How do Christians that believe that proper obedience to the Torah is required begin to follow it?

I have not been able to find an actual pivot point, or event which may be considered the official beginning of the Roman Catholic Church. Some have connected it with Peter, which I believe is totally without evidence, while some connect it with the Advent of the first Leo who was Pope, but what would be the best criteria to decide when Roman Catholicism became an actual doctrinal body?

I encountered an opinion that the Old Covenant is still valid and that Israel is still the Chosen Nation of God. I haven't checked the accuracy of the source, but I read on the Internet that St. John Paul II said that "God has never revoked the Old Covenant". Also, St. Paul wrote in Romans 11 a difficult passage about the Jews, particularly in Romans 11:29 : > "For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable." (RSV). On the other hand, in my language, during the Liturgy of Good Friday, something like "Jews that used to be Chosen Nation in past" is said. (Some say that's a wrong translation; I didn't check the Latin original). Also, the parable of the vineyard in Matthew 21 says: >"Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing the fruits of it." (v. 43). This seems to state that the Church replaced Israel as a Chosen People. So, what is the Catholic solution to this seeming contradiction?

https://the-merchants.org/article-view.php?id=2 This has been the culmination of of our thoughts and study for around a yearish now and we would like some input.

I understand the inspiration concept, but I don't understand how to consider a quote if it's inspired from God [then we consider it God's Words], or if it explanations by the the apostle or prophet? Is there any verse in the Bible says that the whole Bible is inspired, and not absolute-human-talk?

**Summary of the question**: How can the "angel of the Lord" be the pre-incarnate Jesus if Hebrews 1:5 makes the point that God never said "Thou art my Son" to *any angel*? Those who believe Michael the archangel is Jesus (JW, SDA, and others) usually get Hebrews 1:5 quoted by those who don't share their belief about Michael in an effort to disprove their belief. But what about those who believe the angel of the Lord is the pre-incarnate Jesus? Doesn't the same verse disprove that belief? This is a fairly widely accepted stance, in my opinion. We even have the following question with good answers on this very site: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/89609/on-what-basis-do-some-protestants-believe-the-angel-of-the-lord-is-the-pre-incar However, some groups like Jehovah's Witnesses (due to the belief that Jesus is Michael the Archangel) have to respond to questions like this one: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/78168/dont-the-questions-of-hebrews-15-and-113-demand-an-answer-of-none-so-how-c **How would a Protestant who believes the angel of the Lord is the pre-incarnate Jesus (or any Christian who believes this) respond to a very similar question?** If one believes that the angel of the Lord was the pre-incarnate Jesus, how can that be reconciled with Hebrews 1:5 (KJV): > For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? I've heard some explain this by saying that the angel of the Lord was not a created angel so that excludes him from the context of "the angels" in this passage. However, the verse doesn't say, "For unto which of the *created* angels said he at any time"... Of course, the basic meaning of "angel" in both the Hebrew and Greek is "messenger". But that doesn't really change the meaning of the passage either. I'm curious how this could be answered satisfactorily.

Which biblical texts are directed to a gentile audience?

There's a Christian podcast on YouTube named *[A Stronger Faith](https://www.youtube.com/@AStrongerFaith/)* which also has a [website](https://www.astrongerfaith.org/) . The podcast focuses on interviewing Christians about their spiritual experiences, conversion experiences, their testimonies, and so on. The host is [Stacy McCants](https://www.astrongerfaith.org/about) . My question is motivated by Stacy's [short video](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/5Ctpqezp0Nk?feature=share) on John 17:3: > You can experience God, so whatever doubts you might have in your mind of "am I just believing something that I've been taught because just in case there really is a hell I don't wanna go there" or have an encounter and experience him. You experienced God. **People kind of get on our comments sometimes and talk about "don't be trying to go for the emotional experiences." I think God wants us to experience him. I think a lie of the enemy is that we should not seek experiences with God**. That it should just be from an intellectual "just get the book, believe what the book says" perspective. And I can't read what Jesus said in John 17:3 and then say he doesn't want us experiencing him. He says "this is eternal life, that they know you, the one true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." Not that they know *about* you, and *about* Jesus. He says that they *know you*, and know his son. You cannot know somebody without experiencing them. Stacy affirms that some Christians reject the idea of seeking experiences with God because they view such experiences as mere emotional pursuits. Emotions, in that view, are often understood as neurochemical highs, products of the flesh, and therefore something to be avoided, being contrary to the things of the Spirit. But this seems to assume, arguably incorrectly, that all emotions arise from the flesh, as if no emotions could come from the Spirit. It denies the possibility of genuinely *spiritual* emotions or affections. Yet Galatians 5:22 says: *“But **the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace**, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.”* The first three fruits listed, **love, joy, and peace**, arguably involve emotions. So, do Christians hold a more nuanced view of the nature of emotions? Do they believe that all emotions are of the flesh, or do they recognize the existence of spiritual emotions or affections? More broadly, do Christians acknowledge different categories of emotion or experience, such as physical experiences and spiritual ones? If God can produce authentic spiritual affections or emotions, would it then follow that pursuing them is a good and worthwhile thing?

> **[John 20:29 ESV]** Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” > > **[Matthew 16:4 ESV]** An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah.” So he left them and departed. > > **[Romans 8:24–25 ESV]** 24 For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience. > > **[2 Corinthians 5:6-7]** 6 So we are always of good courage. We know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord, 7 **for we walk by faith, not by sight**. Some Christians cite passages like these to argue that we should not pursue experiences but should believe purely by faith, without seeing. Yet this raises the question of what exactly counts as "seeing" in the sense that Jesus seems to caution against. The Bible contains numerous examples that could easily be described as forms of "seeing," and yet there appears to be nothing wrong with those instances. For example: * The Apostle Paul's conversion, in which he saw Jesus on the road to Damascus (Acts 9) * The Apostle Paul's visit to the third heaven (2 Corinthians 12) * The transfiguration of Jesus, witnessed by Peter, James, and John (Matthew 17) * Stephen's vision of Jesus standing at the right hand of God, which led to his martyrdom (Acts 7:54–60) * Peter's vision of a great sheet descending with all kinds of animals (Acts 10) * Peter being rescued from jail by an angel (Acts 12:3–19) * The Apostle John's vision of the Son of Man (Revelation 1) * Jesus's response to John the Baptist, pointing to visible miracles as confirmation of his identity (Luke 7:22): *“Go and tell John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the poor have good news preached to them.”* * The early church's experiences of powerful outpourings of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2, Acts 4) * Joel's prophecy about dreams, visions, and the outpouring of the Spirit (Joel 2:28) * And others. There seems, then, to be a tension between two ideas. On one hand, some passages appear to warn against a kind of "seeing" that runs contrary to faith. On the other hand, the Bible includes many examples of "seeing" — visions, revelations, and experiences — especially among believers in the New Testament. **So my question is: is there any agreement or consensus among Christians about what kind of "seeing" Jesus warns against (i.e., the sort of "seeing" that undermines faith), and whether there are other forms of "seeing" or experience that are legitimate, valid, and even desirable to pursue?**

Genesis 1:28 (NLT) Then God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and multiply. Fill the earth and govern it. Reign over the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, and all the animals that scurry along the ground.” What does the four things that God told man to do actually imply?

## Short version I'm specifically referring to [Graham Oppy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Oppy) 's paper [An Argument for Atheism from Naturalism](https://philarchive.org/rec/OPPAAF) : > **Abstract** This paper outlines an argument for atheism from naturalism that I have developed in more detail elsewhere (in particular, in *The Best Argument against God*). The overall shape of the argument is as follows: first, naturalism is simpler than theism; second, there is no data that naturalism does not explain at least as well as theism; and, third, naturalism entails atheism; so we have good reason to prefer atheism to theism. Note that this statement of the shape of the argument is NOT a statement of the argument itself. In short, Oppy argues that *naturalism is simpler than theism*, and that, all else being equal, we should always rationally prefer a simpler explanation of the data. How do Christians rebut Graham Oppy's position? ## Longer version A few relevant quotes from the [paper](https://philpapers.org/archive/OPPAAF.pdf) : > Theists differ in the ways that they depart from naturalism. Some theists believe in a God who created our universe ex nihilo. Some theists believe in a God whose actions preserve our universe in existence. Some theists believe in a God who inhabits an eternal realm that has no spatiotemporal relation to our universe. Some theists believe in an intelligent and active God who is neither a natural organism nor an artificial intelligence created by natural organisms. Some theists believe in a God that is a non-personal supernatural power or supernatural force that exerts influence on our universe. Some theists believe that the universe possesses the non-natural property of being divine, or that the non-natural property of being divine ‘permeates’ the universe. And so on. > > **Although theists differ in the ways in which they depart from naturalism, there is a common feature** **to theistic departures from naturalism. In every case, theists differ from naturalists by believing in** **something additional**: either believing in one or more additional intelligent agents, or believing in one or more additional forces or powers, or believing in one or more additional non-natural properties of the universe. > > > Suppose that we are comparing a particular version of theism with a particular version of naturalism. Suppose, further, that these versions of theism and naturalism agree in their beliefs about which natural entities, and natural powers, and natural forces, and natural properties, and natural laws there are. In this case, it’s not just that the theist has beliefs in something over and above the things the atheist believes in; it’s also the case that the naturalist does not have beliefs in anything over and above the things the theist believes in. **From the standpoint of the naturalist, the theistic beliefs** **of the theist are pure addition; and, from the standpoint of the theist, the naturalistic beliefs of the** **naturalist are pure subtraction**. > > **In this case, if all else is no better than equal, then there is clear reason to prefer naturalism to** **theism. For, if all else is no better than equal, then there is no reason to have the additional theistic beliefs**. Hence, in this case, in order to decide between theism and naturalism, we just need to determine whether all else is no better than equal. ... > **The burden of the rest of this chapter is to argue that there are no features of the natural universe** **that have a better explanation on theism than they do on naturalism**. Of course, I won’t be able to examine every feature of the natural universe that might be thought to have a better explanation on theism than it does on naturalism. However, I shall try to examine all of the most prominent features of the natural universe that have been widely supposed to have a better explanation on theism than on naturalism. Given the treatment of the cases that I do discuss, it should be obvious how to extend the discussion to features of the natural universe that I do not examine here. He then goes on to explain how 8 features of the world commonly used to argue for theism can be better accounted for under naturalism. Namely: - Existence - Causation - Fine-Tuning - Morality - Consciousness - Miracles - Religious Experiences - Meaning and Purpose > 9\. **Conclusion** > As I mentioned at the outset, I cannot claim to have considered all of the data that bears on the decision between theism and naturalism (and not can I claim to have given a fully adequate assessment of any of the data that I have considered). However, I hope that I have done enough to indicate how my argument for naturalism would look if it were set out in full and complete detail. (I give a fuller—but still incomplete—exposition of the argument in The Best Argument against God, Palgrave-Macmillan, 2013.) > > 10\. **Note about Evil** > Of course, there is data that at least some theists suppose favours naturalism over theism—e.g. data about horrendous suffering, data about non-belief, and data about the scale of our universe. Some naturalists think that data about horrendous suffering is logically inconsistent with theism. As Epicurus argued long ago: >> Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? > > Other naturalists think that data about horrendous suffering renders theism highly improbable: given the major horrors of the twentieth century alone, isn’t it incredible to suppose that our universe is the work of an omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly good being? I have focussed on data that many theists suppose favour theism over naturalism because my argument requires only that, on any piece of data, naturalism does at least as well as theism in explaining that data. Even if it is true, for example, that naturalism affords a better explanation of horrendous suffering in our universe than is given by theism, that truth makes no contribution to the argument that I have been advancing here. --- **NOTE**: Graham Oppy's formulation of the argument is arguably one of the strongest available in the literature, given Oppy's reputation as one of the most respected contemporary atheist philosophers. For instance, William Lane Craig once said about Oppy's book *Arguing about Gods*: > Oppy's book is not merely recommended but essential reading for anyone interested in natural theology today. No one can pretend to a successful theistic argument unless he has dealt with Oppy's criticisms first. ([source](https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/scholarly-writings/the-existence-of-god/arguing-successfully-about-god-a-review-essay-of-graham-oppys-arguing-about)) However, the claim that naturalism is "simpler" than theism is thrown around quite frequently in informal discussions with atheists. For example, take a look at some of the answers to [Could Occam's Razor ever favor theism?](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/110026/66156) .

[Thomas More](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_More) , whose birthday it is today (7 February), was a strong defender of Catholic eucharistic theology. In his *Answer to a poisoned book* (1533), a reply to a [Zwinglian](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology_of_Huldrych_Zwingli#Eucharist) tract probably written by [George Joye](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Joye) , he wrote: > I shall, beside all such spiritual expositions as this man useth therein by way of allegories or parables, declare you the very literal sense of those words, "My flesh is verily meat, and my blood verily drink": so that that ye may see thereby that our saviour verily spake and meant, not only such a spiritual eating as Master Masker saith he only meant, but also the very bodily eating and drinking of his very flesh and blood indeed. 1 The basic dispute [depends upon what the meaning of the word "is" is](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0) , in the words of institution, and in other passages like the one quoted ([John 6:55](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%206:55&version=NRSVACE)) . Zwingli and Joye thought it meant "signifies". More asserts (among other arguments) that since Jesus had a body of flesh and blood, "This is my body" admits a literal reading, unlike when Jesus elsewhere says that he "is" a vine, a door, and so on. He says that although there are also symbolic meanings, a literal one cannot be wholly dismissed, since that would mean ignoring the plain words. Moreover, although one has to go to some effort to explain how it's possible (how Christ's body can be present in the Eucharist, at many places and times, appear as bread, etc.), it's more acceptable to believe in miracles than to remove all literal meaning from "is". At first glance this seems to be the same kind of argument made by Biblical literalists today about many other passages. Does More's reasoning - that it is necessary to find *some* plain reading if at all possible - count as a "literal" argument, according to a modern understanding about what that means? What rules or safeguards are present in the modern approach, whereby self-described literalists today are generally not led to consider transubstantiation a viable option in this case, when supernatural explanations are accepted in other cases? 1. [*The answer to the first part of the poysoned booke whych a nameles heretike hath named the supper of the Lord*](http://www.thomasmorestudies.org/1557Workes/Answer_poysoned_booke1.pdf) , 1.3. In *The workes of Sir Thomas More ... in the Englysh tonge* (London, 1557), p1042. Spelling and punctuation modernised by me.

Matthew 21:43 says > *....the kingdom of God will be taken away from you.* In order for the kingdom to be taken, it had to have been given. So, the people that Jesus is talking to would have been part of the kingdom. John 6:37 says > *....the one who comes to me I will never cast out.* Cast out of where? Context seems to be talking about eternal life (see vs 27 and 40). Assuming that the “kingdom of God” and “eternal life” are in essence the same, then these verses seem to contradict each other. Or does my understanding of these verses need to be corrected?

>King Charles and Pope Leo are to become the first British monarch and pontiff to pray together at a church service ***since the Reformation in the 16th Century.*** > >This historic moment will be in the Sistine Chapel in the Vatican, during next week's state visit by King Charles and Queen Camilla. > >BBC NEWS 17th October 2025 >A Foreign Office spokeswoman said: "The Catholic Church is the largest denomination of the world's largest religion."As such, the King and Queen's visit will "strengthen the UK's relationship with this crucial and influential partner", she said. > >BBC NEWS 17th October 2025 >The King will sit in a purpose-made seat, decorated with the King's coat of arms, which will stay in place for the King's future use ***and his successors.*** > >BBC NEWS 17th October 2025 Is this a 'reconciliation' or is this, after 500 years, the complete capitulation of a supposed 'Protestant' denomination, overturning the Reformation ?

Denying the deity of Jesus Christ is one of the core beliefs of the Jehovah Witnesses: [Jehovah’s Witnesses View of Christ](https://www.namb.net/apologetics-blog/jehovah-s-witnesses-view-of-christ/) . John 5:18 states, > For this cause therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill > Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was > calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God. John 8:59, > Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid > Himself, and went out of the temple. John 10:31, > The Jews took up stones AGAIN to stone Him. John 10:33, > The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for BLASPHEMY; and because You, being a man make Yourself out God. Also, according to the trial record at Matthew 26:57-66, and specifically at vs65 the high priest Caiaphas makes a strong accusation: > The high priest tore his robes, saying, "He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses? Behold, have you not heard the blasphemy;" What was the blasphemy, according to the Jews, that Jesus committed that resulted in His crucifixion and eventual death? Related question asked here

It is believed by radical unitarians, Herbert W. Armstrong advocates and various others that Jesus was the Son of God by virtue of his birth by Mary. If that was true then presumably she would have told that story to perhaps many persons. Throughout the New Testament various persons relate that "Jesus is the Son of God" but I can find no scriptures that relate of Mary telling anyone about this, so I'm left wondering how these various individuals came to know Jesus as the Son of God.

**strong text** How does everyone think or believe in JESUS coming like a thief in the night, how might this happen or take place. curious about other believers opinions 💜👑✝️💜

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

### Introduction In the Christian New Testament, *The Epistle to the Hebrews* cites Jeremiah 31:33 to inaugurate a "new covenant". Jeremiah 31:33 and it's immediate context reads: > See, a time is coming—declares GOD—when I will make a new covenant > with the House of Israel and the House of Judah. > It will not be like > the covenant I made with their ancestors, when I took them by the hand > to lead them out of the land of Egypt, a covenant that they broke, > though I espoused them—declares GOD. > But such is the covenant I will > make with the House of Israel after these days—declares GOD: > **I will put My *Torah* into their inmost being and inscribe it upon their** > **hearts. Then I will be their God, and they shall be My people.** > **No longer will they need to teach one another** and say to one another, > “Heed GOD”; for all of them, **from the least of them to the greatest**, > **shall heed Me**—declares GOD. **For I will forgive their iniquities,** **And** > **remember their sins no more**. This "new covenant" in Jeremiah appears to involve the following: - The *Torah* is written on the hearts of Israel and Judah - Affirmation of Israel and Judah as God's people - A cessation of needing to teach each other to follow God - All of Israel and Judah (from the least to the greatest) will follow God - Forgiveness of their sins ### Question Do *Sola Scriptura*/Protestant Christians believe that this new covenant has taken effect? Do they believe only parts of the covenant are in effect? If so, which parts?

Most denominations teach the idea that someone must feel guilt or remorse for their sins and must desire not to do them, however some like those teaching Calvinism or Once Saved Always Saved seemed to stop there while other denominations seem to suggest either certain more severe sins like the Catholics or any intentional sin like the Methodists must be repented of, or one is not in a State of Grace and one will go to hell. There is scriptural support in John, Romans and Galatians for both of these view points. I am wondering about an overview of how the different modern as well as the early Church soteriologies would reconcile the more well known grace passages (particularly among Calvinists and those supporting Once Saved Always Saved) with passages that say sinners would not inherit the Kingdom of God such as Romans 1:29-1:31, 1 Corinthians 6:9-6:10, Galatians 5:19-5:21, Ephesians 5:3-5:5, 1 Timothy 1:9-1:10, Revelation 21:8, and Revelation 22:15. I am curious to know about the doctrine of repentance in the apostolic age as well. I have looked at Jerome, Tertullian, and Chrysostom and how they taught some sins needed repenting of for one to be saved. I recognize from Romans to Revelations that there are lists of sins which say that people who commit them do not enter the Kingdom of God. I also know that the first thing Jesus asked the rich man was not whether he had faith in Jesus but did he keep the commandments. On the other hand John repeatedly mentions that those who have faith will be given eternal life. Romans seems to teach salvation by faith alone at least in the majority of its passages and Jesus also told the rich man that with God anything is possible. One iteration of the decalogue in the Old Testament (I believe it is Deuteronomy) teaches that God is merciful to those who love Him for thousands of generations.