[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.

There is a well-known 'Bible-difficulty' in John 15:25: >**John 15:23-25 (DRB)** > >He that hateth me, hateth my Father also. If I had not done among them the works that no other man hath done, they would not have sin; but now they have both seen and hated both me and my Father. 25 But that the word may be fulfilled which is written in their law: **They hated me without cause.** This is seen as strange, since Jesus ought to know that this phrase is found in the Psalms, and not the Torah. Indeed, it's nigh impossible, according to any view of Jesus, however unforgiving, that Jesus would confuse something in the Psalms with something in the Torah—assuming by 'Law' He meant the 'Torah.' It's also not possible that Jesus would refer to '*the* Law' as '*their* Law' if He meant the Torah. However, something in what [Jews themselves identify as the Oral Law,](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_Torah) the Talmud (which Jesus could definitely be imagined to have—Cf. Mt 15:9—deridingly called '*their* Law') in 'The Day [of Atonement]' (Yomha 9b) could be what He is referring to... prophetically: >מקדש ראשון מפני מה חרב? מפני שלשה דברים שהיו בו: עבודה זרה, וגלוי עריות, ושפיכות דמים. . . . אבל מקדש שני, שהיו עוסקין בתורה ובמצות וגמילות חסדים מפני מה חרב? מפני שהיתה בו שנאת חנם. ללמדך ששקולה שנאת חנם כנגד שלש עבירות: עבודה זרה, גלוי עריות, ושפיכות דמים > >Why was the First Temple destroyed? Because of three evils in it: idolatry, sexual immorality and bloodshed . . . But **why was the Second Temple destroyed,** seeing that during the time it stood people occupied themselves with Torah, with observance of precepts, and with the practice of charity? **Because during the time it stood, hatred without cause prevailed.** This is to teach you that hatred without cause is deemed as grave as all the three sins of idolatry, sexual immorality and bloodshed together. Now we know that Jesus pretty openly taught that the destruction of the Temple/punishment of the Jews was because of their killing of Him: >**Luke 20:9-19 (DRB)** > >And he began to speak to the people this parable: A certain man planted a vineyard, and let it out to husbandmen: and he was abroad for a long time. 10 And at the season he sent a servant to the husbandmen, that they should give him of the fruit of the vineyard. Who, beating him, sent him away empty. 11 And again he sent another servant. But they beat him also, and treating him reproachfully, sent him away empty. 12 And again he sent the third: and they wounded him also, and cast him out. 13 Then the lord of the vineyard said: **What shall I do? I will send my beloved son: it may be, when they see him, they will reverence him.** 14 Whom when the husbandmen saw, they thought within themselves, saying: **This is the heir, let us kill him,** that the inheritance may be ours. 15 So casting him out of the vineyard, they killed him. **What therefore will the lord of the vineyard do to them? 16 He will come, and will destroy these husbandmen, and will give the vineyard to others.** Which they hearing, said to him: God forbid. 17 But he looking on them, said: What is this then that is written, The stone, which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner? 18 Whosoever shall fall upon that stone, shall be bruised: and upon whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder. > >19 And **the chief priests and the scribes** sought to lay hands on him the same hour: but they feared the people, **for they knew that he spoke this parable to them.** Question -- Could Jesus have prophetically been tying a prophetic Psalm (Ps. 69) in with a prophecy of His own: that the Jews would even write this in their own Talmud? Thanks in advance.

What is the Greek word that starts with ***a*** that means nonessential points of faith? It is contrasted with essential dogma, and refers to areas of disagreement which are not critical for Christian faith. I keep wanting to say *anaphora*, which is obviously incorrect, but I imagine it sounds something like that.

The International Committee on Biblical Inerrancy has set out two magisterial documents related to an understanding of inerrancy: the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978) and the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics (1981). Earlier (1959), the Christian Reformed Church of North America settled on a definition and understanding of Biblical infallibility . According to one member of the Council on Infallibility: > The committee discussed at some length the usefulness of the word *inerrant* to describe the Bible. We concluded that it is not the most felicitous term to express the unique character of the Scriptures. We agreed that *infallible* and *trustworthy* fit the nature of the Bible more appropriately. The rest of his article speaks in general terms on why they rejected the term, but I'm looking for more than that. I'd like to understand specifically what about the reliability and authority of the Bible the ICBI affirms and denies that the CRCNA would not affirm and deny, and vice-versa.

In the 4th Dogma of Assumption Mary was assumed "body & soul" into heaven. Scriptures tells us nothing defiled shall enter the Kingdom of God...(Rev21:27) And also Gospel of Luke 24:36-ff narrates and describes the "resurrected body" of Jesus. Jesus Appears to the Disciples >36 While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” > >37 They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. 38 He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 39 Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.” > >40 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. 41 And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?” 42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43 and he took it and ate it in their presence. > >44 He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” My question is, Did Mary experienced or was given by God a "glorified body" while on earth? I am looking for Catholic Church teaching or Church Fathers beliefs on Mary's glorified body that hinted similarity on Jesus resurrected body.

At the Wedding at Cana, we found that Jesus was only on the sideline, and not looking after the needs of the people, as Jesus revealed His thought, "My hour has not yet come." While in the case of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the gospel described Her as looking after the needs of the people, and had seen that there was no more wine. Mary then, knowing that Jesus is fully man and fully God, instead of pleading to God the Father, She pleaded to Jesus, looking at Him as fully God, and can do miracle at that hour. Others might ask, did Mary really knew Jesus as fully God? Luke Gospel will say Yes!. Remember at the Annunciation, St. Gabriel revealed Jesus incarnation, and St. Elizabeth proclaimed that Jesus is Lord, the God of the chosen people at the Old Testament. Thereby, Mary knew that Jesus nature, was fully man and fully God and co do miracles even the impossible. >Three days later there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee. The mother of Jesus was there, and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited. When they ran out of wine, since the wine provided for the wedding was all finished, the mother of Jesus said to him, "They have no wine." Jesus said, "Woman, why turn to me? My hour has not come yet." His mother said to the servants, "Do whatever he tells you." There were six stone water jars standing there, meant for the ablutions that are customary among the Jews: each could hold twenty or thirty gallons. Jesus said to the servants, "Fill the jars with water", and they filled them to the brim. "Draw some out now" he told them "and take it to the steward." They did this; the steward tasted the water, and it had turned into wine. Having no idea where it came from - only the servants who had drawn the water knew - the steward called the bridegroom and said, "People generally serve the best wine first, and keep the cheaper sort till the guests have had plenty to drink; but you have kept the best wine till now." *This was the first of the signs given by Jesus: it was given at Cana in Galilee. He let his glory be seen, and his disciples believed in him. (Jn 2, 1-11)* **The question is, who among the Protestant churches and Bible Alone group who acknowledged and saw the mediation or intercessory action of the Blessed Virgin Mary?** This question stems from the Protestant and Bible Alone Believers, who ignored the intercessory role of Mary in the salvation plan of God, and specifically to those, who claimed the bible passage insisting, there's only "One Mediator" between man and God, and that is Jesus only. The Wedding at Cana, debunked this interpretation, showing Mary pleading and mediating in behalf of the People of God, knowing fully, that Jesus is fully God.

Most Christians believe that Enoch, Elijah, Moses, the thief on the cross who was pardoned by Jesus and all the saints who were resurrected during the crucifixion were all translated(assumed into heaven body and soul) to heaven. What is the Biblical evidence for this belief?

In an answer based on Catholicism (on the relevance of current events to the second coming of Christ) it was stated : >Peter has spoken through Leo XIV and will continue to do so. I had not seen such a statement before. In scripture, it is recorded that Moses and Elijah appeared on the mount of transfiguration and spoke, *but it was only to the Lord that they did so.* And I suggest that it cannot be dogmatically stated that this was not a *symbolic apparition*, rather than a personal appearance. Nor do I think that Saul's apparently seeing the witch of Endor can be *dogmatically stated* as a definite occurrence rather than 'anecdotal evidence' or an hallucination. Sorcery is *demonic* in origin and deceptive in execution, I would also point out. In scripture, it is recorded that Jesus recounts the words of Abraham (from paradise) that 'between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence' indicating that passage *between hades and paradise* cannot occur. (The only reason we are aware of Abraham's words is through *Jesus Christ the Son of God*, not by any other means.) --------------------- Note : I am presuming that the statement does not merely say that the words of Peter *as written in scripture*, being *spoken* by the Pope, are *as though Peter spoke them*. I am presuming that the statement, as delivered in context, is saying that Peter, personally, is speaking through the Pope, in a manner of inspired communication.

An occasion on which we see the disciples worshiping Jesus is described in Mtt 28:17 : > Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had appointed for them. When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some doubted. That happened after the Resurrection. Even though Jesus had appeared to three of them in glory during the Transfiguration, they did not worship him, but only got frightened (Lk 9:28-36; Mk 9:2-8; Mtt 17:1-7 ). Matthew goes on to say in 17:9 > As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus instructed them, “Don’t tell anyone what you have seen, until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead.” Of course, we also see Jesus being worshiped after his miraculous walk over the waters , in Mtt 14:32-33 : > And when they climbed into the boat, the wind died down. Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.” One reason why the disciples did not worship Jesus in public before the Resurrection could be that it would appear blasphemous to an onlooker. But the Gospels do not mention whether the disciples wanted to worship Jesus in public before the Resurrection and whether he prohibited them . My question therefore is: Did Jesus forbid the disciples from worshiping him in public before the Resurrection ? Inputs from any denomination are welcome .

Various theories for the location of Mount Sinai have been suggested. One is Jebel Al-Lawz in Saudi Arabia, which was in Moses's time part of Midian. The most popular location is in the south of the peninsula of Sinai at either Jabal Musa or Jabal St Catherine. St Catherine is the higher of these two peaks. What is the evidence for any of these, or any other, mountain peaks?

I've heard a lot of religious chatter concerning what exact "sea" was parted by God to allow Moses and the Israelites to cross out of Egypt. Seems productions by the History Channel and other such sources have made statements about it but they also talked about the Mayan end of the world ideas. I know my bible says "Red Sea" but I've heard that could be a mistranslation. I was just wondering if there was any solid evidence to support either location? Such as archaeological findings or other sources. > "18 So God led the people around by way of the wilderness of the Red > Sea." -Exodus 13:18

**Incorporating *"biblical foods"* into our christian culture, either at home or in our Christian communities?** For this question **biblical foods** should mean foods that come straight from the Scriptures. I realize that various Christian Churches and communities are more or less tradtion minded and some are more liturgically established. With this in mind I will like to know how various Christian Churches and communities could be more biblical food based according to their perspective traditions. For example on the Fouth Sunday of Lent in the Roman Catholic Church they have the readings of which includes the Woman at the Well. Wikipedia explains a local tradition that takes place in Mexico on this date > In Oaxaca, Mexico, a celebration of the Samaritan woman takes place on the fourth Friday of Lent. The custom of the day involves churches, schools, and businesses giving away fruit drinks to passers-by. - [Samaritan woman at the well](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaritan_woman_at_the_well) What other possibilities is there that churches could incorporate into Christian culture that are associated with particular biblical readings of the readings of the day on Sunday services (mass) or major feast days (Solemnities)? For the sake of defining what biblical foods is for this question. Biblical foods are any food or drink mentioned in Scriptures, whether a real biblical food or ordinary food mentioned in a specific scriptural narrative. I would like to hear responses of various Christian denominations on this subject matter if possible on how they might incorporate foods to commemorate biblical events?

Jesus and the apostles had both the Old Testament, and the Jewish tradition. Nowhere in Scripture does Jesus or any of the apostles appeal to the Jewish traditions. In fact, it appears to be the opposite by Jesus continuously admonishing the Pharisees and the Apostles. The Pharisees accused Jesus and the apostles of “breaking the traditions” (Matthew 15:2). Jesus responded with a rebuke: “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?” (Matthew 15:3). The manner in which Jesus and the apostles distinguished between the Scriptures and tradition is an example for the church. Jesus specifically rebukes treating the “commandments of men” as doctrines (Matthew 15:9). How do Catholics justify placing "Holy tradition" up with the Word of the Lord? Even if their traditions do not contradict the Word, Jesus never placed any traditions in such a Holy place as the Word, which is "God breathed.". Using circular reasoning by quoting tradition, whether from Jewish traditions in the Torah or Catholic tradition, is not sufficient to justify this belief.

The following is his whole quote. >I say to the whole world, receive the truth, no matter who presents it to you. >Take up the Bible, compare the religion of the Latter-day Saints with it, and see if it will stand the test. (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 16, p.46 ) With this challenge in view I have a lot of questions but I will only focus on one question? Joseph Smith stated, "I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see. … It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God and to know...that he was once a man like us.... (“King Follett Discourse ,” Journal of Discourses 6:3-4 , emphasis added) My question is why does Moroni 8:18 and D & C 20:17 refute what Smith stated? Moroni 8:18 : >18 For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity. Doctrine and Covenants 20:17 : >17 By these things we know that there is a God in heaven, who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God, the framer of heaven and earth, and all things which are in them; Since God is unchangeable and eternal according to LDS writings how do you reconcile this with Joseph Smith stating he "Will refute that idea and will take away the veil?"

I understand that some Protestant churches prohibit the use of musical instruments in their worship services. What is the specific biblical basis for this practice, or, if there is no specific biblical basis, what is the principle behind this practice? Is it an issue of mixing musical instruments with vocal music? Can they have one or the other, but not both? Which churches follow this teaching?

Assuming the arrow of time as a premise that the past comes before the present, and the present comes before the future, temporarily. Could there have been a time where there was nothing before the origin of the something Christians call their God? Is there a universal explanation between the Christian faiths or is there a difference in protestant and catholic faiths in there explanation of the physical manifestation of the arrow of time and its consequence to God coming from ex Nihilo

Duplicate of [LDS](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/24058/22319) but from Catholic perspective Bible verses: Isaiah 43:10 >Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me. Isaiah 44:6 >'I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me. Isaiah 44:8 >Is there any God besides Me, Or is there any other Rock? I know of none. Isaiah 45:5 >I am Yahweh, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God. Isaiah 45:14 >Surely, God is with you, and there is none else, No other God. Isaiah 45:18 >I am Yahweh, and there is none else. Isaiah 45:21 >Is it not I, Yahweh? And there is no other God besides Me, A righteous God and a Savior; There is none except Me. Isaiah 46:9 >I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me From what I've been reading Catholic catechisms seem to sometimes align with LDS beliefs (at least first reading). CCC 460 >460 The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature": "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God." "**For the Son of God became man so that we might become God**." "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that **he, made man, might make men gods**." I believe this quotes On the Incarnation, by Athanasius (pg 60) >He, indeed, assumed humanity that **we might become God**. He manifested Himself by means of a body in order that we might perceive the Mind of the unseen Father. He endured shame from men that we might inherit immortality Is immortality the only way man might be gods in Catholic tradition/belief or is there some other meaning/interpretation that I'm missing? There are other footnotes in the CCC but they don't seem to be working, is there another text that expounds on what this is saying?

I am a Wiccan looking into converting into Christianity. Doing some research, I know that the Lord is against witchcraft. So why is there even such a thing as a Christian Witch, and what are they? There does not seem to be an abundance of formal literature on 'Christian witches'. There are various threads on Reddit and Quora.Here is a blog maintained by a self-professing Christian witch, which could help clarify the question and below is a question asked of the blogger: > I am a Lokean, and have been working with Loki for almost 10 years. I also work with Aphrodite, and have been for about 1.5 years. My practice is very eclectic and I go where my heart takes me. Feeling a pull towards Jesus recently has been wonderful but also very confusing, as all resources I have found within the Christian Witch sphere seem to be from the perspective of Christians discovering witchcraft, rather than an established Pagan wanting to work with Jesus/with the concepts of Christianity.

It is known that Wiccan 'fluffy bunnies' are the types of people who self-identify as "Wiccans" but really don't go anywhere beyond self-identification and using stereotypical associations of Wicca. They have been criticized for not being true adherents of Wicca, merely treating Wicca as a fad, instead of taking the religion seriously and researching what Wicca actually stands for. In essence, they are people who just don't do their research and wish to remain ignorant, refusing to think and critique their own faith. Is there a Christian equivalent to the Wiccan 'fluffy bunnies'? > ..."fluffy bunny" or the "old lady brigade" have been used in the > Wiccan and Neo-Pagan community to describe adherents that they view as > superficial or faddish. Common descriptions given by people > using the term include elements such as the practitioner deliberately > choosing to emphasize goodness, light, eclecticism and elements taken > from the New Age movement over elements seen as too dark, as well as > the practitioner appearing to follow the religion as a fad. > The term "fluffy bunny" became more prevalent in the 1990s after it > was used to describe a depiction of the Wiccan religion in the > television series Buffy the Vampire Slayer. The show, which featured a > Wiccan coven, raised ire from practitioners of Wicca who believe that > the coven in the show reinforced stereotypes.

Millions of dollars have been made off the **Left Behind** books and movies. I would like to ask who was the first person to associate Matthew 24:40-41 with the rapture?