are brutally persecuted. No one in real life knows that I believe in the Lord because I cannot tell anyone due to risk to my safety. The Bible is a dense book with a lot of chapters so even though I am an adult, the first book I read was 365 tales from the Bible written for children. It contained stories in Biblical order from both the Old and New Testaments [possibly [this one](https://archive.org/details/childrensbiblein00batc/page/4/mode/2up) , ed.]. I really liked those stories. But here I can't discuss my faith with anyone and my ethnic group is already persecuted. I have already lost many educational and employment opportunities because of it. **Can you please suggest several non-fiction books written in English / French or several authors writing about the Bible, Christianity, history of Christianity, and Testimonies by believers?** I shall be grateful.

Some modern day charismatic teachers exercise a kind of prophecy that seems very similar to non-Christian psychic readings or secular cold reading techniques. One example is Shawn Bolz prophesying , compared to Deren Brown explaining psychic readings . What Biblical support do these Christians give for calling these techniques prophecy, and what Biblical support do they give for practicing them? ------- *Closely Related To:* 1. https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/34214/what-is-the-biblical-basis-for-modern-day-prophets 1. https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/50899/what-is-the-biblical-basis-for-schools-of-prophecy-where-people-learn-to-pro

Is there anyone who can answer Yes, to the question, ***who is like God***? **Archangel Michael**: *Who is like God*? **Lucifer**: No, I can't be, because I am not created in the image of God. **Jesus Christ**: Yes, I am!, I am the visible image of the invisible God. > 15**The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.** 16For in Him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. All things were created through Him and for Him. - Collosians1:15-16 Is there anyone else, who can claim the ***"I am"***? > "God became man so that man shall became gods." - Athanasius Jesus said, you can do greater things that I am... > 11Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me—or at least believe on account of the works themselves. ***12Truly, truly, I tell you, whoever believes in Me will also do the works that I am doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.*** 13And I will do whatever you ask in My name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. - John14:11-13 We know that God like Jesus as His visible image, also God created mankind, male and female in His image and likeness. >27So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. - Genesis1:27 But we know, God is a Spirit, how then can a man claimed the **"I am"?** One Great Marian Saint named, St. Maximillian Kolbe was puzzled at the answer of the Lady saw by Bernadette in the known Lourdes apparition in the 19th century. The young Bernadette asked the Lady in her vision, *who are you?* The Lady answered, **"I am the Immaculate Conception"** St. Kolbe was puzzled by the answer because the word **"I am"** is divine in nature and in no way can be attributed to Our Lady. And so, if St. Michael asked again, ***who is like God?*** Can the Our Lady answered using the word ***"I am"***, can be seen, that She perfected the image and likeness of God in Her whole being, body mind and soul? Remember, the soul can be transform into a spirit, and since God is a Spirit, and anyone who can worship the Father in spirit and truth, had reached theosis or full divinization. *Here is the question:* **The question is: Can Our Lady, looking at Her holiness, righteousness and transformation as written in the bible, and extra-bibilical sources, can answer YES! to the question of St. Michael?** ***"I am"* the Immaculate Conception!** somehow can be seen, as high degree of holiness, as if Mary is seen here, as quasi-incarnating the Holy Spirit, as contemplated upon by St. Kolbe. And, the RCC is being attacked and criticized for over 500 years since the Reformation, as if the Catholic Church is elevating the holiness of Mary as the fourth member of the Holy Trinity. In closing, If Our Lady, the Blessed Virgin Mary, said the **"I am"**, is that somehow connected to why St. Gabriel bowed down to Her, and more events in Her life, leading to Her life, that can answer YES! to the question of *"Who is like God"?* Also, the question, by Protestant esp. the Bible Alone Believers, how can Mary hear all the prayer address to Her, is She a God, to hear all those supplications?

I went down a rabbit fox hole reading the original sermons of the founder of the Quakers (pun intended). I was not that familiar with George Fox and I found it very illuminating to read his works directly. He certainly had a lot to say about the "inner light". At first I just thought he was meaning the illumination of scripture by the Holy Spirit whereby our faith is lit and kindled. However as I kept reading different parts of his works he simply would not stop talking about this "inner light" and in fact barely talked about anything else. In the end, I grew to dislike the phrase. He also seemed quite envious of leaders in the other churches. But that’s just my initial impression. I began to realize it is not the illumination of scripture but something else that actually **put his mind in anger against the written word in some strange way** that is hard to pin down. The difficulty is that he correctly identified the difference between the inner life of a Christian as described in the scripture and the mere external form, but from there he amplified the difference into a much bigger issue and kept ranting about the "word" of scripture not being the Word (the Son), as though they can’t both be the Son in different senses. It is very difficult sometimes to read in between the lines to fully unravel the threads and I don’t have the time and have already lost interest to work out a fuller understanding. Does anyone actually know what George Fox meant by "inner light" and how it is different from the mainstream idea of the inspiration of the Holy Word and the illumination of the scripture by the Holy Spirit?

Here is the latest of many, many firmly Catholic websites highly recommending C. S. Lewis books more than Catholic classics! I saw this today under the heading "Spiritual Classics"(specific website to be anonymous). Confessions of St. Augustine by St. Augustine, Little Talks with God (modernized version of “The Dialogues”) by St. Catherine, City of God by St. Augustine, The Problem of Pain by C. S. Lewis, Dark Night of the Soul by St. John of the Cross, Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters by C. S. Lewis, The Everlasting Man by G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy by G. K. Chesterton, The Greatest Story Ever Told by Fulton Oursler, Meditations from a Simple Path by Mother Teresa, Interior Castle by St. Teresa of Avila, The Way of Perfection by St. Teresa of Avila, Story of a Soul by St. Therese of Lisieux, My Way of Life/Summa Theologica by St. Thomas Aquinas. Lewis received 3 recommendations when he is NOT Catholic! More recommendations than Augustine and Aquinas. Why would devout, educated Catholics subtly lead people **away** from Catholicism into Protestantism. Why?