Heb 4:12: > For the **word of God** is **living** and effective and sharper than any double-edged sword, penetrating as far as the separation of soul and spirit, joints and marrow. **It is able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.** (CSB) > For the **word of God** is **quick**, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and **is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart**. (KJV) is quoted a lot by evangelicals in promoting devotional Bible study as though *the act of reading the Bible text in itself* produces the benefit that the Pastor of the book of Hebrews mentions in the verse, i.e. "judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart". But technically, isn't it true that it is **NOT** the text on paper that "judges" but **Jesus (God the Word)** speaking to us? Jesus is the one living, not the text. The theme of the sermon makes it clear what "word of God" refers to, *cf* Heb 1:1-2: > Long ago God spoke to our ancestors by the **prophets** at different times and in different ways. In these last days, **he has spoken to us by his Son**. God has appointed him heir of all things and **made the universe through him**. (CSB) > God, who at sundry times and in divers manners **spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets**, Hath in these last days **spoken unto us by his Son**, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; (KJV) which more precisely refers to the words God spoke by the OT prophets, culminating in His word by Jesus's body, life, action, and words. V. 2 alludes to the words through which God spoke creation into existence (Gen 1) that the Pastor implied as "through Jesus". It seems clear to me that proper exegesis should center the referent of "the word of God" in Heb 4:12 on Jesus who *indeed* is **living and present** preaching to us through the various ways alluded by Heb 1:1-2: - prophecy to OT fathers by the prophets - voice of our conscience (part of the created order), - the beauty & order of nature herself (testified in Job, Psalms, etc.) rather than ***ONLY*** through the words of the text of the Bible (though of course the Bible is the inscripturated word of God also). Furthermore, the more immediate context of Heb 4:12 is Heb 3:1-4:13 about the warning from the lesson learned at Kadesh Barnea's rebellion where they didn't heed the word of God delivered through Moses. Thus the warning of that passage is so that we heed Christ's words to our soul TODAY (*cf* frequent reference to Ps 95:7-8) now that God has spoken to us a lot more clearly by sending Jesus, His own incarnation, greater than the word He spoke to Moses. So why do Evangelicals, whenever they cite the verse in many sermons, Bible study guides, proof-text for apologetics, etc., regularly shift the referent of Heb 4:12 from Jesus to the text of the Bible itself, even broadening the scope to the NT text that has *yet* to be recognized as Scripture? ### 2 illustrations of the consequence of bad exegesis I think my concern for my evangelical brothers and sisters is important when considering **the two disturbing practices I notice** which seems directly to follow from this bad Evangelical exegesis: 1. In several evangelical churches I have attended, they imply that to obtain the benefit in Heb 4:12b, reading the Bible text in itself *is more efficacious* than other books (such as a good theology book, the Catechism, or a C.S. Lewis book), as though God works in a MORE SPECIAL MANNER in producing the benefit when the text read is the Bible but not other books. They seem fearful as though theology books can be more corrupting than the effect of uninformed straight reading of the Bible that has the risk of bad private interpretation if not checked by the church's interpretation mediated by the pastor's sermons. Some even eschew using a commentary, fearing that the commentator's interpretation obscures Scripture rather than making it brighter to the mind! To me this is not coherent. Doesn't the **agent** need to be someone LIVING rather than words on a page? But Evangelical careful readers (adopting the Berean discernment) certainly prioritize the teaching in Scripture to serve as a norm and a rule to judge whether a book elucidate or distorts the orthodox teachings of the Bible. Thus they pick and choose better parts of C.S. Lewis books and quote judiciously from writers such as Dallas Willard / A.W. Tozer. When a Christian reading those books became convicted of their sins and obtained more wisdom to know their hearts more clearly (thus obtaining the benefit of Heb 4:12b), can we *not* say it was Jesus speaking through those books? Can we *not* say it was Jesus speaking through a Biblical sermon prepared with lots of research including the use of commentaries, philosophy, and theology books? No one is going to mistake those books as "word of God", put them on the same level as the Bible, or attribute the author or the pastor as "Jesus speaking". By the way, I am in no way disputing the status of the text of the Bible as Scripture, nor am I excluding Scripture from the "word of God". Evangelical doctrines of - Verbal inspiration of Scripture - Infallibility of Scripture - *Sola Scriptura* as the norm for interpreting other sources such as tradition, council canons, patristic writings, church doctrines, post-NT prophecies, etc. - Protestant understanding of canon of "recognition" instead of Magisterium can be derived from other parts of the Bible instead of misusing this verse in support of the above, which in turn make the above doctrines stand on a less secure foundation. 1. The advice I got from several fundamentalist leaning evangelicals is that to evangelize you HAVE to look for an opportunity to cite a series of strategic Bible verses as though by the very act of reading them aloud to the non-Christian you're speaking to, the Holy Spirit can work BETTER in convicting him/her. One such sequence is this: 1. Romans 10:9 1. John 1:12 1. John 3:36 1. Rev 3:20 1. Rom 6:23 They say I am NOT supposed to let my own explanation to cloud over the reciting of those verses, even explanation of the CONTEXT of each verse! Nor is it necessary to let him/her talk about his/her current misunderstanding of the gospel or the difficulties he/she has with Christianity. **One should simply recite the verses to let them "work" in the hearer's heart unmediated by explanation**. I think I'm justified to say that this practice is adding a mystical element to the Bible text itself, as though the text has mystical power akin to incantation. So my question is: **Why do evangelicals tend to conflate "word of God" in Heb 4:12 with the "text of Scripture", thus with a meaning that ascribes animacy and agency to the words of the Bible text instead of to the Living God?**

**NOTE :** This question is aimed at narrowing down the probability, when did Mary committed an actual and personal sin, and what is the most likely nature of sin that She would commit? Protestant and Bible Alone Believers do not accept the Dogma on Immaculate Conception for lack of biblical support, so its only fair for Catholics, that we also, cannot accept the accusation that Mary is a sinner, for the same reason that it also lacking in biblical support. And so, its now the Protestant and Bible Alone Believers turn to prove their accusation and judgement that Mary is a sinner, by providing us biblical proof? Sin of pride, lust, envy, gluttony, sloth, etc. What is the most probable nature of sin that a lowly handmaid, a human being with profound humility, who is daily praying and embracing the Will of the Father, can fall into? Let's check on Mary's age. At age 1 to 3, is the age of innocence, therefore, Mary cannot commit sin here at this age. At age 3 to 13, Mary had spent her life in the Temple as a servant of God. Most likely, Satan cannot offer any of his temptations as he did to Jesus as money, fame and power will not entice the young Mary of this non-sense. https://www.mdrevelation.org/the-presentation-of-mary-in-the-temple/ At age 13, Angel Gabriel having faculties to see the soul of human being, saw Mary's soul as "full of grace", and telling us that in Mary's soul, the Lord presence can be seen. -Dominus tecum. Before conception, during conception and after giving birth it is unlikely that Mary can commit sin, as She was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit. And so, for all the Bible Alone Believers and wizards here at CSE, we only have one choices left. Mary is possible to commit sin, after giving birth to Jesus Christ. But what is the nature of sin, that a person who is docile to the voice of God, and had shown holiness and righteousness in her life,so, the simple and direct question is... What is the nature of sin that Mary would fall into after giving birth to Jesus Christ? **Can anyone tell us according to the bible, what is the nature of sin that Mary had fallen into, after giving birth to Jesus Christ?** Catholic, Protestant and Christian can answer this question, using only bible as the source and nothing else.

When does Christmas really end for Catholics? I know it starts different for most Eastern Orthodox, but for Latin Rite Catholics, like myself, I don't know when it actually is supposed to end. At the very least I know it's over by Ash Wednesday, but there there seem to be very real reasons to celebrate from 1. December 25 - January 1st (the octave of Christmas, ending with the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God) 2. December 25 - January 6th (the 12 days of Christmas, ending with the Epiphany) 3. December 25 - February 2nd (40 day celebration, ending with the Presentation) So, I guess the real question is who has the stamina to party Catholic style for 40 days, especially after the hubbub leading up to Christmas, but in a liturgical sense, when does the Christmas season end?

I know that there are a respectable number of denominations that hold to the idea that the scriptures aren’t innerant (free from error). But are there any that go as far as to teach that the scriptures aren’t inspired?

What are the oldest manuscripts of the Bible that contain either the Torah, Tanakh, Gospels, or New Testament? How far back do the Septuagint, Dead Sea scrolls, Codexis, or Masoretic parchments go?

Affable Geek's answer to What does it mean to interpret the Bible literally? mentioned the possibility of non-literalists interpreting the story of David and Goliath as a "tale that grew in the telling." This reminded me of something I read many years ago in a Bible commentary. It mentioned that several odd discrepancies exist in the details surrounding the story of David and Goliath, making it appear as if another story had been clumsily inserted into the middle of the text by some scribe. Unfortunately, the book was borrowed and I no longer have it, and I don't remember all the points that were made, but the one I remember clearly, because it was so blatant, was how David, once he volunteered to fight Goliath as Israel's champion, was introduced to King Saul as if for the first time, even though he had been serving in the King's court as a musician for quite some time prior to this. Of course a literalist must necessarily reject this idea that the story is full of later interpolations. How would one account for the apparent discrepancies in the story of David and Goliath, then?

Pelagianism is the point of view which suggests that human nature has not been affected by the Fall and that therefore every human being has the potential to achieve sinlessness by his/her own will. This view was condemned as heretical at the Council of Ephesus, though the main topic of the council was about the Nestorian controversy on the two natures of Christ and Pelagianism was not the main focus. The Council of Ephesus was rejected by the Church of the East (now represented only by the Assyrian Church of the East), which considers Nestorius a saint. Since the disagreement between the CotE and Ephesine Christianity was over Nestorianism, I am wondering if the Church of the East would agree with Ephesus's condemnation of Pelagianism?

When we come to Exodus 33:12-16, all efforts at atonement for the sin of the golden calf have failed in renewing God's covenant with His people. Here Moses seems truly at a loss: he has burned the calf and made the people consume its ashes from the water; he has had the sons of Levi put 3,000 men to the sword; he has tried to atone for their sins by offering his own life; the Lord has sent a plague; the Lord has made them rid themselves of ornaments; yet even in this last instance it is obvious that the question remains even now with Moses in this encounter if Israel is restored by God to the covenant He had made with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph. The last word on the subject was God declaring, “if for a single moment I should go up among you [Israel], I would consume you. So now take off your ornaments, that I may know what to do with you,” (Exodus 33:5). So, we have Moses in the tent interceding for the people, and we read: “And [the Lord] said, ‘My presence will go with you, and I will give you rest,” (Exodus 33:14). It is hard to see if perhaps there is ambiguity in “you” here, whether the Lord is speaking uniquely of Moses, or of Moses and the people. It is in the second person masculine singular, but that is also the case elsewhere when it is obvious that all Israel is understood. For example, where God says “for you are a stiff-necked people,” (Exodus 33:3), He is addressing them in second person masculine singular. Yet, when God repeats the phrase as direct speech that Moses is to convey to the people, “Say to the people of Israel, ‘You are a stiff-necked people,’” (Exodus 33:5), He uses the second person masculine plural. Then, in the same direct speech, referring still to the people Israel, God says “among you,” “consume you,” “your ornaments,” “with you,” all in the singular. Yet, it seems to be something of the point that Moses is turning on as he intercedes for the people, where he adds that, while he has found favor with God, “Consider too that this nation is your people,” (Exodus 33:13), and again, “I and your people,” (v 16). Does Moses remain unsure of the standing of Israel and God's covenant with them in part because God is addressing Moses uniquely? Sorry for the length.

In Revelation 7:4–8, John mentions 144,000 people sealed from the twelve tribes of Israel. Jehovah’s Witnesses interpret this number literally as the total number of anointed Christians who will go to heaven and rule with Christ. Immediately afterward, Revelation 7:9–10 describes “a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb.” How do Jehovah’s Witnesses reconcile the idea of a fixed number of 144,000 heavenly Christians with the depiction of innumerable “multitudes” standing before God’s throne? Do official Watch Tower publications clarify the relationship between the 144,000 and the great crowd?

Searching from different bible translations, I had looked deeply into Douay-Rheims version. > "And she entered into the house of Zachary, and saluted Elizabeth." - Luke 1:40 From this passage, we can see that it ends with a period. This event is finished. A casual greetings can be inferred on this passage and nothing much, it's like Mary saying "Hi! or Hello!" to Her cousin Elizabeth, who knew nothing, about what happened to Mary in the annunciation and Her, having conceived the Messiah. Moving on to next verse... > And it came to pass, that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the infant leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? - Luke1:41-43 The word ***"and it came to pass"***, meaning, this event is separated from v.40, where the casual greetings occured. This salutation is much different, it delivered a profound effect on the child in the very womb of Elizabeth, who never knew the Blessed Virgin Mary. The greeting in v. 40 compare to v. 41 can be seen as two separate events. Luke described that it was Elizabeth who heard the salutation and not the infant in her womb. Elizabeth was overjoyed, cried out in a loud voice...this unexplainable feelings was then felt by the child in her womb, that made the infant leaped, as if he shared in the joy that Elizabeth her mother was experiencing at that very moment, that made him leaped. Could it be, that the ***"greetings or salutation"*** that Elizabeth heard at that moment from Mary while praying, is the **Magnificat**. Hearing the words from the Magnificat, was the cause, and the instrument that made her filled with the Holy Spirit. Because Mary's Magnificat was uttered, having overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, the very words of Mary are inspired by the Holy Spirit, to praise the Father in spirit and truth. Elizabeth heard Mary's Canticle, and had realized that Mary was pregnant with the Messiah, and hearing Mary saying, ***"All generations shall call me blessed..."***, Elizabeth reacted,and she is the first one who praised Mary, saying ***"blessed are you among women..."***, and also the first one who proclaimed ***"Jesus is Lord"*** by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, recognizing, the child as her Lord, the way she knew the Lord as the chosen People of God, addressed God in the Old Testament. John the Baptist in Luke1:15 had been prophesied to be filled with the Holy Spirit in the womb of his Mother, and Luke's gospel described the moment, how it happened in v.44 > *For behold as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy.* - Luke 1:44 From the discernment above, we can see that the *"greetings"* in Luke 1:40 is different from the *"greetings"* in Luke1:41, the two greetings are a separate event. The other is obviously a casual greeting and the other is a mysterious greetings. In view of the above, I am looking for a commentary or writings from Catholic sources or Christian sources,biblical even extra-biblical showing that the "greetings" in Luke 1:40 and Luke 1:41 is a separate event and different from each other. Elizabeth didn't need to hear Mary's Magnificat to know that she was pregnant with the Lord. Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, who was perfectly capable of conveying that knowledge. Elizabeth's intuition was very manifest here.

In [this video](https://youtu.be/NYXZQ9BRiGw?si=Aho7ezGrcCPKuvC0&t=616) , former KKK Grand Imperial Wizard Bill Wilkinson says that "we believe that God has commanded us to separate ourselves from the other races. Not because we hate the other races or because we feel we are better or worse, but because it's God's commandment". According to the KKK interpretation of Christian law, where, in the scriptures or in other sources of Christian religious law, does God command the whites to separate themselves from other races?

Congregations such as the Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-day Adventists believe that Jesus is Michael. What is the Biblical basis for the belief that Jesus is Michael? **Jehovah's Witnesses** >...it is logical to conclude that Michael is none other than Jesus Christ in his heavenly role. [Source](http://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/bible-teach/who-is-michael-the-archangel/) **Seventh-day Adventists** >Moses passed through death, but Michael came down and gave him life before his body had seen corruption. Satan tried to hold the body, claiming it as his; but Michael resurrected Moses and took him to heaven. Satan railed bitterly against God, denouncing Him as unjust in permitting his prey to be taken from him; but Christ did not rebuke His adversary, though it was through his temptation that the servant of God had fallen. He meekly referred him to His Father, saying, "The Lord rebuke thee." Early Writings, p. 164.

There are many holidays/feasts that end in -mas, like: 1. [Christmas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas) 2. [Marymas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nativity_of_Mary#cite_note-A-2) 3. [Michaelmas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michaelmas) 4. [Roodmas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roodmas) 5. [Candlemas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candlemas) How many other -mas's are there?

The Bible records many accounts of angels physically manifesting themselves to people, whether for the purpose of delivering a message, or to get them out of trouble, etc. [It also appears that most Christians believe these kinds of manifestations probably still happen today, although in extremely rare circumstances](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/86132/50422) . But when it comes to demons, besides Satan's taking the form of a serpent to tempt Eve, I'm not aware of any other cases where a demonic entity materialized in a bodily form in the physical. Of course, there are demon possessions, but those technically speaking belong to a different category, as demons do not manifest their own bodies -- they just usurp someone else's. By the way, as I say this, I notice that I'm making the assumption that demons must have some sort of spiritual body they can physically manifest at will in the first place, but I don't think this is an unreasonable assumption to make, considering that angels can do it, and also what 1 Corinthians 15:40 says: *There are **heavenly bodies** and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of another*. Do any denominations believe these kinds of physical demonic manifestations are possible and do happen from time to time?

### Background Protestants across the ages have criticized and prohibited icons and worship of icons of Jesus: John Calvin, *Institutes of the Christian Religion*: > God’s glory is corrupted by an impious falsehood whenever any form is attached to Him R. Scott Clark: > To picture His manhood, when we cannot picture His Godhead, is a sin, because we make Him to be but half Christ; we separate what God has joined ### Incarnation Protestants also believe in the incarnation: that God took on a physical form of a man named Jesus, and that Jesus retains a physical form of a human man today and into eternity, see the *Westminster Shorter Catechism* as an example of this belief: > Christ, the Son of God, became man, by taking to himself a true body, and a reasonable soul, being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the virgin Mary, and born of her, yet without sin ### Premises The premise of the question is as follows: Protestants believe **p1**. God (the son) took on physical form **p2**. Humans saw this physical form in the 1st Century CE **p3**. Some of those people worshiped Jesus while he was in the physical form Then reasonable logical inferences: **i1**. Those followers of Jesus continued to remember what Jesus physically looked like **i2**. When praying to Jesus, those people had a mental image of Jesus's face and prayed to that in their minds ### Question - Are any of the premises or inferences wrong according to Protestants? - Were the first followers of Jesus/Christians prohibited from making illustrations of Jesus? - Were the first Christians sinning when imagining Jesus's physical form when praying? - Why would putting an image of the incarnate Jesus to paper be a sin if people saw him and knew what he looked like? - Why would praying to an image of Jesus be wrong if praying to his physical form was not wrong?

What Bible passages affirm that God determines, prior to their birth, whether each person will end up in the New Jerusalem or in the lake of fire? The Bible is clear that some people were predestined to spend eternity in the New Jerusalem. But the Bible is not clear that the fate of everyone else is also predetermined. I expected to find this question asked and answered multiple times in the past, but I was unable to find this. Ephesians 1:4-5 ESV >Even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, Ephesians 1:5 ESV >He predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, Romans 8:29 ESV >For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. Romans 8:28-30 ESV >And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

Why are the 3 distinct Masses on Christmas (Dec. 25): 1. Mass at Midnight 2. Mass at Dawn 3. Mass at Daytime ?

I was reading this question, [What were the main doctrinal disagreements between Luther and Calvin?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/6050/21576) , and one of the differences between the two was Calvin believed in double predestination, while Luther believed in single predestination. So according to my understanding: * Double Predestination – God mandates who goes to Heaven AND Hell * Single Predestination – God mandates ONLY who goes to Heaven Could somebody give a Calvinist support for double predestination? Related Question: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/53984/

>For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God - Ephesians 2:8. >No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day - John 6:44. There are other passages that say that we are saved through faith and other passages that say that God calls us to salvation, but I've found no passage that mentions both. So is it reasonable that the way God calls/draws to salvation is by giving faith? I look for answers from the point of view of those who believe that both Bible verses are talking about salvation. I am very pleased that I have received answers from a number of different perspectives. If I have to choose one, I will choose the recommended *sola fide*, especially since I already have excellent answers for Reformed Theology. **Conclusion:** God's saving call is the Gospel message we'd probably already heard. The difference is that God opens our spiritual ears to accept that call. The Gospel message heard through spiritual ears produces Faith. This is the relationship between God's call and Faith, and this is the way that Faith is the gift of God. My thanks to you all for reopening this question.

The Sabbath is mentioned about one hundred and forty-five times in the whole Bible (KJV), in the Old Testament the Sabbath is mentioned about ninety times and in almost all the texts it is an instruction to Israel to keep the Sabbath holy. Exodus 31:12 NASB >12 Now the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 13 “Now as for you, speak to the sons of Israel, saying, ‘You must keep My Sabbaths; for this is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, so that you may know that I am the Lord who sanctifies you. Exodus 35:1-3 NASB >35 Then Moses assembled all the congregation of the sons of Israel, and said to them, “These are the things that the Lord has commanded you to [a]do: > >2 “For six days work may be done, but on the seventh day you shall have a holy day, a Sabbath of complete rest to the Lord; whoever does any work on it shall be put to death. 3 You shall not kindle a fire in any of your dwellings on the Sabbath day.” But in the New Testament, it is mentioned about fifty-five times and in almost every text it is used as an index or marker of the cycle of the week as well as relative to an event that took place Matthew 12:1 NASB >[a]At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath, and His disciples became hungry and began to pick the heads of grain and eat Luke 6:7 NASB >7 Now the scribes and the Pharisees were watching Him [d]closely to see if He healed on the Sabbath, so that they might find a reason to accuse Him. I picked randomly the above texts but it seems most of them only refer to the Sabbath relative to the events that were taking place. There seems to be no clear instruction to keep the Sabbath in the New Testament. But many churches do teach that Christians are to keep the Sabbath. So what is the Biblical Basis for Christians keeping the Sabbath?