This is my first post here so I am not sure if this is the right place for this but here I go. I am looking into doctoral programs at the moment. I am looking at a few Universities in the UK. I am also looking at some schools here in the US. One school I have applied to and been accepted to is Kairos University. Their ThD program has a faculty assigned by the school. However, they also require the student to recruit two additional academic mentors. They do not have to be people with formal education. They just need to be experts in the subject. Which for me is Patristics. I have been told that I will not be able to complete, or even really start, the program without all three mentors. These two additional mentors are not compensated by the school. The school even claims that many mentors refused to accept payment when they were offering it. I have found the opposite. That many people who have that expertise would like compensation for their time. They are ATS accredited and I do think their format has some real potential. However, I have some concerns about them requiring outside, unpaid support from whatever they define as an expert. Do you believe that this is acceptable? I am working on other programs and hoping to get a scholarship. Thank you all for your help.

I hope one of you can answer a theological question I have! My question is: how are sins of thought, and sins depicted in media, distinguished by species/kind? As an example: let’s imagine a person watched a horror movie that had graphic scenes of murder and torture. Since those are two distinct ‘species’, or ‘kinds’ of sin in real life, are they also distinct sins when consumed through media? And my question is the same in regard to sins of thought: as an example, let’s say a person indulged impure thoughts. Is their species, or kind, simply a ‘lustful thought’? Or are they distinguished by the thoughts’ contents (ex. Adultery, rape, etc.)? Those are just two examples, but my question pertains to all instances where thoughts, or media consumption, are sinful. This question is also important in regards to the sacrament of Confession. As Catholics, we are obliged to confess our mortal sins in “number and kind”—how are these sins distinguished by “kind”, so we know how to properly confess them (in the event they are mortally sinful)? Is there any church teaching or definite answer on this matter that you can reference? Thank you and may God bless you all!

Can somebody explain to me the Catholic view of Transubstantiation and why it is important? Because with my understanding of it, the priests pray over the bread and wine and it turns into the literal blood and body of Jesus, but still looks the same. I know that in Matthew 26:26-29 it says about Jesus saying that the bread and wine was his body and blood but I thought that that was meant in a metaphorical sense. If the bread and the wine does actually turn into the body and the blood of Jesus, what difference does that make compared to a protestant's communion other than the reverence you would give or any of the rituals done. As a Pentacostal we celebrate communion in my church; drinking grape juice and eating crackers in remembrance of What Jesus did for us. I'm not opposed to other views on the matter, I'm just curious.

In passages such as First Epistle to the Corinthians 15:45–49, Paul the Apostle contrasts the first man, Adam, with the second man, Christ: >“The first man Adam became a living being; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit… Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.”
(1 Cor 15:45–49) This seems to suggest that humanity bears the image of Adam in a physical or natural sense (“man of dust”). My question is: In what sense do Christians bear the image of the second man, Christ? - Is this image spiritual (e.g., regeneration, righteousness, new nature)? - Is it future, referring primarily to the resurrection body?

### Background: In the final vision of the Book of Ezekiel, the prophet describes a detailed restoration of a Temple and its sacrificial system. There are two relevant elements in these chapters: * **A Temple:** Ezekiel 40–48 describes a massive, precise architectural layout for a Temple which, to date, has never actually been constructed according to these specifications: > "In the visions of God he brought me to the land of Israel and set me down upon a very high mountain, on which was a structure like a city to the south." — **Ezekiel 40:2** * **A Prince and Sin Offerings:** The text describes a "prince" (*nasi*) who offers sin sacrifices for his own atonement and that of his people: > "On that day the prince shall provide for himself and all the people of the land a young bull for a sin offering." — **Ezekiel 45:22** ### Question How does the Catholic church/Catholic theologians reconcile the description of animal sacrifices and a physical Temple in Ezekiel 44–46 with the New Testament teaching that Christ is the final, sufficient sacrifice?

In Genesis 2:2–3, God rests on the seventh day and blesses and sanctifies it. However, the explicit command to observe the Sabbath does not appear until Exodus 16 and is formally given in the Decalogue in Exodus 20:8–11. Does Genesis imply that the sanctification of the seventh day functioned as an ordinance for humanity from creation? Or is the Sabbath understood in Christian theology to have been instituted later, particularly within the Mosaic covenant?

Most English translations in Rev 5:9 read something like "You purchased people for God by your blood from every tribe and language and people and nation." However, the Revelation ECM/CBGM data prefers the reading τῷ θεῷ ἡμᾶς over the reading of τῷ θεῷ (supported by only one Greek manuscript, 02). If I am not mistaken, this would read something like "you purchased ***us*** for God by your blood...". My question(s) pertain to the significance of this change in reading. Who are the 24 elders? How does this reading change our understanding of their identity and function? Are they a part of the redeemed?

## 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

### Introduction The Hebrew Bible contains commands for several types of sacrifices. The sacrificial system encompasses a variety of offerings (Hebrew: korbanot) that serve different purposes. These sacrifices, described primarily in Leviticus and Numbers, includes animal sacrifices (bulls, goats, sheep, birds) as well as grain, oil, and wine offerings, all carried out by the priests at the altar of the Tabernacle/Temple. Each type of offering had specific requirements and a distinct purpose. Some were for atonement of sin, others for thanksgiving or purification: | **Sacrifice (Hebrew / English Name)** | **What Was Offered** | **Who Offered / Performed** | **Purpose of Sacrifice** | **How the Sacrifice Was Carried Out** | | ------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | **Olah (עולה) – Burnt Offering** | A male animal without blemish – could be a bull, ram, goat, or for the poor, a turtledove or pigeon. | Voluntarily by an individual, performed by a priest. | This is a general sacrifice, performed daily. It is also used as a sin sacrifice on the appointment of a priest. | The animal is slaughtered and its blood splashed on the altar by the priest. The entire carcass was completely **burned on the altar** (nothing eaten by anyone, symbolizing total surrender to God). The hide went to the priests. | | **Minchah (מנחה) – Grain / Meal Offering** | Fine flour or unleavened baked goods (loaves or cakes) made from wheat or barley, mixed with olive oil and frankincense, and seasoned with salt. No yeast or honey was used. | Usually a **voluntary** offering by an individual (often accompanying burnt or peace offerings); a priest handled it on the altar and ate the remainder. (If the priest himself offered it, it was entirely burned.) | **Thanksgiving and dedication** of one’s labor and produce to God. A non-blood offering symbolizing the dedication of daily sustenance and work. | A **handful** (with all the frankincense) was **burned on the altar** as a memorial portion. The rest was **eaten by the priests** in a holy place, unless it was a priest’s own offering, in which case it was fully burned. | | **Nesekh (נסך) – Drink Offering** | A libation of **wine** (usually undiluted) poured out on the altar; sometimes water (during festivals). | Performed by the **priest** as part of a larger sacrifice. The wine was brought by the offerer and poured out by the priest. | **Worship and devotion** – honoring God with the “fruit of the vine.” Symbolized joyful self-offering and blessing. | The priest **poured the wine** onto the altar (into special receptacles at its corners). Drink offerings were never offered alone but always alongside burnt and grain offerings. | | **Zevach Shelamim (זבח שלמים) – Peace / Fellowship Offering** | An unblemished animal from the herd or flock (male or female), often with **grains or breads** (both leavened and unleavened). | Offered **voluntarily** by an individual or family (as **thanksgiving**, **vow**, or **freewill** offering). The offerer slaughtered it; **priests** handled the blood and altar portions and received a share of the meat. | **Thanksgiving, fellowship, and celebration** of peace and blessing from God. Expressed gratitude and communion with Him. | The priest **splashed the blood on the altar**; the **fat portions** were **burned** as God’s share. The priest received the **breast** and **right thigh**; the rest was **eaten joyfully** by the offerer and family in a holy place. Leftovers were eaten within 1–2 days. | | **Chatat (חטאת) – Sin / Purification Offering** | Different animals based on the sinner’s status: **bull** (high priest/community), **male goat** (leader), **female goat or lamb** (individual), or **birds/flour** (poor). | **Mandatory** for unintentional sins or ritual impurities (e.g. after childbirth). The sinner laid hands on the animal; the **priest** performed the ritual and blood rites. | **Atonement for unintentional sin** and **purification from impurity**, reconciling the sinner with God. | The offerer **laid hands** on the animal, which was **slaughtered**. The priest **applied blood** to the altar (and sometimes within the Holy Place). The **fat** was burned; **priests ate** the remainder unless it was for the high priest/community, which was **burned outside the camp**. | | **Asham (אשם) – Guilt / Trespass Offering** | A **ram** without blemish (sometimes a lamb), often with a specified value in silver to ensure worthiness. | **Mandatory** for offenses involving **misuse of holy things**, **breach of trust**, **uncertainty of guilt**, or **restitution cases**. The **priest** sacrificed it after confession and repayment by the guilty party. | **Atonement for specific guilt** involving harm to others or desecration of holy things; emphasized **repentance and restitution**. | The offender **confessed and made restitution** (plus 20%) before the sacrifice. The **ram** was slaughtered, its **blood** splashed on the altar, **fat** burned, and the **meat eaten by priests**. Forgiveness was granted after restitution and offering. | | **Korban Pesach (קרבן פסח) – Passover Sacrifice** | A one-year-old **male lamb or goat**, without blemish. | **Mandatory** annual sacrifice for each household on the 14th of Nisan. The **head of household** slaughtered it; **priests** collected and sprinkled the blood. | **Commemoration of Israel’s deliverance from Egypt and the death of the first born**. | The **blood** was splashed on the altar. The lamb was **roasted whole** and **eaten that night** with **unleavened bread and bitter herbs**. Nothing left until morning; no bones broken. All leftovers were **burned**. | | **Parah Adumah (פרה אדומה) – Red Heifer Offering** | A **red heifer** without defect, never yoked. | Performed by a **priest** (e.g. Eleazar) **outside the camp**, on behalf of the whole community. | **Ritual purification from corpse defilement**; not for sin but to produce ashes for the **“water of purification.”** | The **heifer** was **slaughtered outside the camp**; the **priest sprinkled its blood** toward the Tabernacle seven times. The whole carcass was **burned to ashes** with **cedar wood, hyssop, and scarlet wool**. The ashes were stored and later mixed with water and **sprinkled** on those made unclean by contact with the dead. | | **Minchat Kena’ot (מנחת קנאות) – Jealousy / Ordeal Offering** | 1/10 ephah of **barley flour**, no oil or incense (plain). | Brought by a **husband** for a wife suspected of adultery (*sotah*); the **priest** conducted the ordeal and offering. | To **reveal hidden guilt or prove innocence** in suspected adultery; a **judgment ritual**, not atonement. | The priest prepared **bitter water** (holy water, dust, and ink of curses). The woman swore innocence, held the offering, and drank the water. The priest **waved the offering**, burned a **handful** on the altar, and disposed of the rest. If guilty, she was cursed; if innocent, she was unharmed and could conceive. | ### Question Each of these sacrifices has its own purpose and ritual in the Hebrew Bible (atonement for sin, thanksgiving, purification, etc.). Given this background, which specific sacrifice or offering does Jesus’s death on the cross correspond to or fulfill?

I want to know what are arguments that singing national anthems do not count as worship. Public perception and interpretation is not an issue, if public perception equates murdering child in womb by mother as form of freedom, abortion does not loses it status of sin. So, without using public perception and secular interpretation or popularity as argument, can it be proven why singing national anthems does not count to worship as there are even idols representing countries like Germania, Motherland Russia, Marianne, etc. This practice of representing justice, freedom as idols is Pagan. Whether, its popular does not mean it would lose its Pagan origins. Even after this why would a state require praise by its subjects to sing its glory daily in some way or form. Basically, I am seeking for any Christian sect answer that has zero issues with singing national anthem. (So, not a sect directed question but still why?) **Does present acceptance of anthems also imply approval of anthems in past which involved praise of pagan gods in ancient times? Presently, they are of secular nature** (Not a slippery slope even in World War II there was anthem for worship of imperial Japanese emperor, ignorance to historic facts would not justify a cause despite its popularity)

Christian theology generally teaches that only God is omnipresent, while Satan is a created being with limited power and presence. Yet, believers around the world often experience temptations or trials that they attribute to Satan’s influence. How do Christian theologians explain Satan’s ability to seemingly affect or test many people in different locations at once, if he cannot be everywhere? - Does Scripture suggest he works through a network of demons? I’m asking specifically from a biblical and theological standpoint, not from personal opinion.

Billy Graham is often quoted as saying that the Bible is “God’s love letter to us.” What did he mean by this? Is there a biblical basis for calling the Bible a “love letter,” or is it more of a pastoral metaphor?

In the book of Genesis, Adam speaks directly with God—receiving commands, instructions, and even judgments. This kind of divine communication is often associated with the role of a prophet throughout the Bible. Yet, Adam is not explicitly called a prophet in Scripture, nor is he commonly regarded as one in most Christian traditions. Why is that the case? Does the biblical or theological definition of a prophet involve more than just direct communication with God—such as delivering God's message to others, foretelling future events, or leading a covenant community? I’d appreciate perspectives from Scripture, early Church Fathers, and major Christian traditions.

I want to be a scientist, but I don’t know if the Bible says anything against women being scientists. It has said stuff like women should "be quiet" and "submit" (e.g. 1 Timothy 2:11). I know that there are many interpretations of that. I want to know if a woman can, in good conscience, pursue a career in science.

Astrology is often categorized as an occult practice in Christian theology, especially in Protestant and evangelical circles. I’m trying to understand the theological basis for this. Why is astrology — the practice of interpreting celestial bodies for guidance or insight — considered spiritually dangerous or forbidden? Is it primarily because it involves divination or seeking knowledge apart from God? I'm also curious how this view is reconciled with the story of the Magi in Matthew 2:1–12, who followed a star to find the newborn Jesus. The Magi are often described as astrologers or wise men from the East who interpreted celestial signs. If astrology is inherently occult, why would God use something resembling it (a star as a sign) to guide them? Are there biblical or doctrinal distinctions made between the Magi's actions and the kind of astrology that is condemned in Scripture (e.g., Isaiah 47, Deuteronomy 18)? I’m looking for a response grounded in Christian theology, not just personal opinions.

In Genesis, Adam and Eve's disobedience resulted in death entering the world. Does Christian doctrine interpret human aging and physical decline as part of the curse resulting from the fall? Or was aging part of the natural human design even before sin? How have theologians historically interpreted this?

Some Christians, particularly in the United States, believe that America has a divine obligation to support or defend the modern state of Israel. This belief is often linked to the promise in **Genesis 12:3**, where God says to Abraham, *“I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse.”* Is this verse the primary theological basis for that belief?

Jesus said in Matthew 7:16, "You will know them by their fruits." This verse is often cited to identify genuine believers based on their actions and character. However, a recent incident in Minnesota where a self-professed evangelical Christian—who had even received an appointment—was involved in the shooting of a congresswoman raises questions. How should this verse be understood in light of such events? Can we truly and reliably know a believer by their fruits, especially when someone outwardly identified with Christianity ends up acting in a way that seems so contrary to Christ’s teachings? How do different theological traditions interpret this principle when actions contradict profession of faith?

Christian language often describes sin as a burden carried in the heart, and salvation as bringing peace or relief. Is there a recognized theological or scriptural basis for linking the guilt of sin with an internal “weight,” and the experience of salvation with a kind of emotional or spiritual lightness? How have Christian traditions interpreted this metaphor or experience?

According to Catholicism, can unaided reason know that every religion except Christianity is false? For example, if someone claimed that they are 95% sure Christianity is true and 5% sure some other religion is true (and let's say for the sake of argument this person is perfectly informed about both religions), would Catholicism tell them this is a reasonable belief to hold and the right way to think about things, or would they say no, there is enough information out there that if you actually know about that religion you would know with complete certainty that it is false?