Some Christian interpretations connect human knowledge with moral decline, often drawing from passages such as Genesis 3 (the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil), Ecclesiastes 1:18 (“For with much wisdom comes much sorrow”), or 1 Corinthians 8:1 (“knowledge puffs up, but love builds up”). Are there any recognized Christian denominations or theological traditions that explicitly teach—or have historically taught—that an increase in human knowledge (scientific, philosophical, or technological) directly leads to an increase in immorality or moral corruption?

Was Pentecost 50 days after the feast of unleavened bread? Christ was crucified on the beginning of the feast of unleavened bread, and I was told that it was 50 days either after his resurrection or after his crucifixion.

Here is an example of a context with **"outpouring of the Holy Spirit"** (phrase in bold): > #### Bill McLeod > > Wilbert “Bill” Laing McLeod (1919 - 2012). Canadian Baptist pastor and revivalist born in Winnipeg, Manitoba. Converted at 22 in 1941, he left a sales career to enter ministry, studying at Manitoba Baptist Bible Institute. Ordained in 1946, he pastored in Rosthern, Saskatchewan, and served as a circuit preacher in Strathclair, Shoal Lake, and Birtle. From 1962 to 1981, he led Ebenezer Baptist Church in Saskatoon, growing it from 175 to over 1,000 members. Central to the 1971 Canadian Revival, sparked by the Sutera Twins’ crusade, his emphasis on prayer and repentance drew thousands across denominations, lasting seven weeks. McLeod authored When Revival Came to Canada and recorded numerous sermons, praised by figures like Paul Washer. Married to Barbara Robinson for over 70 years, they had five children: Judith, Lois, Joanna, Timothy, and Naomi. His ministry, focused on scriptural fidelity and revival, impacted Canada and beyond through radio and conferences. > > #### Sermon Summary > > In this sermon, the speaker shares a powerful testimony of a meeting where the glory of God was experienced. It started with one person praying and soon others joined, resulting in a powerful **outpouring of the Holy Spirit**. The meeting lasted for over four hours, with people confessing their sins and seeking God's presence. The speaker emphasizes the need for the glory of God to return to our churches and lives, and encourages repentance, prayer, faith, and identification with Christ as the simple yet costly price to pay for experiencing God's glory. > > https://www.sermonindex.net/sermons/XuEeri0s1gBZfmHq Here is an example of a context with **"filling of the Holy Spirit"** (phrase in bold): >#### God's Word Enhances the Work of the Spirit > >A beam of light doesn't have to shine down on my house for the Spirit to fill me. I don't have to jump three times and turn in circles or say the right thing or have the name John to know the power of the Holy Spirit. I simply need to pray, seek to align my heart with God’s, and fill my mind with His Word. > >It isn't complicated, but that doesn’t mean it’s effortless: a daily **filling of the Holy Spirit** requires a daily filling of the Word of God. In contrast, I firmly believe a lack of Spirit-filled living is due to a lack of enthusiasm for the Bible, along with mediocre attempts to fight sin. But if God's Word is filling us, then the Spirit of God will too. > > https://www.reviveourhearts.com/blog/what-does-it-mean-to-be-filled-with-the-spirit/ From the first context, **"outpouring of the Holy Spirit"** appears to convey the idea of a dramatic, identifiable event, one that might even be highlighted on a calendar. From the second context, **"filling of the Holy Spirit"** seems to describe a more ordinary, ongoing condition that Christians are encouraged to pursue daily. Is this distinction commonly understood among Christians? What is an overview of how major Christian theologies generally understand the concepts of the **"outpouring of the Holy Spirit"** and the **"filling of the Holy Spirit"**?

In the Acts of the Apostles we find that the early believers were every day visiting the temple and afterwards meeting in each others homes. >Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved. (Acts 2:46-47, NIV) If the Old ceremonial ways of the Old Testament were finished at the death of Christ (or as other conjecture after Pentecost) why did the church still attend temple gatherings? Was it because they were not fully aware of the full implication of the New Covenant and may have even offered sacrifices? Was it because they just wanted to get together and evangelize their brethren? Was it some mishmash of both reasons plus possibly more? What was going on in their heads?

Many Christian traditions argue Psalm 22 was written by King David (circa 1000 BCE). It is often viewed as a prophetic lament foreshadowing Jesus' crucifixion. In exegetical scholarship, however, Psalm 22 is widely treated as a composite composition. Chronologically the core material is dated to the pre-exilic period (that is, before the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BCE). The appended thanksgiving that celebrates Israel’s rescue is therefore usually regarded as a post-exilic accretion. The final stratum, science tells us, is written during the Hellenistic period (late fourth century BCE). It is a bit uncertain when king David lived, but historians place his life between 10th century BCE and 9th century BCE. If Psalm 22 was written 500 years after King David, he cannot have anything to do with it. Scientific analysis also reveals that it most likely has multiple origins. So how can the 500 years discrepancy between what science and historians tell us, and what most Christian tradition teach regarding attribution?

I lead a church small group that has (for over a decade now) switched off between studies of secondary literature and studies of the Bible. We are just now finishing an Advent devotional full of secondary literature and are heading into a period of reading the Bible, in this case the Gospel of Luke. In the past, we have engaged in informal versions of close reading or inductive Bible study, with leadership shifting from person to person with each new session. The composition of the group had changed, however, so that I've become the de facto leader. One member of our group has expressed interest in learning how to read the Bible closely, not having learned inductive Bible study before (or close reading of literature either). The problem is that I have a PhD in rhetoric, literature, and linguistics and am acutely aware of the fallacy of "inductive" anything. I still do "inductive Bible study," but I don't swallow whole what we identify as "the original intended meaning" of a text. I'm tempted to hand out a guide to "inductive Bible study" (e.g., from Intervarsity Christian Fellowship) but complicate it with some insights about how biblical texts are historically situated, culturally interested, and linguistically bounded--even as they are divinely inspired. I think a straight-up inductive Bible study guide such as Mike McKinlely's *Luke for You* series would be very readable and probably welcome, but I don't want to put ourselves in the position of arguing with theology that I can see from an online summary informs McKinley's "induction." Likewise, although I would like everyone to have access to Ched Myers's *Healing Affluenza and Resisting Plutocracy* (a commentary on Luke), I want us to question Myers's assumptions as well (more consistent with mine and those of the rest of the group). So I think what I need is a counterpart to the simple handout about how to do inductive Bible study, i.e., a short guide to bringing an informed mind to the shortcomings of so-called "induction."

Below are several excerpts from Christian websites that discuss the idea of "paying the price" in a spiritual context: > In this sermon, the speaker shares a powerful testimony of a meeting where the glory of God was experienced. It started with one person praying and soon others joined, resulting in a powerful outpouring of the Holy Spirit. The meeting lasted for over four hours, with people confessing their sins and seeking God's presence. The speaker emphasizes the need for the glory of God to return to our churches and lives, and encourages repentance, prayer, faith, and identification with Christ **as the simple yet costly price to pay for experiencing God's glory**. > > https://www.sermonindex.net/sermons/XuEeri0s1gBZfmHq > God is a God of process. The major problem with this generation is that men are not ready to **pay the price** to have spiritual power and experiences. But the truth is, if it is genuine, there will be **a price attached to it**. Jesus told the disciples in Luke 24:49 to tarry in Jerusalem until they were endued with power from on high. So, where did you get the version of your divine power without divine process? **Anything valuable always has a price tag**. If you see anything that is valuable, that is cheap, it is either somebody paid for it, or it is stolen. **Authentic power has a price tag**. > > There is a **price you will have to pay** to walk in the authentic power of God. If you see a man that works in supposed power and you don’t see a price in his life, it’s false power he’s working with. The man that God will work with must **pay the price** for spiritual experiences. Specific callings and specific anointing call for specific **prices that we must constantly be paying**. May the Lord find you dependable to carry His power these last days. > > https://spiritmeat.net/2024/06/22/22-june-2024-the-price-for-spiritual-power-and-spiritual-experiences-pay-it-mark-314/ > Every day we need to be watchful by **paying the price to buy the Spirit as the golden oil** so that we may supply the churches with the Spirit for the testimony of Jesus and be rewarded by the Lord to participate in the marriage dinner of the Lamb. > > Our urgent need today is to gain more of the Spirit; we need to live a life of **buying** an extra portion of the Spirit to saturate our entire being. > > Day by day we need to live such a life, a life of **paying the price** to gain the Spirit not only in our spirit but also in our soul, being saturated with the Spirit in our vessel. If we have a day when we don’t **pay the price** to gain the saturating Spirit, that is a wasted day; we do not want to have any wasted days! > > For us to gain more of the Spirit in our soul we need to **pay a price**; we need to **pay the price** of giving up the world, dealing with the self, loving the Lord above all things, and counting all things loss for Christ. > > Day by day we need to **pay the price** of losing our soul life and denying the things that we want to do so that we may pray more, even persevere in prayer and watch unto prayer, so that we may gain more of the Spirit. > > If we don’t **pay the price to buy the oil today**, we will have to pay it after we are resurrected; sooner or later, we will have to **pay the price** – so why not today, why not in this age? > > https://agodman.com/paying-price-buy-spirit-oil-vessel-word-prayer/ > The wise virgins told the foolish virgins to go buy their own oil. When the Bible speaks of the oil, it refers to the Holy Spirit. You may ask, “But, how is it possible to buy the Holy Spirit?” > > Jesus is referring to a person having to **pay the price**, which means denying their will, obeying the Word of God, being faithful, sacrificing and keeping constant watch. > > All those who truly want the presence of God should be aware that **there is a price to pay**. The wise virgins, certainly, **paid the price** (sacrificed) with the time they waited for the bridegroom. Surely, they prepared themselves by investing in their spiritual lives through prayer, fasts, consecration and surrender, not allowing the light of the Spirit to burn out. > > On the other hand, there are those who aren’t willing to **pay that price**. They live according to their fleshly desires, refuse to stop living in sin, are in the church but far from God, have the lamp, which is faith, but don’t have the oil, which is the Holy Spirit. > > https://www.universal.org/en/bispo-macedo/pay-the-price/ Is the idea of "paying the price" for greater spiritual power, anointing, or a deeper experience of God a common teaching across all Christian denominations, or is it emphasized primarily within certain groups? For example, is it widely taught that Christians must *pay a price* to receive more of the Spirit, more anointing, or greater spiritual authority? What is the biblical basis for this teaching?

To whom or what is Jesus referring in this passage when he speaks of “something greater than Solomon”? > The queen of the South will rise up at the judgment with this > generation and condemn it, for she came from the ends of the earth to > hear the wisdom of Solomon, and behold, something greater than Solomon > is here. (Matthew 12:42, ESV) I have always assumed it was Jesus, but much of Matthew 12 is about the Holy Spirit. Solomon was a wise counselor and the Holy Spirit is the Counselor that Jesus would send. Do any theologians hold that Jesus is speaking of the Holy Spirit and not himself?

I'm aware that Cessationists do not believe in spiritual gifts. However, how do they view the process of being filled with the Holy Spirit? Tozer's How to be filled with the holy spirit defines the process as a very dramatic, sudden process. Do Cessationists also take this view, or do they view it as a more gradual process? ____ #### Appendix - List of verses on "being filled with the Holy Spirit". - And Jesus, **full of the Holy Spirit**, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the wilderness [Luke 4:1, ESV] - 8 But as for me, **I am filled with power, with the Spirit of the Lord**, and with justice and might, to declare to Jacob his transgression and to Israel his sin. [Micah 3:8, ESV] - 18 And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, **but be filled with the Spirit**, [Ephesians 5:18, ESV] - When the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in one place. 2 And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. 3 And divided tongues as of fire appeared to them and rested on each one of them. 4 **And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit** and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance. [Acts 2:1-4, ESV] - 8 Then Peter, **filled with the Holy Spirit**, said to them, “Rulers of the people and elders, [Acts 4:8, ESV] - 31 And when they had prayed, the place in which they were gathered together was shaken, **and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit** and continued to speak the word of God with boldness. [Acts 4:31, ESV] - 3 Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, **full of the Spirit** and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty. 4 But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” 5 And what they said pleased the whole gathering, and they chose Stephen, **a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit**, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolaus, a proselyte of Antioch. [Acts 6:3-5, ESV] - 54 Now when they heard these things they were enraged, and they ground their teeth at him. 55 But he, **full of the Holy Spirit**, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. [Acts 7:54, ESV] - 17 So Ananias departed and entered the house. And laying his hands on him he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road by which you came has sent me so that you may regain your sight **and be filled with the Holy Spirit**.” [Acts 9:17, ESV] - 24 for he was a good man, **full of the Holy Spirit** and of faith. And a great many people were added to the Lord. [Acts 11:24, ESV] - 9 But Saul, who was also called Paul, **filled with the Holy Spirit**, looked intently at him [Acts 13:9, ESV] - 52 And the disciples were **filled with joy and with the Holy Spirit**. [Acts 13:52, ESV] - 15 for he will be great before the Lord. And he must not drink wine or strong drink, **and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit**, even from his mother's womb. [Luke 1:15, ESV] - 67 And his father Zechariah was **filled with the Holy Spirit** and prophesied, saying [Luke 1:67, ESV]

Based on the definition and translation of magi or “wise men” discussed in this article: https://www.mondaymorningmemo.com/magi-explained/ Matthew records the following: > After Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of King Herod, wise men from the east arrived unexpectedly in Jerusalem, saying, ‘Where is He who has been born King of the Jews?’ (Matt 2:1–2) If the Magi were indeed an eastern priestly or scholarly class, their arrival in Judea would not have been merely a religious curiosity but potentially a significant foreign and political and pagan presence. This seems especially relevant in light of sources such as: https://www.khouse.org/personal_update/articles/2021/history-magi https://biblearchaeologyreport.com/2022/12/22/who-were-the-magi/ which argue that the Magi held, or were associated with, considerable political as well as religious influence. Given this background, it appears unusual that King Herod would be so welcoming to these foreigners. Even more striking is that he seems to take their claim seriously enough to become “deeply troubled” (Matt 2:3), rather than dismissing it outright. At the same time, the old testament describes God's influence in the eastern world. For example, Isaiah explicitly names Cyrus of Persia as God’s chosen instrument (Isa 44:28–45:1), and Daniel served in high office under Babylonian and Persian rulers and prophesied about a coming anointed ruler. My question is: Am I correct to conclude that God’s influence was already well established in the eastern regions through earlier prophets (such as Isaiah and Daniel), such that even King Herod would have regarded the Magi as credible or divinely significant figures? Or does the Matthean text indicate that Herod’s response was primarily political rather than theological?

Inspired by [*Can the Church institute a marital age disparity limit impediment?*](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/111248/can-the-church-institute-a-marital-age-disparity-limit-impediment) , a more general question is "*Can the Church …?*". That is, is there any law that the Church is *not* allowed to make. Many countries have constitutions based strictly on what the government is *not* allowed to do; the American Constitution perhaps being the best example. But is there anything limiting what laws the Roman Church can enact for its members?

---------- God sent Jonah to prophesy to the Babylonian city of Nineveh, which he did with the greatest of reluctance, thereby effecting the largest mass conversion of a city up to that time. It's possible that Nineveh was a "random" city, but that's probably not the case, given its size and strategic importance. Instead, what made Nineveh significant enough to be chosen in God's eyes? Was Nineveh the "second" city of Babylon, after the capital, in the manner of New York City versus Washington D.C.? Did Nineveh have a "Sodom and Gomorrah" reputation, making it the worst city of Babylon? Was Nineveh unusually open and "cosmopolitan," thereby making it the easiest city to convert? Or was there some other reason that I have overlooked?

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 am looking for a good overview/introduction to atonement theory that covers multiple points of view so that I can better understand the difference between the various different theories. I am not looking for someone to outline them here, as I would like a more thorough answer than what would be reasonable in a SE answer. I am also looking for something beyond what Wikipedia provides, as frankly it is not very helpful. Perhaps a book that devotes a chapter or two to an academic presentation of several different views, but doesn't (strongly) argue for or against any of them, would be best.

I've been trying to find more than just snippets and pieces of the dead sea scrolls for my research and reading. I've found this one "https://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/ " But it is a pain to read on this website though, and anything better would be greatly appreciated. A transcription is not what I'm looking for... pictures of the original fragments. Thank you in advance :)

**New International Version** >To the one who is victorious, I will give > the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I was victorious and > sat down with my Father on his throne. **New Living Translation** >Those who are victorious will sit with me on my > throne, just as I was victorious and sat with my Father on his throne. **English Standard Version** >The one who conquers, I will grant him to sit > with me on my throne, as I also conquered and sat down with my Father > on his throne. From what I can gather, there are two thrones spoken of here. How do modalist sects explain this verse?

Why is everything 1/3 in Revelation? It comes up with the four angels, and the dragon: > 8:7 The first [angel's trumpet] sounded, ... and a third of the earth was burned up, and a third of the trees were burned up, and all the green grass was burned up. 8 The second angel sounded, ... and a third of the sea became blood, 9 and a third of the creatures which were in the sea and had life, died; and a third of the ships were destroyed. 10 The third angel sounded, and a great star fell from heaven, burning like a torch, and it fell on a third of the rivers and on the springs of waters. 11 The name of the star is called Wormwood; and a third of the waters became wormwood, and many men died from the waters, because they were made bitter. 12 The fourth angel sounded, and a third of the sun and a third of the moon and a third of the stars were struck, so that a third of them would be darkened and the day would not shine for a third of it, and the night in the same way. > > 9:15 And the four angels, who had been prepared for the hour and day and month and year, were released, so that they would kill a third of mankind. 18 A third of mankind was killed by these three plagues, by the fire and the smoke and the brimstone which proceeded out of their mouths. > > 12:4 And [the dragon's] tail swept away a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth.

I have heard the title "Mother of God" in connection with the "Hail Mary" prayer that(Ave Maria) is recited by Catholics. However, I have never heard this term used in any Protestant setting. (From the comment by Bobo, we find that the Orthodox also refer to Mary in this way; *Theotokos* in Greek literally means "Birth-giver of God", as well as *Bohoroditza* in Russian. Both of these terms are widely used in their respective Orthodox groups). Why, then, do Protestants not use this title that appears to be so common in Catholicism?

One of the defining characteristics of Dispensationalism is the distinction between Israel and the Church. Israel, meaning the Jewish people, was given specific promises regarding the land of Israel, which are not applicable to the Church in any way but to the Jews only. As I understand it, Dispensationalists believe these will be fulfilled during the Millennium. I am still trying to wrap my head around the Dispensationalist idea of Israelology, by which they mean the study of the Biblical concept of "Israel." They would define it as an ethnic/genetic category, as the descendants of Israel, a.k.a. Jacob. In Orthodox Judaism, one is considered a Jew if your mother is Jewish or if you are a Halahically valid convert to Judaism, i.e. it is both matrilineal and by conversion. My understanding is that Dispensationalism, at least in its classical form, would exclude converts to Judaism from their definition of "Israel" (see for instance this article ). **What is unclear to me is whether physical descent is defined (by Dispensationalists) matrilineally or patrilineally or some mixture. For instance, if my maternal grandfather and/or paternal grandmother are part of Israel, am I?** I have not been able to find a source that gives a well-defined answer to this question. ChatGPT told me that the Dispensationalist theologian Arnold Fruchtenbaum, head of Ariel Ministries argued in his book *Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology* for a patrilineal-only definition of Israel, but without having a copy of that book, I haven't been able to track down any explicit statement to that effect. The quote from Jon Mark Ruthven cited in this article suggests that Ruthven might include either matrilineal or patrilineal descent: > The tradition of identifying a Jew as one whose mother was Jew may represent an attempt to preserve the genetic identity of Jews in the Diaspora. Before that, Jews were those whose fathers were Jews. During the dispersion, oppression of the Jews made it difficult to know who someone’s father was, due to the frequent rape of Jewish women by their oppressors, in times of war and peace. Conversions to Judaism, of course, complicate this purely genetic model somewhat. But the children of these concerts will marry Jews and raise their children to do the same. So Jewish genes soon predominate. However, the quote doesn't define what "Jewish genes" means. It surely does not imply that a genetic Jew is someone whose genetic material is mostly derived from the patriarchs, as that would almost certainly not be applicable to anyone at all who is separated from them by more than two generations. He also does not say whether the shift from patrilineal to matrilineal was legitimate as regards the covenants. To be clear, I am asking about the full Israelite identity, as Dispensationalists often separate partaking fully in the covenants verses spiritual blessings only. I am asking about those who are full partakers in the OT covenants -- is it common among Dispensationalists to believe that this is exclusively for those who are patrilineally descended from Jacob? How is this Israelite identity determined?

Alternatively: How many books were included in early Bible compilations and then later removed? A book in the bible, to my understanding, is one of the many named divisions in the Old and New Testament. Mathew, Mark, Luke and John would be 4 different books, and each of Paul's letters to the churchs in the different cities would each be a 'book' There are a certain number of Books in the King James Version, but how many other 'books' or writings did scholars/historians/religious leaders have access to but for one reason or another, were never included in the more modern Bible compilations. (perhaps due to controversy, or translation disputes, or issues in verifying the author) If we could go back and add all of these books and letters to the Old and New Testament today, how many books would the Bible have? This questions comes out of curiousity after seeing books in a Catholic printing of the bible that did not exist in the King James version. I'm assuming the Apostles or whoever compiled the Bible books, didn't have the whole structure and order down in the exact way they printed now.