Yes, there are seemingly "miraculous" events. But they happen at the same rate among Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, and all other groups. What evidence is there that prayer has any effect on the outcome of anything? Does God intervene and do good things due to prayer requests? But step aside and refuse to intervene, allowing evil to occur, if not enough people pray? If God does intervene, why is it so sporadic? So rare (hence the meaning of miracle). I hear people find their lost keys and call it a day"God-thing". Meanwhile, God ignores the pleas of child dying of cancer. I've heard it said that God has a plan. What kind of God would create a "plan: that includes killing children with cancer? And why would God call up to heath people, help people, feed and clothe and shelter people, plus promise to answer our prayers for those people... when all along he is undermining our efforts to achieve some grand "plan" that requires killing children? Is it really true that Gods "plan" justifies the suffering of his own children? Does God law say the end justifies the means? Even when the means is killing children?

Why isn't the *Canticum Trium Puerorum* (a.k.a *Benedicite omnia opera Domini*, from the *Song in the Fiery Furnace* in the book of Daniel 3:57-88 ) in the Roman Breviary strictly scriptural? ||Canticum Trium Puerorum||Dan. 3| |--|--|--|--| |57 | Benedícite, ómnia ópera Dómini, Dómino: * laudáte et superexaltáte eum in sǽcula.|57 | Benedícite ómnia ópera Dómini Dómino: laudáte et superexaltáte eum in sǽcula. |58 | Benedícite, Ángeli Dómini, Dómino: * benedícite, cæli, Dómino.|58 | Benedícite ángeli Dómini Dómino: laudáte et superexaltáte eum in sǽcula. |59 | Benedícite, aquæ omnes, quæ super cælos sunt, Dómino: * benedícite, omnes virtútes Dómini, Dómino.|59 | Benedícite cæli Dómino: laudáte et superexaltáte eum in sǽcula. |60 | Benedícite, sol et luna, Dómino: * benedícite, stellæ cæli, Dómino.|60 | Benedícite aquæ omnes, quæ super cælos sunt, Dómino: laudáte et superexaltáte eum in sǽcula. |61 | Benedícite, omnis imber et ros, Dómino: * benedícite, omnes spíritus Dei, Dómino.|61 | Benedícite omnes virtútes Dómini Dómino: laudáte et superexaltáte eum in sǽcula. |62 | Benedícite, ignis et æstus, Dómino: * benedícite, frigus et æstus, Dómino.|62 | Benedícite sol et luna Dómino: laudáte et superexaltáte eum in sǽcula. |63 | Benedícite, rores et pruína, Dómino: * benedícite, gelu et frigus, Dómino.|63 | Benedícite stellæ cæli Dómino: laudáte et superexaltáte eum in sǽcula. |65 | Benedícite, lux et ténebræ, Dómino: * benedícite, fúlgura et nubes, Dómino.|65 | Benedícite omnes spíritus Dei Dómino: laudáte et superexaltáte eum in sǽcula. |66 | Benedícat terra Dóminum: * laudet et superexáltet eum in sǽcula.|66 | Benedícite ignis et æstus Dómino: laudáte et superexaltáte eum in sǽcula. |67 | Benedícite, montes et colles, Dómino: * benedícite, univérsa germinántia in terra, Dómino.|67 | Benedícite frigus et æstus Dómino: laudáte et superexaltáte eum in sǽcula. |68 | Benedícite, fontes, Dómino: * benedícite, mária et flúmina, Dómino.|68 | Benedícite rores et pruína Dómino: laudáte et superexaltáte eum in sǽcula. |69 | Benedícite, cete, et ómnia, quæ movéntur in aquis, Dómino: * benedícite, omnes vólucres cæli, Dómino.|69 | Benedícite gelu et frigus Dómino: laudáte et superexaltáte eum in sǽcula. |70 | Benedícite, omnes béstiæ et pécora, Dómino: * benedícite, fílii hóminum, Dómino.|70 | Benedícite glácies et nives Dómino: laudáte et superexaltáte eum in sǽcula. |71 | Benedícat Israël Dóminum: * laudet et superexáltet eum in sǽcula.|71 | Benedícite noctes et dies Dómino: laudáte et superexaltáte eum in sǽcula. |72 | Benedícite, sacerdótes Dómini, Dómino: * benedícite, servi Dómini, Dómino.|72 | Benedícite lux et ténebræ Dómino: laudáte et superexaltáte eum in sǽcula. |73 | Benedícite, spíritus, et ánimæ justórum, Dómino: * benedícite, sancti, et húmiles corde, Dómino.|73 | Benedícite fúlgura et nubes Dómino: laudáte et superexaltáte eum in sǽcula. |74 | Benedícite, Ananía, Azaría, Mísaël, Dómino: * laudáte et superexaltáte eum in sǽcula.|74 | Benedícat terra Dóminum: laudet et superexáltet eum in sǽcula. |75 | (Fit reverentia:) Benedicámus Patrem et Fílium cum Sancto Spíritu: * laudémus et superexaltémus eum in sǽcula.|75 | Benedícite montes et colles Dómino: laudáte et superexaltáte eum in sǽcula. |56 | Benedíctus es, Dómine, in firmaménto cæli: * et laudábilis, et gloriósus, et superexaltátus in sǽcula.|76 | Benedícite univérsa germinántia in terra Dómino: laudáte et superexaltáte eum in sǽcula. |||77 | Benedícite fontes Dómino: laudáte et superexaltáte eum in sǽcula. |||78 | Benedícite mária et flúmina Dómino: laudáte et superexaltáte eum in sǽcula. |||79 | Benedícite cete, et ómnia quæ movéntur in aquis Dómino: laudáte et superexaltáte eum in sǽcula. |||80 | Benedícite omnes vólucres cæli Dómino: laudáte et superexaltáte eum in sǽcula. |||81 | Benedícite omnes béstiæ et pécora Dómino: laudáte et superexaltáte eum in sǽcula. |||82 | Benedícite fílii hóminum Dómino: laudáte et superexaltáte eum in sǽcula. |||83 | Benedícat Israël Dóminum: laudet et superexáltet eum in sǽcula. |||84 | Benedícite sacerdótes Dómini Dómino: laudáte et superexaltáte eum in sǽcula. |||85 | Benedícite servi Dómini Dómino: laudáte et superexaltáte eum in sǽcula. |||86 | Benedícite spíritus et ánimæ iustórum Dómino: laudáte et superexaltáte eum in sǽcula. |||87 | Benedícite sancti et húmiles corde Dómino: laudáte et superexaltáte eum in sǽcula. |||88 | Benedícite Ananía, Azaría, Mísael Dómino: laudáte et superexaltáte eum in sǽcula: quia éruit nos de inférno, et salvos fecit de manu mortis: et liberávit nos de médio ardéntis flammæ, et de médio ignis éruit nos. |||56 | Benedíctus es in firmaménto cæli: et laudábilis et gloriósus in sǽcula. source: https://github.com/DivinumOfficium/divinum-officium/blob/master/web/www/horas/Help/vulgate.txt#L24915-L24947 vs. https://github.com/DivinumOfficium/divinum-officium/blob/master/web/www/horas/Latin/Psalterium/Psalmorum/Psalm210.txt Especially the non-scriptural, very Trinitarian part: "*Benedicámus Patrem et Fílium cum Sancto Spíritu*"? What is the origin of this?

For a while, I have had thoughts on areas of scripture that suggest different degrees of punishments and rewards for different kinds of people both for and against Christ. Starting with Christians, we see Jesus making a statement in Mathew 5:19 where he says: > 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Note how Jesus doesn't say they won't be saved but rather, they will be of a lower status in heaven than those who actively put their faith to action. Paul repeatedly echoes this point in multiple places such as: (2 Corinthians 5:10 ) > 10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may **receive what is due us for the things done** while in the body, whether good or bad. (1 Corinthians 3:11-15 ) > 11 **For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ**. 12 If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13 **their work will be shown for what it is**, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and **the fire will test the quality of each person’s work.** 14 **If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward**. 15 **If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved**—even though only as one escaping through the flames. Paul here also implies that all those who are in Christ will be saved because he is a strong foundation even if the work they build in that foundation is poor. However they will be at a loss when it comes to receiving whatever inheritance (possibly other than eternal life which will be given to all Christians) God has prepared for us. The same also goes for the other side where Jesus mentions the punishment given to the pharisees and those towns that reject his disciples being worse than the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah on judgment day.(Matthew 10:15, Matthew 11:24, Luke 10:12 ) or his parable in Luke 12:47-48 : > 47 “**The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48 But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows**. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked. Considering all these (and more), is it safe to assume (and why) that there will be varying levels of punishment and reward within both hell and heaven respectively? If not, kindly explain how and why these verses do not support that idea. Appreciated.

I'm reading the Apostolic Fathers and found a reference to the book of Tobit from Polycarp. Why do Catholics place the deuterocanon as Sacred Scripture?

I personally have no children and would feel better to know if any of Jesus original disciples had children?

In a book by Os Guinness, there was a cartoon showing a bunch of people marching through a valley with signs against abortion and other things Christians typically oppose. But from the mountains on either side, folks were shooting at them with things like "materialism." I would like to find a copy of that cartoon, but I can't recall what book.

It is my impression that across denominations that [compatibilism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism) is the dominant position and answer to the question of divine sovereignty and human free will. The main alternative is [libertarian free will](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_(metaphysics)) , which states that humans have totally free wills with no control (or maybe even no influence) by God. (The other alternative to compatibilism is total determinism, but that is not generally considered compatible with Christianity.) When it comes to the Bible, Christians have historically believed that God [inspired the writing of the scriptures](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inspiration) , but in a way that left the human author utilising their full creative capabilities. This has been called the "dual authorship" of the scriptures: when we ask who wrote the Bible, we can truly say both its human authors and God. This doctrine fits perfectly with compatibilism; it can be seen as just one particular application of how divine and human wills coexist. So how do those who reject compatibilism explain the inspiration of scripture? Can they also uphold the dual authorship of scripture? Can they uphold the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy/infallibility, or do they say that only when the Biblical authors wrote down a direct divine revelation (such as Habakkuk 2) is the text without flaw?

In the first Genesis creation narrative, God creates a race of vegetarian humans and instructs them simply to "be fruitful and multiply" and take charge of the planet: > "*So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, **Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth**. And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; **to you it shall be for meat**.*" — Genesis 1:27-29 (King James Bible) Following the first Genesis creation narrative, the Bible records that Yahweh created a single man to serve as his gardener: > "*And **the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground**, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul ... And the LORD God took the man, and **put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it***" — Genesis 2:7, 2:15 (King James Bible) And then throughout the remainder of the Old Testament, the overarching theme is the need for man to be subservient to Yahweh.  For example: > "***This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee**; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.*" — Genesis 17:10-11 (King James Bible) > "*And **ye shall serve the LORD your God***" — Exodus 23:25 (King James Bible) > "*And he said unto Moses, Come up unto the LORD, thou, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel; **and worship ye afar off**.*" — Exodus 24:1 (King James Bible) > "*For **thou shalt worship no other god**: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God*" — Exodus 34:14 (King James Bible) > "*For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, **every knee shall bow to me**, and every tongue shall confess to God.*" — Romans 14:11 (King James Bible) There are countless more examples in the Old Testament.  In Exodus 35:2 in particular, Yahweh issued a most stringent diktat that the Israelites were to spend every day of the week working - except for one, which was instead to be specifically dedicated to him, declaring that anyone who failed to dedicate the final day of the week to him would face the draconian consequence of being put to death: > "*Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day **there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD**: whosoever doeth work therein **shall be put to death**.*”  — Exodus 35:2 (King James Bible) But in the New Testament Yahweh's son, Jesus, effectively superseded all of his father's 600+ laws from the Old Testament with just 2 simple commandments, the first of which was not to worship Yahweh but simply to show him wholehearted love: > "*And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And **thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength**: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. **There is none other commandment greater than these.***" —  Mark 12:29-31 In particular, Jesus deliberately and directly contradicted his father's draconian diktat, expressly stipulating that man is master of his own destiny and entirely free to do as he chooses on the sabbath: > "*And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: Therefore **the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath**.*” — Mark 2:27 (King James Bible) He was also reported to have stated that he would destroy the Temple in Jerusalem where Jews worshipped his father: > "*We heard him say, **I will destroy this temple that is made with hands***" — Mark 14:58 And towards the end of the Gospel of Luke, Jesus further reiterated the fact that the Temple in Jerusalem where his father was worshipped would one day be completely destroyed: > "*And as some spake of the temple, how it was adorned with goodly stones and gifts, he said, As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which **there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down**.*" — Luke 21:5-6 He followed up this statement by issuing a grave warning to his followers that, after he had gone, charlatans falsely professing to be Christians would come along and deceive true Christians: > "*And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: **for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them**.*" — Luke 21:11 So why does the Christian Church encourage Christians to worship Yahweh every Sunday when Jesus expressly rejected man's subservience to his father, specifically and especially regarding the sabbath?   ***— ASA, 2 May 2026***

In John 1:42 Jesus called Peter as Cephas. > Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter). But throughout the Gospels, Peter was called as Peter and his books also called in his name I Peter and II Peter. But why did Paul call Peter, Cephas (Galatians 2:7-14, I Cor. 1:11-13, I Cor. 3:21, I Cor. 9:5 and I Cor. 15:5)? In some occasions he also calls him as Peter. When I asked my mom, she said Paul was rebuking Peter in the name Cephas. Is this true? Or is calling Peter as Cephas normal? At times, Paul and Peter had disagreements as in Galatians 2:11-16: > 11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. 14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? > 15 “We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles 16 know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified. How was their relationship as fellow apostles?

We know that Peter was married because Christ healed his mother-in-law . Do we know if he had children? Do we know whether any of the other apostles were married and if they had children?

In Matthew 27:52–53, it is stated that “many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised… and appeared to many in Jerusalem,” which seems to suggest a physical (possibly glorified) resurrection. Additionally, Ephesians 4:8 says that when Christ “ascended on high, he led captivity captive and gave gifts to men,” which some interpret as Christ liberating the righteous dead and bringing them into a heavenly state. - Which Protestant denominations (if any) hold the view that Christ raised Old Testament saints in glorified bodies and took them to heaven at or after His resurrection/ascension? - How do these traditions interpret these passages in support of that view? - and do they also believe this lot received rewards in heaven after Christ ascended on high and are these people the first fruits of the resurrection as written in the New testament. - did these saints do it with a glorified body since they appear as did Jesus appear to the twelve and others? - Conversely, which Protestant traditions reject this interpretation, and what alternative explanations do they provide?

I stumbled on this verse again and would like some clarification: > Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? John 2:20 (KJV) - Was the temple 46 years old at that time? - Was the temple built in 46 years? If it's the second option, how could it be true that the temple took so long to build? Were they short of labour, money, etc.?

Is charging or paying interest disallowed by any groups in Christianity, and if so which ones? So for example I sell someone a laptop and they don't have the full money right now and lets say the laptop cost £500 so then I tell them they can pay over two years but I will expect a total payment of £700 instead. The extra £200 will be interest.

1 Maccabees 16:23-24 -------------------- > The rest of **John's acts**, the battles he fought and the exploits he > performed, the city walls he built, and all his other achievements, > from the day he succeeded his father as high priest, **are recorded in > the annals of his pontificate**. Have these annals ever found?

Watching the installation of the 106th Archbishop of Canterbury, the Nicene Creed was part of [the service](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cevkjgykrvet#player) at around 16:14. What I heard was as follows: > We believe in the Holy Spirit, > the Lord, the giver of life, > who proceeds from the Father, > who with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, > who has spoken through the prophets. though the [standard Church of England version](https://www.churchofengland.org/faith-life/what-we-believe/nicene-creed) includes the filioque phrase > We believe in the Holy Spirit, > the Lord, the giver of life, > who proceeds from the Father and the Son, > who with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, > who has spoken through the prophets. The Church of England does provide a *filioque*-less [alternative for ecumenical purposes](https://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-and-worship/worship-texts-and-resources/common-worship/service-word/service-word-morning-and#ch6k) but it seems strange that a service which is so internally focused on the Church of England and the wider Anglican Communion should do this. Is this an indication of the future?

**Question** I am not asking for all Christian interpretations; I am asking from a biblical-theology perspective. **Romans 7:2** says that a married woman is bound (by the law) to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies, she is released from that marital bond and may belong to another (the law ceases to have jurisdiction). My question is not whether Christ’s death makes the Law itself void, abolished, or of no effect. In Paul’s marriage analogy, when the husband dies, the marriage law does not cease to exist. What ceases is the woman’s legal status as bound to that particular husband under the law within that particular marriage. Given this distinction, I am asking whether **Romans 7:2–4** can be understood as addressing the legal termination of the old covenant-marriage bond. The Old Testament presents YHWH’s relationship to Israel in covenant-marriage terms; **Jeremiah 31:32 says Israel broke the covenant, though YHWH was her husband; **Jeremiah 3:8** says YHWH gave faithless Israel a certificate of divorce; **Jeremiah 3:1** invokes the **Deuteronomy 24:1–4** problem, where a divorced and defiled wife may not return to her former husband; and finally **Jeremiah 31:31–34** promises a new covenant (marriage), not simply a repaired old-covenant. Within a Pauline biblical-theology context, does the cross address a covenant-legal problem (as well as the atonement for sin)? More specifically, does Christ’s death terminate the old covenant legal claim of a bond between Israel as bride and YHWH as husband, thereby making a new covenant union possible, without implying that the Law itself has ceased to exist?

Thomas Cranmer's 42 Articles has Article 10: "those that have no will to good things, he makes them to will, and those that would evil things he makes them not to will the same." Does the C. of E. have an official definition of free will, or what might be the nearest it gets to having one?

I understand that in Catholic teaching, the Virgin Mary is believed to be in heaven, often associated with the doctrine of the Assumption. However, I’m trying to understand the Biblical basis for this belief. In Luke 16:22, Jesus describes the righteous dead being in “Abraham’s bosom.” This seems to suggest a state or place where the faithful awaited something prior to the fullness of redemption. My questions are: - What Scriptural evidence do Catholics use to support the belief that Mary is already in heaven (body and/or soul)? - How is this reconciled with passages like Luke 16:22? I’m especially interested in responses grounded in Scripture, though I understand tradition may also play a role.

Traditional Christianity teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons, coequal, coeternal, of the same substance, and all fully divine. The Holy Spirit is the same being referred to in the New Testament as God's Spirit (e.g., 1 Corinthians 2:11, Ephesians 4:30) and as Christ's Spirit (e.g., Galatians 4:6, Philippians 1:19, 1 Peter 1:11), and in one place with both titles (Romans 8:9). My understanding of the Jehovah's Witnesses is that they believe God the Father to be fully divine and eternal, but Jesus Christ is his first creation, gifted with semi-divinity. What do they teach about the Holy Spirit? A good answer will address, directly or by clear implication, whether or not the Holy Spirit is: - eternal - eternally/ontologically distinct from God the Father - ontologically divine - a person - one and the same as the Spirit of Christ A good answer will address anything else that a standard JW articulation of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit would address and will use Watchtower sources.

[Note: As I said in my answer, I wanted to change the title of my question; I feel like it is accusatory and inflammatory; but it might not be fair to the answerers.] In studying the book of Job, it became somewhat clear to me what seems like the entire premise of the book, and it is encapsulated in Job‬ ‭1‬:‭6‬-‭9‬: >Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it. And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought?” [A commentary](https://archive.org/details/bookofjobtransla00elzauoft/page/n1/mode/1up) by the Jewish scholar A. Elzas points out what seems obvious once you read it: >Going to and fro —The Targum: "I am come from going round the earth **to examine the works of the children of men.**" The expression going, walking, means in the Heb. idiom vigilant execution. My personal interpretation of this, and what now seems obvious, is that **satan is looking to find fault among men**. He is, after all, the great accuser. And **God elevates His creation, man, in the eyes of satan, and allows satan to prove to himself whether it is so, or not: are there men who do not curse God, no matter what?** But **it seems like God is almost taunting satan**. He sets him up for the whole series of events that follow. It's like God tempts him! And yet James 1 says God cannot be tempted by evil, nor can He Himself tempt anyone. **I believe this, but I just don't know how to reconcile my thoughts about God and satan in the book of Job**, and I'm hoping there is a theological explanation.