In Matthew 24:13, Jesus says: >“But the one who endures to the end will be saved.” This appears to place a condition on salvation—namely, perseverance. It seems to imply that failing to endure could result in not being saved. Additionally, in Galatians 3:3, Paul rebukes believers: >“Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?” This raises concerns about those who begin in faith but do not continue rightly. Other passages such as Hebrews 3:14 (“we have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end”) also seem to connect salvation with continued faithfulness. **Question:** How do proponents of the doctrine that salvation cannot be lost (e.g., “once saved, always saved”) reconcile these passages with their view? Specifically, how are conditional statements about enduring to the end understood within that framework?

How was tithing done in the Old and New Testaments? In the New Testament, it seems it was put in the γαζοφυλάκιον or "treasury" (cf. Mk. 12:41,43 & Lk. 21:1 , the parable of the widow's offering). But in either Testaments, were tithes ever give directly to individual priests, or were they only given to the priests collectively? If an individual priest received a tithe, was he obliged to put it in the "treasury", or did priests have individual "accounts"?

Colossians 3:22-25 (NIV) states: > 22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. 23 Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters, 24 since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving. 25 Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for their wrongs, and there is no favoritism. Atheists on a certain Internet forum used this as an argument that the Bible condones slavery. What is a Christian counterargument to this statement?

In Genesis 8:8–12, Noah sends out a dove that returns with an olive leaf, signaling peace, renewal, and the end of God’s judgment through the Flood. In the Gospels (e.g., Matthew 3:16), the Holy Spirit descends upon Jesus “like a dove” at His baptism, marking the beginning of His ministry. Within Christian theology, is the dove in Noah’s account understood as a foreshadowing or symbolic parallel to the dove appearing at Christ’s baptism? Do major Christian traditions (e.g., patristic, Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant theology) interpret these events as typologically connected, or are they generally treated as sharing symbolic imagery without an intended theological link? I am interested in answers grounded in Christian doctrinal teaching, historical theology, or respected theological commentary.

## Background Inspired by https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/29919/what-important-mormon-doctrines-are-taught-in-the-book-of-mormon-that-we-couldn The Hebrew bible contains history , religious laws , sensual poetry , creation stories, and more. But scholars have long noted a lack of systematic theology compared with other religious books (not that there isn't theology contained in the Hebrew bible). On the other hand, authors of the New Testament make extensive and explicit theological arguments, a clear example is *Epistle to the Hebrews* which marked the line in the theological sand between proto-Christianity and 1st/2nd Century Judaism. ## Question What are doctrines or ideas, small or large, which are only found in the New Testament? I am interested in all perspectives on doctrines, theology, etc that are 'new' in the New Testament. This question will require an amount of good faith from any answerers, since a *post-hoc* reading of the Hebrew bible ***could*** gin up support for any number of NT innovations. I'm looking for ideas that are clear in the NT but unclear or not found in the Hebrew bible. ## Example answer An example could be: >> For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it *James 2:10* > The idea that breaking any one of the commandments is equivalent to breaking all of them is not found in the Hebrew bible and appears to be a new doctrine found only in the New Testament

When Dr Vance Smith , a Unitarian, was appointed to the Committee to revise the Authorised Version, public opinion objected to the appointment and Drs Westcott and Hort (Hort, also, leaning towards Unitarianism) said that if Dr Smith was not allowed then neither would they be involved in the revision. All three were permitted to contribute to the revision and during that revision Drs Westcott and Hort approached other members of the committee, singly, seeking to influence them in regard to the Greek text being translated - the Received Text, also called the *Textus Receptus*. The ensuing revision resulted in the imposition of a new Greek text (that of Drs Westcott and Hort) in 1881, something not envisaged by the purpose of the revision. Many objected to this, among them Dean John Burgon who, in his book ‘*Revision Revised*’, pointed out that between the two manuscripts upon which the W&H text strongly depended, Codex Aleph (*Sinaiticus*) and Codex B (*Vaticanus*), there was disagreement in over three thousand places *in just the four gospels*. Hermon Hoskier , in his book ‘*Codex B and its Allies*’ demonstrated that there had been a recension (a supposed ‘reversion’ to the original) in the fifth century, based on Egyptian and Coptic influence, resulting in a corrupted text. The *correction* of this recension, of the fifth century, resulted in the Received Text . Hermon Hoskier further demonstrated that the two manuscripts upon which Drs Westcott and Hort so much relied were, in fact, *proof of the corrupt recension*. The reason they survived, say Dean John Burgon and Hermon Hoskier, is that they were recognised for their fault and were little used, just retained as reference. The resulting Greek text of Westcott and Hort can be seen to be weakened, compared to the Received Text, in many places where the Deity of Christ and where the relationship of Father and Son are in view. (See below for just a few of those places.) Overall, about 9,000 alterations, additions and deletions were made to the Received Text (see Dr Scrivener’s comparative text of 1881) amounting to about 7% of the text. And it is noticeable to anyone who studies these changes in detail that there is a definite bias appearing in regard to the deliberate favouring of Codices Aleph and B on these particular occasions. What is the response of those who favour the so-called ‘Critical Text’ above the Received Text to the overall changes in emphasis seen in these texts - the bias evidently towards Unitarianism ? ---------------------------------------------- A full explanation of the following texts and the effect of changing them is available here . (See the PDF version for a much better display of the Greek letters.) - ... and they **worshipped him** ... Luke 24:52 - ... the **only begotten Son** ... John 1:18 - ... the Son of man, **which is in heaven** ... John 3:13 - ... purchased **with his own blood** ... Acts 20:28 - ... Christ came, **who is over all, God blessed for ever** ... Romans 9:5 - ... neither let us tempt **Christ** ... 1 Corinthians 10:9 - ... singing to the **Lord** ... Colossians 3:16 - ... **God** was manifest in flesh ... 1 Timothy 3:16 - ... the dead ... stand **before God** ... Revelation 20:12 ----------------------------- Note (edit) I have used the word 'bias' in its second meaning as listed by the Oxford English Dictionary - 'to exert an influence unduly'. This is exactly, precisely, a description (as demonstrated in detail by Herman Hoskier in '*Codex B and its Allies*' and Dean John Burgon in his book '*Revision Revised'*) of placing undue preponderance on just two manuscripts against the vast weight of evidence contained in over 5,000 other Uncials and miniscules, the Patristic Citations, the Versions and the Lectionary quotations. It results in a bias introduced in the fifth century and reproduced in the Critical Text as the above examples clearly indicate.

My friend is a Progressive Christian who says that the bible doesn't condemn or even mention sex outside of marriage in the bible. Is this true? If not, what is the Biblical basis for condemning sex outside of marriage?

In Exodus 4:22, God tells Pharaoh: >“Israel is my firstborn son.” Later, in the New Testament, believers in Christ (the Church) are described as being adopted into God’s family and as the bride of Christ (Romans 8:15–17, Ephesians 5:25–27). My question is: if Israel is explicitly called God’s firstborn, how should Christians understand the place of the Church? Does the term “firstborn” imply that the Church is “another child” of God, perhaps a “later-born,”? How do different traditions reconcile Israel’s “firstborn” status with the identity of the Church in salvation history?

In the New Testament, in addition to the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, The Acts of the Apostles, and the Epistles written by Paul, there are other letters (epistles) written by James, Peter, John and Jude. Do we know definitively in what order these letters were written?

The [Hebraic Roots Bible](http://www.coyhwh.com/en/bible.php) makes the claim, > The original New Testament was not written in Greek, but Aramaic. I thought that only the Gospel of Matthew might have been written in Aramaic, and that the rest of the NT was originally written in Greek. There is also the strange claim that the name Yahshua (Jesus) appears in the Old Testament: > There are also almost 100 scriptures in the Tanach (Old Testament) that personify our Savior’s name. Due to the fact that most translations do not use our Savior’s original Hebrew name they totally miss this fact. This is impossible because the Old Testament was written before Jesus was famous. Perhaps the word in these passages that the Hebraic Roots Bible translates as Yahshua should be translated as a simple word, not a name, as it is in other translations.

According to ChatGPT-5, "both numbers are thought to be examples of gematria ", which is a system where "letters also stand for numbers": Meaning the name of a person can be expressed as a number. However I've searched online and can't see how you can get to "Nero" from these numbers? Is it all pseudo-science? Again, according to ChatGPT-5: 666: Often interpreted as referring to Nero Caesar when written in Hebrew letters (נרון קסר = 666). 616: Matches the same name Nero Caesar but in a slightly different spelling (the Latin form without the final “n”: נרו קסר = 616). It concludes: "So both numbers likely point to Nero, the Roman emperor infamous for persecuting Christians." Does gematria really point both of these numbers to "Nero"?

The God described in the Old Testament can be violent and vindictive and seems to hold to a different set of moral rules than the God we see in the New Testament. How does the Catholic church explain these differences? A few of the better known examples of the more violent nature of the Old Testament's God are: 1. God asks Abraham to sacrifice his son (Genesis 22:2 ) > 2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of. This is then revealed to have been a "test" of Abraham's faith (Genesis 22:12 ) > 12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me. Since, by definition, the God of the Judeo-Christian faith is omniscient, this is not a test that could have provided Him with new information. It seems like a particularly horrible thing to do to a father. It is also at odds with the loving God of the later Christian faith. 2. The story of Lot (Genesis 19 ). Two angels have visited Lot's house and he treats them as honored guests. The men of Sodom ask him to let them "know" them: >5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. Lot wants to protect his guests and so, instead, offers up his virgin daughters: > 8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. This is treated as a perfectly natural offer. Any father who would offer up his daughters for rape today would be considered the lowest of degenerate criminals, yet Lot is portrayed as the only righteous man in Sodom and the only one, along with his family, who is spared by God. The story of Lot also has two other examples of the extreme violence that the Old Testament God was capable of. The very smiting of the, presumably, hundreds or even thousands of inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the turning of Lot's wife into a pillar of salt for the rather innocuous sin of looking back at her home while it was being destroyed: > 24 Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven; > 25 And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground. > 26 But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt. > 24 Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven; > 25 And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground. > 28 And he looked toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the plain, and beheld, and, lo, the smoke of the country went up as the smoke of a furnace. 3. As a final example, the scourges of the Pharaoh. Each and every one of them is an action that does not square with the forgiving, loving and fundamentally good nature of the Christian God, but the following is particularly cruel (Exodus: 11 ): > 5 And all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the first born of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even unto the firstborn of the maidservant that is behind the mill; and all the firstborn of beasts. This is a kind and loving God who will kill innocent babies. What's more, His wrath is not restricted to the children of those, like the Pharaoh, who oppressed his people but extends to ay and all Egyptians and even goes so far as to include their animals. Clearly, a sheepherder living out in the middle of nowhere who has never seen any of the Jews living in Egypt cannot be blamed for their oppression under the Pharaoh. Yet, even this innocent shepherd is not spared God's wrath. Now, I imagine that all of these examples has been extensively debated and there will be various interpretations and apologetics for each. My question, however, is whether Catholics believe that the _nature_ of God has changed between the Old and New testaments. Jehova seems to be a very different God from the one described in the New Testament, how is that dealt with in the Catholic faith? PS. I have restricted the question to the Catholic church so it is not too broad bu welcome answers that also mention the positions of other denominations.

In the Revelation chapter two verse thirteen Jesus refers to Antipas being martyred: Revelation 2:13 KJV >I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth. Mickelson lists the original Greek word as: Ἀντίπας Antipas (an-tee'-pas) n/p. Antipas, a Christian The Greek revised version also uses that same word αντιπας and is also defined as a Christian. So I am confused as to whether Jesus is referring to a specific person named Antipas or simply saying one of his followers, was slain among them.

In Judaism you repent to get back to "normal" or back to God. Another reason is to stop the consequence of sin. So you have Thesuva (repenting) for a week before Yom kippur in order that God will bless you with a good year. Since the roots of Christianity comes from the Jews. And that the RCC see tradition and the mystical as something important just as in judaism. In the Old Testament repenting has to deal not only with your heart and emotions but also your actions, you had to pay for your mistakes not just change your mind and look forward. If not there will be a negative consequence but if one do repent God will heal the land. Almost every Church will teach that Jesus did take away the sins of the world, but He is also presented as the Lamb and did teach about repenting. So Is repenting the same as it always has been, or do we In the New Covenant repent in another way after the Cross? > Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near. (Mark 3:2) According to the RCC.

What does teaching morality result in?

Yet 1 John 1:9 is widely taught as conditional forgiveness for the Christian when the passage of 1 John 1 is directed as an invitation to Gnostic Jews to become believers.

Not rightly dividing the word of truth is a major source of confusion in Christianity today.

There appears to be some discussion about the name of Jesus of Nazareth in that some are suggesting the proper way to refer to him would be by the name/title '*Yeshua*'. I am interested in the reason for this and would be grateful for some references to those who argue for it. Below, I list out the reason why this appears to be about the Deity of Christ. Please note, I am not wishing to enter into discussion or to hear people's thoughts on the matter. My objective is to see references to the argument for so doing, citing the words of those who suggest that this should be done. -------------------------------------------- In Acts 7:45 and in Hebrews 4:8 we see a person named who, in context, is the man who accompanied Moses in the wilderness, commonly called, in English, 'Joshua'. The Greek of these two texts reads '*Iesous*' or, as we say in English 'Jesus'. This person was called Oshea at birth and was later re-named by Moses, Numbers 13:16, 'Jehoshua' which is two Hebrew words attached together, *Jehovah* and *yeshua*, God and salvation. As such, he is named again 'Jehoshua' in the historical chronicle, 1 Chronicles 7:27. Commonly, he was called 'Joshua'. ------------------------------------------ The first use of the word '*yeshua*' in Genesis 49:18 is when, amidst his blessing his twelve sons before his departure from this life, Israel (Jacob) cries out : >I have waited for thy salvation, O Lord [KJV] I have waited for thy *yeshua*, O *Jehovah*. ------------------------------------ So, when the angel, Gabriel (who stands in the presence of God) states to Mary : >Thou shalt call his name 'Jesus' for he shall save his people from their sins [Matthew 1:21 KJV] why is it that some people wish me to use the word '*Yeshua*' (which means 'salvation') rather than the word 'Jesus' which comes from the wording 'Jehoshua' (Jehovah plus salvation). Thus the word 'Yeshua' loses the reference to 'Jehovah'. Is this the reason that it is being done : to remove the reference to 'Jehovah' from the name 'Jesus' ? --------------------------- Again, I must ask not for personal opinions as to what is right, but I am seeking references as to why those who do this, propagate the concept.

How often do you replay your day's mistakes to try see how you failed in comparison to how you did well?

Which books functioned as the New Testament in the ancient Church of the East ? For example, what would they have been in Mongolia in the days of Genghis Khan ? The books of the Catholic and Protestant and Orthodox New Testament were fixed after the Church of the East split from the other branches of Christianity. So I wonder what became the set of the standard books for them.