In the first Genesis creation narrative, God creates a race of vegetarian humans and instructs them simply to "be fruitful and multiply" and take charge of the planet: > "*So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, **Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth**. And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; **to you it shall be for meat**.*" — Genesis 1:27-29 (King James Bible) Following the first Genesis creation narrative, the Bible records that Yahweh created a single man to serve as his gardener: > "*And **the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground**, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul ... And the LORD God took the man, and **put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it***" — Genesis 2:7, 2:15 (King James Bible) And then throughout the remainder of the Old Testament, the overarching theme is the need for man to be subservient to Yahweh.  For example: > "***This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee**; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.*" — Genesis 17:10-11 (King James Bible) > "*And **ye shall serve the LORD your God***" — Exodus 23:25 (King James Bible) > "*And he said unto Moses, Come up unto the LORD, thou, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel; **and worship ye afar off**.*" — Exodus 24:1 (King James Bible) > "*For **thou shalt worship no other god**: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God*" — Exodus 34:14 (King James Bible) > "*For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, **every knee shall bow to me**, and every tongue shall confess to God.*" — Romans 14:11 (King James Bible) There are countless more examples in the Old Testament.  In Exodus 35:2 in particular, Yahweh issued a most stringent diktat that the Israelites were to spend every day of the week working - except for one, which was instead to be specifically dedicated to him, declaring that anyone who failed to dedicate the final day of the week to him would face the draconian consequence of being put to death: > "*Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day **there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD**: whosoever doeth work therein **shall be put to death**.*”  — Exodus 35:2 (King James Bible) But in the New Testament Yahweh's son, Jesus, effectively superseded all of his father's 600+ laws from the Old Testament with just 2 simple commandments, the first of which was not to worship Yahweh but simply to show him wholehearted love: > "*And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And **thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength**: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. **There is none other commandment greater than these.***" —  Mark 12:29-31 In particular, Jesus deliberately and directly contradicted his father's draconian diktat, expressly stipulating that man is master of his own destiny and entirely free to do as he chooses on the sabbath: > "*And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: Therefore **the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath**.*” — Mark 2:27 (King James Bible) He was also reported to have stated that he would destroy the Temple in Jerusalem where Jews worshipped his father: > "*We heard him say, **I will destroy this temple that is made with hands***" — Mark 14:58 And towards the end of the Gospel of Luke, Jesus further reiterated the fact that the Temple in Jerusalem where his father was worshipped would one day be completely destroyed: > "*And as some spake of the temple, how it was adorned with goodly stones and gifts, he said, As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which **there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down**.*" — Luke 21:5-6 He followed up this statement by issuing a grave warning to his followers that, after he had gone, charlatans falsely professing to be Christians would come along and deceive true Christians: > "*And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: **for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them**.*" — Luke 21:11 So why does the Christian Church encourage Christians to worship Yahweh every Sunday when Jesus expressly rejected man's subservience to his father, specifically and especially regarding the sabbath?   ***— ASA, 2 May 2026***

There is a well-known 'Bible-difficulty' in John 15:25: >**John 15:23-25 (DRB)** > >He that hateth me, hateth my Father also. If I had not done among them the works that no other man hath done, they would not have sin; but now they have both seen and hated both me and my Father. 25 But that the word may be fulfilled which is written in their law: **They hated me without cause.** This is seen as strange, since Jesus ought to know that this phrase is found in the Psalms, and not the Torah. Indeed, it's nigh impossible, according to any view of Jesus, however unforgiving, that Jesus would confuse something in the Psalms with something in the Torah—assuming by 'Law' He meant the 'Torah.' It's also not possible that Jesus would refer to '*the* Law' as '*their* Law' if He meant the Torah. However, something in what [Jews themselves identify as the Oral Law,](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_Torah) the Talmud (which Jesus could definitely be imagined to have—Cf. Mt 15:9—deridingly called '*their* Law') in 'The Day [of Atonement]' (Yomha 9b) could be what He is referring to... prophetically: >מקדש ראשון מפני מה חרב? מפני שלשה דברים שהיו בו: עבודה זרה, וגלוי עריות, ושפיכות דמים. . . . אבל מקדש שני, שהיו עוסקין בתורה ובמצות וגמילות חסדים מפני מה חרב? מפני שהיתה בו שנאת חנם. ללמדך ששקולה שנאת חנם כנגד שלש עבירות: עבודה זרה, גלוי עריות, ושפיכות דמים > >Why was the First Temple destroyed? Because of three evils in it: idolatry, sexual immorality and bloodshed . . . But **why was the Second Temple destroyed,** seeing that during the time it stood people occupied themselves with Torah, with observance of precepts, and with the practice of charity? **Because during the time it stood, hatred without cause prevailed.** This is to teach you that hatred without cause is deemed as grave as all the three sins of idolatry, sexual immorality and bloodshed together. Now we know that Jesus pretty openly taught that the destruction of the Temple/punishment of the Jews was because of their killing of Him: >**Luke 20:9-19 (DRB)** > >And he began to speak to the people this parable: A certain man planted a vineyard, and let it out to husbandmen: and he was abroad for a long time. 10 And at the season he sent a servant to the husbandmen, that they should give him of the fruit of the vineyard. Who, beating him, sent him away empty. 11 And again he sent another servant. But they beat him also, and treating him reproachfully, sent him away empty. 12 And again he sent the third: and they wounded him also, and cast him out. 13 Then the lord of the vineyard said: **What shall I do? I will send my beloved son: it may be, when they see him, they will reverence him.** 14 Whom when the husbandmen saw, they thought within themselves, saying: **This is the heir, let us kill him,** that the inheritance may be ours. 15 So casting him out of the vineyard, they killed him. **What therefore will the lord of the vineyard do to them? 16 He will come, and will destroy these husbandmen, and will give the vineyard to others.** Which they hearing, said to him: God forbid. 17 But he looking on them, said: What is this then that is written, The stone, which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner? 18 Whosoever shall fall upon that stone, shall be bruised: and upon whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder. > >19 And **the chief priests and the scribes** sought to lay hands on him the same hour: but they feared the people, **for they knew that he spoke this parable to them.** Question -- Could Jesus have prophetically been tying a prophetic Psalm (Ps. 69) in with a prophecy of His own: that the Jews would even write this in their own Talmud? Thanks in advance.

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.

In the Book of Revelation, chapter two, Jesus addresses the church in Thyatira. The NIV translation of Revelation 2:19-23 reads, Jesus speaking: > I know your deeds, your love and faith, your service and perseverance, and that you are now doing more than you did at first. Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols. I have given her time to repent of her immorality, but she is unwilling. So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. I will strike her children dead. The end of the last verse (Rev 2:23) appears to contain the motivation for Jesus killing the children of the woman, namely to show that Jesus is the one in charge and the ultimate moral judge; again Jesus speaking: > Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds. Why did Jesus kill Jezebel's children? How do different Christian denominations, that include the Book of Revelation in the canonized New Testament, interpret this punishment and the reasons for this divine intervention? (This question applies to trinitatian and non-trinitian denominations, since in both cases Jesus has moral authority regardless of if Jesus is God or merely "imitates the Father" and is "given the moral authority" by the Father.)

How can we as Christians say that all of Jesus' speeches about the impending judgement of "this generation", his immediate coming in his kingdom ("from now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven") & the disciples not being done converting Jewish citizens before Jesus comes, don't mean that Jesus was actually coming back in His flesh, but were metaphors for being the King of Christian hearts during the time of grace for the pagan nations? When looking at just the book of Matthew, it's easy to explain verses like Matt 10:23, 16:28, 24:34, 26:64 IF they are ON THEIR OWN. But so so many similar verses are found throughout the whole NT. And in bulk it does seem like Jesus is saying that doomsday is immediate & his earthly kingdom with him as king in the flesh was instantaneous. Taken together he is always talking about "the coming of the son of man", "the clouds of heaven", "his kingdom", "his angels" & "in the glory of his Father". It's apocalyptic & cosmic preaching, associated with, for example, Daniel 7:13-14. Today & then it's definitely associated with doomsday aka the last day of the last days aka the final judgment & a political and national kingdom in the flesh. Let's play this out by following examples, again looking only at the book of Matthew (I know there are a lot of different interpretations but these are the ones I've heard most often): - 16:26-28 supposedly is about the Transfiguration, which was a vision of Jesus as king in his kingdom — even though in verse 26 the seeing of the Son of Man is linked to coming into the kingdom with judgment, angels, and the Father? Which in turn is directly linked to the end of times, see for example, Daniel 7. - 24:34 "This generation" is actually about the generation which lived during Jesus day & discarded Jesus, which was judged in AD 69? - And 26:64 "From now on, the Son is seated at the right hand of the Father, and you will see him coming to judgment" is supposedly just reflecting Jesus' true nature? - And the converting in Israel won't be finished before Jesus returns - 10:23 – is most likely again about the judgment in the year 70? This just feels like "picking & choosing". The same metaphors are used, the wording is similar & it's all apocalyptic language, plus heavily influenced by Daniel, but every time they are supposed to mean something different?? And it definitely doesn't mean doomsday, a national / political kingdom in the flesh & that it's a failed prophecy? Why are we so sure? Why would Jesus use these heavy metaphors instead of just saying: "this generation/my contemporaries will be judged for rejecting the messiah, after my death I will be spiritual King of hearts & heaven until the end of the last days during which I will come in the flesh to get my people & to judge the whole earths wickedness"? What helps are ideas like: - the "end times" is a term without definition of its length - the church age / the age of grace for the pagan nations, was always handled like a mystery in all of Scripture - Luke 17:20-21 - Jesus himself saying it's neither visible nor an earthly kingdom but of the hearts & spiritual - in Daniel 7 Jesus is not actually coming to earth for his kingdom but ascending to heaven. Possibly showing it is a spiritual kingdom. - nothing Jesus ever said was easy to understand. His own disciples were struggling to get things right. He always talked in parables, allegories & metaphors. - the theory that some Jewish priests had to have converted up to the judgement AD 69. Otherwise the Christian movement wouldn't have been able to expand this fast. And they wouldn't have converted if it was clear that Jesus prophecies were supposed to be immediate & that they failed. (Obviously Paul himself & Acts 6:7, but probably many more, for the number of Christians exploded.) I really don't want to be disrespectful; I want the Bible to be true! It's just really hard to trust, knowing Jesus looks like an apocalyptic preacher whose immediate prophecies failed. P.S. Ugh it was hard to put these raging thoughts to paper. English isn't my mother tongue.

This question is addressed to people of trinitarian sects. If Jesus is part of a trinity, why are there so many examples of Him referring to Himself as something distinct from God? Some examples are Him on the cross saying "My God, my God, why have You forsaken Me?" and when He refers to God as greater than Himself when speaking to the twelve prior to being taken into custody. There are more that I've noticed but these two come to mind first. Furthermore, Jesus is repeatedly said to sit at the right hand of the Father. Doesn't the phrase "sit at the right hand" imply that the Son is not equal to the Father? I'm aware of there being counter-examples such as Him saying that He and the Father are one and of course, chapter one of John ("the Word was God"). Admitting these counter-examples support trinitarianism, how do Trinitarians explain the way Jesus speaks of God as if He is something distinct from God? Am I the only one who gets the impression that He speaks in this way? The way I see it right now is that Jesus is the Father's proxy. All authority was given to Him to execute the Father's will. He was created by the Father (I've heard some say that He was "begotten, not made", but He is referred to as Firstborn of Creation) as God's self-expression or image (Col. 1:15). In this sense, He is a functional equivalent to the Father, but in another sense, He is not essentially equivalent because He came from the Father. Is this the same way Trinitarians see it?

Denying the deity of Jesus Christ is one of the core beliefs of the Jehovah Witnesses: [Jehovah’s Witnesses View of Christ](https://www.namb.net/apologetics-blog/jehovah-s-witnesses-view-of-christ/) . John 5:18 states, > For this cause therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill > Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was > calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God. John 8:59, > Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid > Himself, and went out of the temple. John 10:31, > The Jews took up stones AGAIN to stone Him. John 10:33, > The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for BLASPHEMY; and because You, being a man make Yourself out God. Also, according to the trial record at Matthew 26:57-66, and specifically at vs65 the high priest Caiaphas makes a strong accusation: > The high priest tore his robes, saying, "He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses? Behold, have you not heard the blasphemy;" What was the blasphemy, according to the Jews, that Jesus committed that resulted in His crucifixion and eventual death? Related question asked here

I read Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Now I am presently in Acts and Jesus isn't being quoted. Are there books outside of the King James Bible that have the word of Jesus? Because I love Jesus, I wanted to know if I could read more of his words.

I have come across this phrase "***A born-again Christian has a new nature that cannot sin***" (or other versions written differently but carrying the same implication). Here is one example from this site and here is another more fulsome treatment from an evangelical perspective. Does this mean a born-again Christian can not sin? If we can still sin, then what is the purpose of that nature if it can not shield us from sin? ***How would/does a nature like this make us different from Abraham, Noah, Job, David or Moses?***

In the following verse, did Jesus in fact say the word, the name of God, that no Jew would dare to say aloud at that time? > As soon then as he had said unto them, I am [he], they went backward, > and fell to the ground (John 18:6) If yes, why was He not tried for that before the high priest (there were so many witnesses after all)? If not, why then so many say that here He was quoting Exodus 3:14 (which means He DID pronounce the forbidden word)?

If Psalm 110 was NOT written by David, then did Jesus make an error in stating that "David himself calls him [the messiah] 'lord'" in the Psalm (Mark 12:36-37; Mat. 22:43-45; Luke 20:42-44), or is there a better way of looking at this? I've read a few commentaries (expositional and scholarly) on the New Testament passages and Psalm in question (Expositor's Bible Commentary: Carson (Matthew), Wessel and Strauss (Mark), Liefeld and Pao (Luke), VanGemeren (Psalms); Word Biblical Commentary: Evans (Mark), Hagner (Matthew), Nolland (Luke), Allen (Psalms 101-150); and the NET Bible's notes to name a few). At least one of the Expositor's commentators recommended Allen's commentary. I agree that his appears to provide the most thorough analysis of the Psalm's original context of the commentaries I've read and also best addresses the question at hand. While he concludes that the Psalm was most likely written *about* David rather than *by* David (as also the NET concludes), he also writes, > "An understanding of the heading of the psalm in terms of Davidic authorship features twice in argumentation, at Mark 12:35–37 (and parallels) and Acts 2:33. This understanding, already as old in principle as the redactional characterization of the block of Davidic psalms in Pss 3–71 as “the prayers of David son of Jesse” in Ps 72:20, accords with what R. N. Longenecker has called the “circumstantial” or “descriptive” type of interpretation, based on ancient cultural norms, to be found in the NT, as distinct from the normative kind of exegesis practiced today (TynBul 21 36–38; Biblical Exegesis, 193–98)." I've since read some of the recommended book by Longenecker, *Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period*, learning much about Jewish exegetical practices around the 1st century. I also read Dr. Michael Brown's take on Jesus' use of Psalm 110 in his book, *Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Vol.* 3. While he prefers defending the Psalm originally being written about the Messiah, he also concedes, > "Even if the psalm was originally written by a court poet for his lord, King David, it would still point to David’s priestly calling (as a prototype of the Messiah) as well as to his worldwide reign, fulfilled only through David’s greater descendant, King Messiah. This would mean, then, that Jesus was pointing to Jewish interpretation of the day, interpretation that attributed the authorship of this psalm to David, thereby proving that Messiah had to be greater than David, but without making a definitive statement about the authorship of the psalm." This is the best and most direct answer I've found so far. The difficulty now is reconciling the assumption that Jesus was not "making a definitive statement about the authorship of the psalm" with the language that he uses, which appears to be definitive. Matthew's version seems to be most easily reconciled with this approach, since Davidic authorship is merely an assumed part of Jesus' questions to his opponents. Mark and Luke are more difficult, Mark's version reading, "David himself said by the Holy Spirit,... David himself calls him 'Lord'." (I also explored the possibility that *David* could merely be a colloquial designation for the Davidic Psalms, attempting to replace *David* with *the Davidic author* in Jesus' quote. This, however, doesn't seem to work well, since the argument in the gospels revolves around the question of how the messiah could be *David's son*, whenever *David*, the assumed author of the Psalm, calls him 'Lord'.) I also have some deeper questions, which I think are pertinent to how we answer the main question: - Does Jesus himself believe that David wrote the psalm? (It's easier to account for other New Testament writers' use of Jewish tradition, since they aren't themselves *divine*.) If so, how should that inform our Christology? (Which part of His argument is divine and which part is human?) - Is the point Jesus tries to make undermined if his argument is based on a false premise? - If Jesus said that David wrote this Psalm, but it actually wasn't written *by* David, how do we reconcile that with the doctrine of inerrancy?

While I understand there are many potential passages in the Bible of Jesus claiming to be a messiah (which I understand to mean "anointed"), a king, or one through whom it is necessary to know God, I'm interested to know if there are any places where He *literally* claims to be God, God-like, or related to God (i.e. the son of God). Taking the Bible to be a reliable record of what He said (for the sake of this question), what Biblical passages illustrate Jesus literally saying He was God? OP Edit: I see that my question has been edited to say "literally" which has caused a bit of turmoil, so I'll just say that for me "literally" is read to mean "literally stated, or inferred without interpretation". So "I intend to put on foot coverings" does not literally mean shoes, as it could mean socks, but "I intend to drive to the capital city of the country England" means you'll end up in London no matter which way you swing it. Interestingly I did try to ask the Biblical Hermenutics group this question and it was suggested I ask here.

There is a related question here: hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/56196/… We are told in various imagery that Messiah would come in the line of David and be a branch or rod that sprouts from Jesse's roots: > And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots: And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord; - Isaiah 11:1-2 > Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, thou, and thy fellows that sit before thee: for they are men wondered at: for, behold, I will bring forth my servant the Branch. - Zechariah 3:8 > And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh the Lord of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name is The Branch; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the Lord: - Zechariah 6:12 Later, in Revelation, we are told that Jesus is the root of David: > And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof. - Revelation 5:5 And then Jesus himself claims to be both the root and the offspring of David: > I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. - Revelation 22:16 This is much like when Jesus asked about whose son the Christ is "“How is it then that David, in the Spirit, calls him Lord, saying, “‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet”’? If then David calls him Lord, how is he his son?” (Matthew 22:43-45). For those who believe Jesus did not pre-exist his incarnation, How can Jesus be the root of David if he is David's offspring?

There appears to be a predicament among the various reputable interpretations I can find for Matt 6:31-33: > 31Do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’. > 32For the Gentiles strive after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. > 33But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things will be added unto you. Here are the interpretations I can find, taking into account lived experience, and why I find each actually _increases_ worry: * Prosperity: God clearly promises here to give you all you need *if* you're seeking him first enough, and if you have enough faith. If you're not receiving all you need, it's because you do not have sufficient faith/seeking-gods-kingdom-first-works. The worry is that you cannot rely on this promise because by experience we all live with oscillating levels of faith/works, thus neutralising this promise. * [GotQuestions interpretation](https://www.gotquestions.org/seek-first-kingdom-God.html) : "Perhaps God knows that what truly we need is a time of poverty" - this lines up with the lived experience that many Christians are indeed poor. However this also provides plenty of room for worry for a family provider, that God may soverignly decide to impoverish your family. * The interpretation that God only supplies food/drink/clothes as per this verse, and that is where his provision stops. How can this be of any comfort for someone who needs to provide their children a house, bed to sleep in, education, etc? * The interpretation that this verse is in context of Jesus talking to the 12, thus was a promise for them, not us. In light of these options, what maximally worry-dispelling biblical advice/counsel/interpretations for this verse can be reasonably justified?

Jesus entered Jerusalem riding on a colt! The Passover was preparation day for the Feast of Unleavened Bread. A 2nd Sabbath day was then on the 7th day, Saturday! If Jesus fulfilled the Passover and the Unleavened Bread by being crucified on the 14th and in the tomb on the 15th, another preparation day would be the 16th, the Sabbath the 17th and the Resurrection would be on the 18th. Therefore, the Triumphal Entry would have been on the preceding Sabbath: the 10th!

How can the following verses be reconciled? Matthew 5:18-20: >“Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever obeys and teaches these commandments will be called greatest in the kingdom of heaven. I tell you, unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew 23:1-3: >”Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying, “The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice” Matthew 12:1-4: >”At that time Jesus was going through a field of grain on the sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick the heads of grain and eat them. When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, “See, your disciples are doing what is unlawful to do on the sabbath.” He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he and his companions were hungry, how he went into the house of God and ate the bread of offering, which neither he nor his companions but only the priests could lawfully eat?”

Do you know for sure you are going to Heaven. https://marymargretsamerica.blogspot.com/2024/11/the-christ-child_69.html

For reference, here's Luke 13:28, ESV: > In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God but you yourselves cast out. All remaining references to the place of weeping and gnashing of teeth leads to the idea that "that place" is hell. References are as follows: >Matthew 8:12 > >But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” >Matthew 13:42 > >They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. >Matthew 13:50 > >and throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. >Matthew 22:13 > >“Then the king told the attendants, ‘Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ >Matthew 24:51 > >He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. >Matthew 25:30 > >And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

When I read John 5:24-29 (CSB) > 24 "Truly I tell you, anyone who hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not come under judgment but has passed from death to life. > > 25 "Truly I tell you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. For just as the Father has life in himself, so also he has granted to the Son to have life in himself. And he has granted him the right to pass judgment, because he is the Son of Man. 28 Do not be amazed at this, because a time is coming when all who are in the graves will hear his voice and come out—those who have done good things, to the resurrection of life, but those who have done wicked things, to the resurrection of condemnation. it seems clear that Jesus will evangelize the dead who hasn't heard the gospel, and that there *is* an element of consideration of how one conducts one's life before death. Restrictivism can be defined as: "God does not provide salvation to those who fail to hear of Jesus and come to faith in him before they die." How would those who believe Restrictivism (see sample adherents in the chart below) interpret that verse? (*Source of the chart*: [What About Those Who Have Never Heard? Three Views on the Destiny of the Unevangelized](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/0830816062))

In Matthew when Jesus and Satan interacted, in one of the temptations given by Satan we get the sense that he has authority over all nations : > Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. And he said to him, “All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me.” ‭‭Matthew‬ ‭4‬:‭8‬-‭9‬ ‭ESV‬ However, it is mentioned in the Old Testament that wars and conflicts do exist between nations, such as Babylon coming to destroy Egypt. > Thus says the Lord God: “I will put an end to the wealth of Egypt, by the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon. He and his people with him, the most ruthless of nations, shall be brought in to destroy the land, and they shall draw their swords against Egypt and fill the land with the slain.” ‭‭Ezekiel‬ ‭30‬:‭10‬-‭11‬ ‭ESV‬‬ But later in Matthew, Jesus uses the argument that Satan's kingdom can’t be divided. > “Knowing their thoughts,” he said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand. And if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand?” ‭‭Matthew‬ ‭12‬:‭25‬-‭26‬ ‭ESV‬‬ My question is: given that Satan has/had authority over the nations in the past as well as these satanic nations then conquering one another as shown in Ezekiel, how does Jesus’s argument hold up that Satan's kingdom can’t be divided? Is he speaking only spiritually or something else?