The core message of the Bible is clear. Treat others with love and compassion. Help those in need. Why do so many insist on a Bible that is literal, inspired, inerrant, or infallible? The original texts have all been lost. We only have the end result of hundreds of generations of copies, with thousands variations. To claim our current bible comes from God requires a belief in a supernatural influence that goes beyond the original authors. It must also apply to the thousands of copiers over hundreds of years (and many of those copies disagree), the hundreds of clergy who disagreed and ultimately split the church over which books and versions made the cut, and the thousands of translators who have given us over 850 English versions of the Bible. How do the various denomination, in the thousands, defend their specific version as the "One and only word of God"?. Is there a denomination or group that simply says, "Let's just do unto others, and leave it at that?

**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?

1 Corinthians 7:4 says: > The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. If a man sleeps with another woman without his wife's knowledge or consent, that would be adultery. But what if he does so at the **behest** of his wife, with her knowledge and consent, even instigation, as Abraham did with Hagar at Sarah's suggestion? Is he then relinquishing "authority" over his own body but yielding it to his wife? I'm interested in an _overview_ of the views of various Christian denominations on this, or other forms of consensual (on the part of both/all parties) open marriages - are there any that consider them to be okay?

One New Testament exhortation is "judge not, lest you be judged." On the other hand, Romans 3:23 says, "For all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God." Is there any Christian sect, or school of thought believes the converse of the first line, something like "Judge and let yourself be judged?" The core belief here would be something like, "You are a wicked, evil, sinful (wo)man--and so am I." (That's per the Romans passage.) Put another way, is it possible to pass judgment on e.g. Adolf Hitler, knowing that "in his shoes, you or I might have done the same or similar things?" Some commenters below believe that a Christian can, and should judge the actions of others, while refraining from judging the "righteousness" of the person. Another opined that the admonition is against "hypocrisy," that the "converse" is OK, if you realize that "as you deal with my contemners, so with you my grace shall deal." Are either of these ideas in line with what the Scripture says? I am interested in an overview about what various sects say about judging others.

So I have visited various churches of various denominations throughout my life. There was always a somewhat a "They are wrong"-mentality towards other churches/denominations on a theological level. Aka. baptism means this for us and for these reasons, we think baptism is not what X, Y says it is. This is still fine because it just means that there are differences and that people agree to disagree. But when dealing with charismatic or people in "similar" denominations I face more and more what I call flat-out hostility towards the catholic church in particular but it also is directed towards traditional churches like the protestants. I faced statements like: - The pope is a false prophet/teacher - Rome/The Vatican is the whore of Babylon (referring to Revelation 17:1-6) - Priests do the forgiving during the confessions - Catholics are not really Christians (or at least the faith of many is empty) - and a lot more than I care to remember As you can see these kinds of statements are more than just differences in theology where you can say you simply disagree but still can love each other. Now chances are that this kind of thing happens in every denomination towards any other one, but anecdotally speaking, I found the attacks from charismatics (or similar) towards the Catholic Church in particular but also other traditional churches are rising and are particularly underhanded. Of course, the Catholic Church is not without criticism and I am not in this church for my own good reasons, but I still respect them and see Catholics as Christians, Brothers and Sisters in Christ. Hence the question(s): - Is that only my own experience or is there more to it? - If this hostility is prevalent and rising, what are the reasons for it? - (Optional since that might blow up the scope): What strategy do you propose to remedy it on an individual level?

In the Lord’s Prayer (Matthew 6:9), Jesus teaches: “Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name.” The phrase seems to emphasize honoring or sanctifying God’s name. In its original context, this likely carried specific meaning related to reverence for God in Jewish tradition. However, in modern Christianity, practices and interpretations vary across denominations. **How do contemporary Christian traditions interpret and practically apply the idea of “hallowing” God’s name in daily life or worship?** Are there common theological understandings, or does this vary significantly between groups? Answers from multiple traditions (e.g., Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant) are especially helpful.

What does virginity really mean? It appears to me either not to be a categorical variable, or an arbitrary state. My commonplace understanding of virginity would mean that someone had no sex so far; that would lead to virginity being a continuous variable instead of a categorical one, as sex can mean anything between fingering, licking, masturbation, penetration and so on. In the reception history, virginity seems to be a testable claim (see e.g. Jeanne d'Arc). We know now that there is no test for virginity. We could also assume that virginity is a state of mind, but that would make it kind of arbitrary if we do not assume asexuality. There could be another definition, but I doubt that that is how it could be interpreted in our times, and that would be based on the value of a woman for marriage, which would boil down either to the possibility of pregnancy outside of wedlock or sexual experience of any sort, depending on why virginity has such a high value in certain cultures regarding marriage. I am sure I missed something. How do different denominations teach this? What errors did I make in my naive pre-assessment?

According to Wikipedia : > The modern Jewish Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread is seven days, starting with the sunset at the beginning of Nisan 15. and > According to some interpretations, the Gospel of John (e.g., 19:14, 19:31, 19:42) implies that Nisan 14 was the day that Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem. The article mentions that this was the first Easter controversy which petered out around the 4th century and that "Jehovah's Witnesses continue to celebrate the memorial of Christ's death on Nisan 14." Recently, an answer on Biblical Hermeneutics asserted that Jesus was crucified on Nisan 14. This indicates the interpretation is still supported in some modern traditions. Are there any denominations that interpret John 19 as placing the crucifixion on Nisan 14? Do the Jehovah's Witnesses base their memorial on John 19?

### Introduction The Law of Moses/Torah of Moses are a body of commandments and laws which were given to the nation of Israel at Mount Sinai by God. Observant Jews continue to follow these laws as understood through rabbinic traditions and interpretations, while most major Christian denominations more or less do not. The Old Testament/Hebrew Bible contains many scriptures which seem to indicate that the Mosaic law is eternal and uses the same word used elsewhere that describes God being eternal: **Exodus 31:16–17 (NRSV)** indicates observance of the Sabbath is an eternal activity: > Therefore the Israelites shall keep the Sabbath, observing the Sabbath throughout their generations, as a **perpetual covenant**. It is a sign **forever** between me and the Israelites that in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed. **Leviticus 16:29-34** indicates Yom Kippur should be observed forever: > This shall be a statute to you **forever**: In the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you shall humble yourselves ... This shall be an **everlasting statute** for you, to make atonement for the Israelites once in the year for all their sins. And Moses did as the Lord had commanded him. **Deuteronomy 29:29** seems to indicate that all the words of the law should be followed for all time by the children of Israel: > The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the revealed things belong to us and to our children **forever**, to observe all the words of this law. **Jeremiah 31:31** makes a promise that the Jews will have the Mosaic law written on their heart in the future: > The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant that I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt—a covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, says the Lord. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: **I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts**, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. No longer shall they teach one another or say to each other, “Know the Lord,” for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the Lord, for I will forgive their iniquity and remember their sin no more. **Esther 9:28** says the celebration of Purim will never end: > These days should be remembered and kept throughout every generation, in every family, province, and city, and these days of Purim should never fall into disuse among the Jews, nor should the commemoration of these days cease among their descendants ### Question Do Christians believe that the Hebrew Bible prophesied that the commandments it called eternal would one day end? Is there an Old Testament basis for believing observance of the Mosaic law would not be forever? Views from all denominations welcome.

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?

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?

I was wondering which church denominations have a very strong emphasis in the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation since it seems they are linked to one another?

Rabbi Yosef Massas (1892–1974) writes in responsa *Mayim Chaim* vol. 2 (*Yoreh Deah* §108:2) that he spoke to a Christian (possibly Catholic) priest who claimed that they only worship the One God and that when they say that Jesus was a son of *Elohim* this means "angel" not "God". Accordingly, this sect believed that Jesus was a son of an angel, not son of God. Does anybody know of a Christian denomination/sect which fits this description? (Rabbi Massas lived in Morocco and in Algeria if that helps)

Are there denominations that emphasize apologetic sermons?

Of course many (if not most) denominations believe that what they teach and believe as doctrine critical to salvation is, in fact, critical to salvation. Most denominations also teach and believe many doctrines that they will admit as being 'secondary' and debatable or uncertain. Often a doctrine critical in one denomination is secondary in another. In my experience most official members of particular denominations, while not asserting that only they are completely correct, would be comfortable as classifying their denomination as 'the most correct'. Most folks would not assert that *only* their denomination can attain salvation however, since theirs is *most correct*, they would be comfortable asserting that, when all come to face to face with God, they will all come 'round to that *most correct* view. My question is: Are there denominations that officially teach that God will have respect toward one denomination over another such that one denomination gets a 'blanket pass' based upon membership whereas others might undergo individual evaluation?

So I'm curious if there exist any Christian sects which deny the physical birth of Jesus, i.e. that Jesus was born from Mary. Perhaps such a sect would say that Jesus simply appeared from the Heavens and didn't need anyone to bring him into the world.

[Christian atheism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism) is the practice of following the teaching of the Christian bible, or Jesus, without believing in the existance of God or that Jesus is the son of God. Do Christian atheists have denominations, and if so, what are those denominations? I will accept *either* actual denominations of Christian atheists, or denominations of Christians who believe in God but who nevertheless have members who identify as Christian atheists, however, I am primarily interested in the former.

Are there any Christian denominations that believe certain scientific knowledge is leading humanity away from the truth of God? Especially where that piece of technology has been used for evil exploitation?

There are a multiplicity of contemporary claims regarding Jesus made by folks who refer to themselves as Christian. 1) Jesus was and is both God and man. 2) Jesus was and is only man 3) Jesus was an angel, became a man, and is an angel again. (Or was and is both.) 4) Jesus was a man and now is God. These are, perhaps, not all of the options and certainly not all of the nuances. What I have not come across is a contemporary claim that Jesus was God only and not really man at all. Docetism is one form of the sort of thing I am referring to but I am unaware if Docetism is still alive under the umbrella of claimed Christianity: > In the history of Christianity, docetism (from the Koinē Greek: δοκεῖν/δόκησις dokeĩn "to seem", dókēsis "apparition, phantom"1 ) was the doctrine that the phenomenon of Jesus, his historical and bodily existence, and above all the human form of Jesus, was mere semblance without any true reality.[3] Broadly it is taken as the belief that Jesus only seemed to be human, and that his human form was an illusion. - Wikipedia I have seen articles describing "docetic christianity " wherein the importance of being led of the Spirit becomes so magnified that human responsibility to any sort of biblical hermeneutic disappears: > On this view, it becomes unimportant whether Jesus lived or died according to the Gospel records. What matters is the ethical and existential message of the stories about him; how the story affects my understanding of myself. This begins to sound like what I have seen described as Christian Atheism in practice, but theologically cannot be since Christian Atheism denies the existence of God: Are there any contemporary denominations who claim to be Christian and whose theology holds that Jesus was God only and not really human?

The Second Commandment warns against making “graven images” or likenesses of anything in heaven, on earth, or in the waters below. Some Christians apply this very strictly to artwork, icons, and statues. With modern technology, it’s now possible to create humanoid robots, androids, or AI-powered machines that imitate human appearance or behavior. **Do any Christian denominations or traditions teach that creating such human-like robots violates the commandment not to make graven images?** If so, what is their reasoning or theological basis? If not, how do theologians distinguish robots from prohibited “images” in Exodus 20:4?