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 .

I was privately approached by someone who objected to the wording 'penal substitutionary atonement'. They expressed the opinion that Jesus bore sins during his crucifixion but was 'forgiven' these sins, based on his own holiness. He, they say, was not punished. This sounded to me like a form of unrighteous nepotism. I questioned the fact that, in this scenario, the wrath of God was not propitiated. But there was no reply forthcoming. Is this a personal opinion on the part of the person who approached me ? Or is there a Christian Group who teaches such a doctrine ? -------------------------------------------------- I am looking for factual evidence of whether any Group holds this doctrine. *I am not asking for refutation or support of the doctrine.*

What what day did Yeshua ride on the donkey according to the Bible not today’s calendar? What day did Yeshua die in the cross for my sins, according to Bible not today’s calendar?

WE read in Is 7:14 (KJV): > Therefore the Lord himself shall give you **a sign;** Behold, **a virgin shall conceive**, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Of course, the Gospels explicitly speak of the Virgin Birth of Jesus. But, **before the Gospels were recorded**, there must have been a way in which the people awaiting the Messiah became aware of the virgin birth of the Son of God. In fact, Joseph must have taken Mary home as his wife, on the initial days of her pregnancy, as we see in Mtt 1:24: > When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. That would mean that Mary, for the public eye, was a married woman staying with her husband before the childbirth and not a virgin *per se*. We do not see the Gloria- singing angels or the Wise Men from the East mentioning the virgin birth; nor does the Baptist make a mention to the effect. On the contrary, the public would later refer to Jesus as the son of Joseph (Mtt 13: 55) In fact, very few people including Mary and Joseph, a couple of their relatives like Elizabeth and some of the disciples knew of the virgin birth of Jesus by the time he entered public life. But then, whom was the sign as mentioned in Is 7:14 meant for? My question therefore is: **How did the Virgin Birth of Jesus prove to be a “sign” as prophesied in Is 7:14?** Inputs from any denomination are welcome.

Before Jesus cried out to God on why he had abandoned him.The Bible tells us that it was **noon** which means that it was midday, and **darkness** covered the whole land for three hours till the ninth hour. Then the power of the sun was restored and life continued. I sometimes interpret this to mean that God was angry with the Jews for crucifying Jesus and it was a warning alongside the earthquake that they had done something terribly wrong to provoke God's wrath but then, I really feel like there is some spiritual significance behind this event. Did the sun go off because God's anger was provoked or was it a foreshadow of what would happen right before his second coming?

I want to express beforehand that this is not an attack on Christianity I genuinely would like an honest answer. If Christ was a human male and Mary was his mother how did jesus get his Y chromosome. Mary is said to have given birth by immaculate conception. God in Christianity is a trinity, The Father The Son and the Holy Spirit. How did the Son happen as the Son is not the Father and is not the Holy Spirit. How can God perform a miracle in a physical world to create the Son if God didnt already belong to the physical world? If it took God 13 billion years to create chromosomes why did God suddenly choose to sidesweep all the time it took create Man and Women and cheat all the science with a miracle in Jesus's birth?

I find the Catholic title "Mother of God" for the Virgin Mary confusing. It is clear that she was the mother of Jesus, the Son. But the title suggests (indeed, not literally, but still) that Mary is mother of God as a Trinity. Is that correct? If so, it creates the problem that a human (or is there reason to say that Mary wasn't (entirely) human?) gave birth to God, while God created mankind. This problem doesn't exist when Mary is only mother of Jesus, because then it could be merely a way of speaking to say that Mary was the one through whom the Word became flesh, which would be the Protestant view as described in https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/15779/5729

The "Clarity Principle" ensures a message be told clearly without any iota of confusion or ambiguity. It seems Jesus' alleged divinity claims (that were forcefully attributed to him) don't follow that principal, which is quite highly unlikely of God to do. If Jesus was God, there would have been non metaphorical verses in the Bible clearly stating Jesus was God, but we find 0. What does this signify? Why did God have to be so shy and hesitant in claiming his divinity that he didn't once order in clear cut non ambiguous terms or told his folks to worship him? P. S : Kindly don't refer to metaphorical verses of Bible that in no case seem convincing enough to be deemed as monotonous when related to other verses or read in full context

The Book [Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth](https://www.amazon.com/Zealot-Reza-Aslan-audiobook/dp/B00DYMLQEU/) by Reza Aslan argues that Jesus was actually a Zealot, a Jewish revolutionary attempting to challenge Roman rule. Christians will overwhelmingly reject this hypothesis, but I think the book may help us in some ways to understand the human side of Jesus and is very well argued. I would like to see answers about what readers learned from the book. Those who only saw reviews and excerpts are welcome to answer too, but please provide evidence, not just opinions. Aslan sees Jesus as attempting to fulfill the Zealots' hope for the Jewish messiah, who would re-establish his people's independence from Rome and become the literal king of the Jews. In other words, Jesus actually attempted to do what the Roman government executed him for. Writes [Gary Manning Jr. of the Talbot School of Theology](https://www.biola.edu/blogs/good-book-blog/2013/a-response-to-zealot-by-reza-aslan) : > [Aslan claims that] ...like other messianic figures of his day [Jesus] > called for the violent expulsion of Rome from Israel. Driven by > religious zeal, Jesus believed that God would empower him to become > the king of Israel and overturn the hierarchical social order. Jesus > believed that God would honor the zeal of his lightly armed disciples > and give them victory. Instead, Jesus was crucified as a > revolutionary. Early Christians changed the story of Jesus to make him > into a peaceful shepherd. They did this for two reasons: because > Jesus’ actual prediction had failed, and because the Roman destruction > of rebellious Jerusalem in AD 70 made Jesus’ real teachings both > dangerous and unpopular. Paul radically changed the identity of Jesus > from human rebel to divine Son of God, against the wishes of other > leaders like Peter and James. This summary is basically accurate. However, I found important food for thought in the book: - Why does the angel tell Mary the "Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there will be no end. - Why does Zechariah prophesy of that: "[God] has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David, that we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all who hate us... (Luke 1) - Why did Jesus begin his ministry in Nazareth by quoting Isaiah to the effect he had been sent to "set at liberty those who are oppressed"? (Luke 40) - Why did he say "I came not for peace but the sword?" (Matthew 10:34) - What was Simon the Zealot doing with Jesus if he was still a Zealot? - Why did Jesus use violence against the moneychangers at the same time that there was an insurrection going on led by Barabbas - Was it just a coincidence that Jesus was imprisoned with these revolutionaries? - Why did he tell his disciples to bring swords to the Garden of Gethsemane? (Luke 22:38) I found myself thinking deeply about the human side of Jesus while reading this book. Particularly, it gave me a possible insight into Jesus' agony in the Garden of Gethsemane and on the Cross. Did part of him pray so desperately that God would "let this cup pass" because he hoped to fulfill the prophecies of a Davidic messiah who would literally restore David's throne? Did Jesus tell his disciples to brig swords to the Garden to protect him from those who would come to arrest him? Did the disciples commit a providential error when they fell asleep? When he cried out "why have you forsaken me?" was he still, even at that moment, hoping that God would rescue him so that he could fight on? Personally I do not think that Jesus was a Zealot, but I do think that he might have had hopes to be the Jewish messiah in some sense. Those hopes, of course, could not be fulfilled if Jesus were to realize God's will that he act as the Suffering Servant. But they might have figured into to the human aspirations he had to leave behind at Gethsemane, and even on the Cross. **What other questions does Aslan's book raise for us, and what insights can we gain from reading his book, whether we agree with it or not?**

**Which Churches or denominations agree that from birth to thirty years old Jesus was "Super Jesus"?** There are no passages in the Bible of a ***"Super Jesus***", who have supernatural powers from birth, and who also displayed divine powers before he was 30 years old. St. Paul's teaching described Jesus this way: >**The Attitude of Christ** 5Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus: 6Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to death—even death on a cross. - Ephesians 2:5-7 St. Paul teaches that Jesus emptied Himself of divine majesty and powers and took the form of a servant. What is a servant or servanthood according to the bible? >**Biblical Concepts of Servanthood** >**Sacrifice:** The true currency of God's kingdom is sacrificial service to others, rather than pursuing greatness. In fact in one incident in the Bible it would normally appear that Jesus who went to the Temple all by Himself and did not even took the time to inform His beloved Mother and Father, is in all honesty, not a good attitude. In my own experienced conversing and exchanging Biblical ideas and studies about Jesus, most Protestant and denominations esp. the Bible Alone Believers thinks that Jesus is a "Super Jesus" even before the Holy Spirit descended upon Him. **I am looking for Prote >**The Boy Jesus at the Temple** > > …51Then He went down to Nazareth with them and was obedient to them. But His mother treasured up all these things in her heart. 52And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.-Luke2:51-52

In light of ongoing global events—such as wars (e.g., the conflict involving Russia), geopolitical instability, and widespread moral and social upheaval—many Christians interpret these as signs that the “end times” are approaching. My questions are twofold: Imminence of Christ’s return: Within mainstream Christian theology, do these kinds of events meaningfully support the belief that Christ’s return is near? How have passages such as Matthew 24; Luke 21; 1 Thessalonians 5:1–6; and Revelation 6–16 traditionally been understood in relation to historical events versus recurring patterns throughout history? Christ’s presence before the Parousia: Is there any biblical basis for the idea that Christ is presently “walking the earth” prior to His return, possibly until all believe in Him as the Christ? How do texts like Matthew 28:20 (“I am with you always”), John 14–16 (the coming of the Holy Spirit), Acts 1:9–11, and Revelation 1:12–18 inform orthodox interpretations of Christ’s presence now versus His future, visible return? I am seeking answers grounded in Scripture and recognized Christian interpretive traditions (e.g., patristic, Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant), rather than speculative or purely contemporary prophetic claims.

> The Spirit immediately drove him out into the wilderness. And he > was in the wilderness forty days, being tempted by Satan. And he was > with the wild animals, and the angels were ministering to him. (ESV) > > Mark 1:12–13 In this verse, the Holy Spirit sent Jesus into the wilderness to be tempted by Satan. Given that Jesus was the Son of God, the Holy Spirit must have known that Jesus could withstand the temptation. Why did the Holy Spirit do that then?

In John 20:27, after His resurrection, Jesus invites Thomas to touch the wounds in His hands and side. That detail has always struck me — if Jesus was raised in a glorified body, why were the wounds from His crucifixion still visible? Paul describes the resurrection body in 1 Corinthians 15 as imperishable and glorious, which makes me wonder: shouldn’t that mean it would be healed or perfected, without any remaining scars? I’m curious how Christians understand this. Is there a theological reason why Jesus kept the marks of His suffering? And what does that say about the nature of the resurrection body, or about His mission?

In Trinitarian theology, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are considered co-eternal, meaning none was created or came into existence at a different time. However, in John 3:16, Jesus is described as **“the only begotten Son,”** which seems to imply that He had a beginning. How do Trinitarians reconcile this idea of Jesus being begotten with the belief that He is co-eternal with the Father? I’m looking for theological explanations or interpretations that address this apparent tension in Scripture.

With ascension day coming up so quickly, I have a question: According to the Bible, why did Jesus leave? I've read some ideas but few have any actual Biblical backing. Could anyone point me in the direction of this?

This is an honest question and I would just like to know why "Jesus". "God sent his Son as Redeemer and Savior. In his Son and through him, he invites men to become, in the Holy Spirit, his adopted children and thus heirs of his blessed life." (CCC-1) Weren't we always his children and heirs? It does not make sense that He had to send Jesus. This is what I found in the Gospel: Matthew 5:17 >Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. But why, it does not seem like a good enough reason to be crucified for. Luke 12:51 >Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division. Between good and evil, God knew already who is good and who is evil. Why did he need to send Jesus to divide? Matthew 10:34 >Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. Okay, this I get to come and punish the people physically on earth, but God can do that from anywhere and have done it before. Why send Jesus to do it? Mark 2:17 >Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners. All the prophets before him did the same thing, why send Jesus? Luke 5:32 >I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance. All the prophets before him did the same thing, why send Jesus? Mark 10:45 >For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. To give His life in exchange for ours, so we might be saved. This doesn't make sense because just believing in Jesus and repenting is the same as believing in God and repenting why introduce an extra step? Why make it more complicated and divide even people more? Luke 4:18-19 >The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor. This made the most sense to me, people at that time did not understand what God wanted. God sent Jesus to explain to the people that it's not just about following rules but cultivating a relationship and that everything that you do matters. You cannot say that you are a Christian but you value money or other things more than Me. You cannot say you are Christian but there are more important things in your life than God. He sends Jesus to make the people understand what is it to believe and to be Christian. He sent Him as an example. That is what I think, and I think this scripture relates to my own thoughts. Many of the previous prophets did the same, what I don't get is why sent Jesus to do this task if John or some of the other prophets could have done it also. Luke 19:10 >For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost. Same thoughts as Luke 4:18-19. John 3:17 >For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Same thoughts as Luke 4:18-19. John 6:38-40 >For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. I don't understand this. John 9:39 >Jesus said, “For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind.” Same thoughts as Luke 4:18-19. John 10:10 >The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly. Same thoughts as Luke 4:18-19. John 12:46 >I have come into the world as light, so that whoever believes in me may not remain in darkness. Same thoughts as Luke 4:18-19. John 18:37 >Then Pilate said to him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world—to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.” I don't understand.

> Mark 6 4-6: > > > 4 Then Jesus said to them, “People everywhere give honor to a prophet, > except in his own town, with his own people, or in his home.” 5 **Jesus > was not able** to do any miracles there except the healing of some sick > people by laying his hands on them. 6 He was surprised that the people > there had no faith. Then he went to other villages in that area and > taught. Like above, there are several examples where He can't heal people because of their unbelief. However, there is a difference: He **won't** vs. He **cannot** - heal someone because of their unbelief and this concept is usually overlooked. Is there anyway to determine if His power was drained or weakened by others and what does that mean for a believer today? Does this mean my level of faith (or vice versa) is analogous to this phenomenon described above? Here we see Jesus only recognizes and heals certain people based on their faith or to demonstrate God's will: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/10192/why-does-jesus-feel-only-certain-people-that-come-into-physical-contact-with-him Any studies, papers, speeches on this?

This is an odd question I know and I'm not very hopeful I'll find a good answer. But has it ever stricken you odd that in Luke 7, the woman who comes to see Jesus just straight walks into the Pharisee's house unannounced? I'm an American, and I could never imagine a random stranger walking into anyone's house and it be acceptable. So, was this a normal thing in Jewish culture at this time period?

We read in Mtt 4:1-4, of the Temptation of Jesus in the wilderness : > Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. He fasted forty days and forty nights, and afterwards he was famished. The tempter came and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread.” Here, we see the Devil using calculated words, i.e. "IF you are the Son of God......"In other words, the Devil was asking Jesus to disclose his divinity, as if he was not sure of whom he was tempting. Elsewhere, we see Jesus forbidding his own disciples from telling others that he is the Messiah ( Mtt 16:20; Mk 8:30). That said, the Devil was presumably tempting Jesus to disclose his divinity much before the appointed time. But, the motifs of the First Temptation we have, are of stone and bread . My question therefore, is: According to Catholic teachings, what was the First Temptation of Christ basically about ?

Mainstream Christians believe that Jesus was the son of God the Father and Mary, a virgin. So my question is, have any Christian theologians discussed whether Jesus only resemble his mother Mary, or whether he also resembled his adopted father Joseph? God could easily have arranged it so that Jesus resembled Joseph, even if Joseph played no role in the conception of Jesus.