I just want to make sure that I understand this Catholic doctrine correctly or not. > They immolated to demons and not to God, to gods whom they did not know, who were new and recent arrivals, whom their fathers did not worship. – Deuteronomy 32:17 > But the things that the Gentiles immolate, they immolate to demons, and not to God. And I do not want you to become partakers with demons. – 1 Corinthians 10:20 > Translation: (Catholic Public Domain Version)

While discussing whether the early church worshipped on the Saturday Sabbath a Sabbatarian (though not an SDA) asserted "We know that the Apostle John kept the (Saturday) Sabbath". My question is simple: How do any Sabbatarians "know" that John kept the Saturday Sabbath? What is the evidence?

I read something recently and it reminded me of oil I asked a priest to bless. He read the rite word for word except that he did not sprinkle it with holy water. Is it still as efficacious? Thank you. God bless!

One doctrine that has been consistently taught in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is that, if people had accepted the gospel but didn't have the opportunity in this life, they will still be saved and be able to receive all the blessings of the gospel. This general idea goes back to at the latest Joseph Smith's vision of the celestial kingdom, where he was surprised to see his brother who died before the restoration of the church. D&C 137 > 5 I saw Father Adam and Abraham; and my father and my mother; my > brother Alvin, that has long since slept; > > 6 And marveled how it was that he had obtained an inheritance in that > kingdom, seeing that he had departed this life before the Lord had set > his hand to gather Israel the second time, and had not been baptized > for the remission of sins. > > 7 Thus came the voice of the Lord unto me, saying: All who have died > without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they > had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom > of God; > > 8 Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who > would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that > kingdom; > > 9 For I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, > according to the desire of their hearts. Now, the covenant of marriage is seen as vitally important to receive the highest blessings in the celestial kingdom (D&C 131 ). LDS perform proxy sealings in the temple for those who were married in life but not in the "new and everlasting covenant" that is eternal marriage. With regard to those that, for some reason or another, did not have the opportunity to marry in this life, no proxy marriages are (kind of obviously) performed. Yet it has been consistently taught since at least Lorenzo Snow that there will be opportunity for those eventually (in the millenium I suppose) to be married. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-lorenzo-snow/chapter-9-sacred-family-relationships?lang=eng&id=p8#p8 > People who have no opportunity of marrying in this life, if they die > in the Lord, will have means furnished them by which they can secure > all the blessings necessary for persons in the married condition. The > Lord is merciful and kind, and He is not unjust. There is no injustice > in Him; yet we could scarcely look upon it as being just when a woman > or a man dies without having had the opportunity of marrying if it > could not be remedied in the other life. There would be injustice in > that, and we know that the Lord is not an unjust being. My sister > Eliza R. Snow, I believe, was just as good a woman as any Latter-day > Saint woman that ever lived, and she lived in an unmarried state until > she was beyond the condition of raising a family. … I cannot for one > moment imagine that she will lose a single thing on that account. It > will be made up to her in the other life, and she will have just as > great a kingdom as she would have had if she had had the opportunity > in this life of raising a family. (Quote from 1899, shortly after becoming president of the church in 1898) Was Lorenzo Snow the first to formulate the doctrine this way? Surely all the building blocks were already there even in Joseph Smith's time. Please correct me if I am wrong in this, but I assume none of the standard works go into this topic, so what we have here is an example of doctrine defined by "the modern-day prophets consistently taught it".

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.

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?

What are the Biblical arguments used by those who teach that God does not know every detail of the future? I've seen three answers as to whether God knows every detail of the future. - 1. "God knows every detail of the future, including things that He hasn't planned". 2. "God knows every detail of the future because He plans every detail of the future". 3. "While God could control every detail of the future, He does not, and sometimes things happen that He does not expect to happen". A complete response should discuss all three. **Conclusion** I accepted Kristopher's answer as it best answered the question. I awarded the 200 point bounty to Andrew Shanks as his answer and comments were most helpful in refining my answer, which was the goal of the bounty.

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

Christian theology affirms that Jesus Christ is fully divine and fully human. At the same time, Scripture describes real human limitations during his earthly life (e.g., growth in wisdom, learning, and dependence on ordinary means of communication). Given this, I am asking how Christian doctrine understands Jesus’ knowledge of human languages during his earthly ministry. - Did Christ, by virtue of his divinity, possess complete knowledge of all human languages while incarnate? - Or did the incarnation (often discussed in terms of kenosis) entail genuine limitations such that his linguistic knowledge was exercised within normal human bounds? - How do major Christian traditions (e.g., Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant) reconcile divine omniscience with apparent human limitations in this area?

In Acts 8:39–40, Philip the Evangelist is suddenly taken away by the Spirit and appears in another location after baptizing the Ethiopian eunuch. Some Christians interpret this as an example of a “rapture.” Is it biblically safe to conclude that Philip was raptured? Can this passage legitimately be used as support for the doctrine of the rapture alongside the teachings of Jesus Christ about His return, or does the text describe a different kind of supernatural transport? I’m looking for interpretations from a biblical, theological, or historical perspective rather than personal opinion.

What is the difference between the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches?

1. **God is four-in-one.** 2. **The Body of Christ is four-in-one.** The Father, The Son, The Spirit and You. There is no participation in God's essence/Godhead, only in His energies/economy by believers. Are these **two statements** orthodox, heterodox, or heresy? #### Possible Biblical Basis: John 14:20 (NIV): > On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. John 14:23 (NIV): > Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. John 17:21 (NIV): > that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 1 Corinthians 6:19 (NIV): > Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; Ephesians 3:17 (NIV): > so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, Ephesians 4:4-6 (NIV): > 4There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. #### Arguments For: - https://conversantfaith.com/2025/06/12/four-in-one-witness-lee-and-trinitarian-ecclesiology/ : > "Witness Lee’s claim that the Body of Christ is “a four-in-one organic entity” belongs within this broad and venerable stream: a distinctive, but not discordant, contribution to the tradition of Trinitarian ecclesiology." - https://www.equip.org/articles/addressing-the-open-letters-concerns-on-the-nature-of-humanity-part-3-of-a-reassessment-of-the-local-church-movement-of-watchman-nee-and-witness-lee/ : > "On first blush a skeptic might legitimately ask, “How could believers not partake in the Godhead if they partake in God’s life and nature?” The answer, however, becomes clear when Lee is read in his own context and allowed to define his own terms. When Lee refers to the “processed God,” he is clearly speaking about the economic Trinity. It is this Trinity that becomes in a sense “four-in-one.” There is no change in the essential or ontological Trinity (what Lee is here calling the Godhead) with the deification of believers any more than there was a change in the ontological Trinity with the incarnation of Christ. According to the LC, in the outworking of God’s economy or plan of salvation, there is a process that includes progressive steps in which God the Father is embodied in the Son in incarnation, Christ is realized as the Spirit in resurrection, and ultimately the Triune God is expressed in the glorified church; but in His essential nature or Godhead, the Lord remains forever unchanged." #### Arguments Against: - https://normangeisler.com/a-response-to-cri-local-church/ : > "To illustrate the absurdity of the LC position, one final citation from Witness Lee is necessary. He wrote: “Because the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are all one with the Body of Christ, we may say that the Triune God is now the ‘four-in-one’ God. These four are the Father, the Son, the Spirit, and the Body. The Three of the Divine Trinity cannot be confused or separated, and the four-in-one also cannot be separated or confused.” (Lee , A Deeper Study, 203-204). No amount of hermeneutical gyrations can untangle this theological absurdity. Clearly, Lee does not hold the orthodox view of the Trinity which allows no creature or creatures to be one with the members of the Trinity in the same sense that the Body of Christ (the Church) is one with God. Defending such a view is both senseless and useless." - https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/scotty-smith/trinity-no-4th-member/ : > "You are the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End, and everything in between. Hallelujah, many times over. As our God, you are Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—perfect Trinity. And you’re not looking to turn a Trio into a Quartet. We matter, but only you are the point."

I’m researching the story of the Seven Sleepers of Ephesus. I understand that it is not part of the canonical Bible, but that it appears in early Syriac Christian writings, such as the homilies of Jacob of Serugh (5th–6th century CE). I’m curious about how this story is viewed within Christian traditions today, particularly Eastern/Syriac Christianity: Is it considered purely devotional or moral literature, or is it treated as a historical event? How do clergy or believers engage with it—do they tell it as a story for inspiration, include it in liturgy, or otherwise reference it? Are there any standard interpretations or lessons emphasized by these communities? I’m interested in both historical and contemporary perspectives on the story in Syriac/Eastern Christian traditions.

Note: I want to preface this by saying I am not a Christian. Everything I write comes from me trying to understand the topic from within my (mis)understanding of the Christian perspective. I am trying to understand if the Seven Capital Vices really is a comprehensive list of the bases of all sin, where all the bases are truly distinct. I can definitely recognize all of the vices as progenitors of sin, and they do seem basic, quite comprehensive, and fairly distinct. But I'd like to see that more logically. The arguments for such a view will differ, given that the topic has been looked at differently by various scholars. Take a look at this table shown in *Glittering Vices* by Rebecca Konyndyk DeYoung. | Evagrius (4th c.)\* | Cassian (4th/5th c.)† | Gregory (6th c) | Aquinas (13th c.) | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 1\. Gluttony | 1\. Gluttony | *Pride = root* | Pride = root | | 2\. Lust | 2\. Lust | 1\. Vainglory | 1\. Vainglory | | 3\. Avarice | 3\. Avarice | 2\. *Envy* | 2\. Envy | | 4\. Sadness | 4\. Wrath‡ | 3\. *Sadness* | 3\. *Sloth* | | 5\. Anger‡ | 5\. Sadness | 4\. Avarice | 4\. Avarice | | 6\. Sloth (Acedia) | 6\. Sloth | 5\. Wrath | 5\. Wrath | | 7\. Vainglory | 7\. Vainglory | 6\. Lust | 6\. Lust | | 8\. Pride | 8\. Pride | 7\. Gluttony | 7\. Gluttony | \* Evagrius did not maintain a consistent order for his list. † Cassian's list is the same as Evagrius's but is ordered from carnal to spiritual. ‡ "Anger" and "wrath" translate the same Greek and Latin terms, which also refer to the passion or emotion of anger. I take most of my understanding from DeYoung's book, which utilizes Aquinas' taxonomy: Pride is not among the Seven; it is the root of them. So, the basis of all sin is Pride, and at the first stage of specification, Pride manifests as one of the Seven Vices. But, to understand if these Seven Vices actually represent what they're supposed to, we must ask: *specification of what*? They are all sin; they are all forms of Pride, but what differentiates them? If we look at the spectre of fundamental differences in how sin manifests, we are able to logically verify that the seven categories are indeed distinct, comprehensive, and basic. But I have yet to see a very logical explication of this. I begin with a little demo of the kind of thinking I am looking for below: > When Pride blossoms into sin, what is the first "choice" of specification to be made? Well, to ask that, we must ask by what mechanism sin works? All that exists is from God. So, sin must be a corruption of God's work. For us to work as individuals, societies and as a species, we need to have drives. Drives can be placed on a taxonomy of basicness. The most basic drives are those directly given to us by God; less basic drives are simply more specific instantiations of (combinations of) those basic drives. For example, we have the drive to consume sustenance. So, we may have the drive to walk over to a river; that drive is a more specific one, that is simply a specific, less basic, instantiation of the drive to consume sustenance. > > So, it follows that sin must be a corruption of our drives; a disordered effort to fulfill our drives. How could our efforts be disordered? Well, if our efforts to fulfill a drive bring about net wrong, then it is disordered. But how could our effort to fulfill God-given drives bring about net wrongness? If our efforts actually harm our overall fulfillment of our drives, then they bring about net wrongness (AKA, they are "disordered"). Our efforts to fulfill a drive can fail by not actually fulfilling that drive, or by leading to a greater detriment of other drives, or (usually) a little bit of both. In all cases, we are harming our overall fulfillment of our God-given drives. > >So, if this thinking is correct, we may identify the bases of sin by identifying the bases of drives. What is the root drive? Whatever the root drive is, (assuming Aquinas and DeYoung are correct), the corruption of this root drive is Pride. I find the **drive towards self-love** to be a logical contender. Not only does it seem like the basic drive that would give rise to all other drives, that all eventually lead to the attainment of good; it also seems like Pride would be the corruption/disordering of our God-given drive to love ourselves. > > But how to proceed from here? How does this drive/vice get specified at the most fundamental level? It is claimed that the taxonomy of vices has a stem/root made that is Pride, with seven branches (each representing a Capital Vice) sprouting from it, from which all other branches and fruits come from. In logical terms, that means that we start with Pride, and then we ask a single question regarding its specific instantiation. We must find a comprehensive list of distinct answers to this single question. If that list has seven answers that each correspond to a Capital Vice, then we will have shown the taxonomy to be correct. > > It seems obvious the question will be something like "how does one engage in Pride?" Or, equivalently, "how is one's fulfillment for the root drive disordered?" Obviously, that formulation is far too vague. To answer that question in full-detail would not give us seven answers, but thousands! Instead, it must be a much narrower form of this question. So, what is this question? What is the logical structure of the taxonomy of sin? How are the Seven Capital Vices basic, comprehensive, and properly delineated (i.e., all vices are distinct)? And how do they all stem from Pride?

Biblically speaking there is a majestic spirit, a created spirit, called the *"artisan"* that is seated at the Throne, that King Solomon revealed in the Book of Wisdom. >Give me Wisdom, *who sits enthroned beside you*. Don’t reject me, out of all your servants. >Give me wisdom, *that sitteth by thy throne*, and cast me not off from among thy children: >Give me the Wisdom t*hat sits beside your throne*; give me a place among your children. >Give me Wisdom, *the consort at your throne,* and do not reject me from among your children; >Grant me Wisdom, *who sits beside your throne*, and do not exclude me from the number of your children. >give me the wisdom *that sits by your throne*, and do not reject me from among your servants. So many bible translation, showed the *"artisan seated on the Throne"* or seated on the Throne beside God. We are seeing a two spirit, one a **"created spirit or the artisan"** and one which is **Eternal, Omnipotent and Omniscient Spirit**, one described in Proverbs8:22-30 as spirit that was *qanah or birthed by God*, that became His companion, not as onlooker only but a *master craftsman* during creation time. Biblically speaking again, in the Book of Ezekiel, it is well accepted that it pointed to Lucifer, a cherub, whom God had anointed to guard the Holy Mountain. When King Solomon, described the *"artisan"* seated on the Throne, for those who would like to post their answer, must infer that the *artisan is in the Holy Mountain of God*, and the possibility that Lucifer had a glimpse of the majestic beauty of the artisan seated on the Throne. *How majestic is the divine beauty of the artisan?* The artisan is *"like God",* and for CSE brilliant members here, they can easily recall the famous rebuke *"Who is like God"*. Ok lets check how majestic and holy the *artisan* is, as described in Book of Wisdom. >1 And all such things as are hid and not foreseen, I have learned: *for wisdom, which is the worker of all things, taught me. 22 For in her is the spirit of understanding: holy, one, manifold, subtile, eloquent, active, undefiled, sure, sweet, loving that which is good, quick, which nothing hindereth, beneficent, 23 Gentle, kind, steadfast, assured, secure, having all power, overseeing all things, and containing all spirits, intelligible, pure, subtile. 24 For wisdom is more active than all active things: and reacheth everywhere by reason of her purity. 25 For she is a vapour of the power of God, and a certain pure emanation of the glory of the almighty God: and therefore no defiled thing cometh into her.* >26 *For she is the brightness of eternal light, and the unspotted mirror of God's majesty, and the image of his goodness. 27 And being but one, she can do all things: and remaining in herself the same, she reneweth all things, and through nations conveyeth herself into holy souls, she maketh the friends of God and prophets. 28 For God loveth none but him that dwelleth with wisdom. 29 For she is more beautiful than the sun, and above all the order of the stars: being compared with the light, she is found before it. 30 For after this cometh night, but no evil can overcome wisdom.* The above description of *spirit of created Wisdom or the artisan* is indeed like God, in all aspect of purity, holiness, power and light, all the powerful and majestic qualities of the *artisan*, is truly *"like God"* in everything. No wonder, if indeed Lucifer saw the *artisan* in Her majesty, shining light and beauty, Lucifer would indeed dream of acquiring the spirit of Wisdom, *to become like God*, and sit on the Throne at the Holy Mountain. But ofcourse, Lucifer dream shattered into pieces, and the fallen Lucifer, wants to fulfill his desire to sit on the Throne, not in the Holy Mountain but in the opposite or even above it, as Lucifer claimed in the Book of Isaiah, shouting the famous ***"I WILL"***. Going back to the main topic or question, which denominations or Bible Alone Believer teaches or interpret biblically that Lucifer placed at the Holy Mountain had seen or had a glimpse of the majestic beauty and light of the *artisan* seated on the Throne?

According to the doctrine of the trinity the Son is eternal. Is this in reference to his divine nature only or the physical and divine? If it is both physical and divine, then did the body shrink down into Mary?

I've been thinking about when Adam and Eve, the very first humans the progenitors of the human race ate the fruit of knowledge in that moment all humans became corrupt and since all humans stem from them doesn't that thus mean all of humanity is corrupt? My proof and reasoning for this can be found in Romans 5:12 "*Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned.*"

Can a woman whose husband is a credo-baptist believer still go to mass with her husband and family? If they want to delay baptism of their children until they are capable of thinking for themselves will you get kicked out of the Catholic church? They are both Catholics; the husband just feels that baptism is something a person has to decide for him/herself to do. The parents do want their kids baptized; they just want them to choose to do so (when they are mature enough to decide).

I asked, "What is the Boethian solution?" One answer was - >The Boethian solution refers to a philosophical argument, most famously detailed in Boethius's *The Consolation of Philosophy*, that resolves the problem of divine foreknowledge and human free will. Boethius argues that God is eternal, existing outside of time, and thus perceives all of time—past, present, and future—at once, much like a person outside of a train can see the entire track at once. For God, there is no "fore"-knowledge but an "eternal present" where all events are simply "present" to Him, not predetermined by His knowledge. Therefore, an event happening does not occur because God foresaw it, but rather God simply sees it happening in His eternal present, a fact that does not remove human freedom. The answer added - >This theory contradicts the scriptural concepts which Paul expresses, namely ; foreknowledge, predestination and election. How does God's being outside of time contradict foreknowledge, predestination and election?

In a recent debate between Dr. James White and Dr. Justin Smith , Dr. James White argues for a Trinitarian interpretation of 1 Corinthians 8:6, claiming that Paul deliberately echoes the Shema (“Hear, O Israel: YHWH our God, YHWH is one” – Deut 6:4) and “expands” it. According to this argument, Paul: - Retains the Shema’s monotheistic framework - Identifies “one God” with the Father - Identifies “one Lord (κύριος)” with Jesus Christ - Uses the same κύριος / θεός vocabulary found in the Septuagint rendering of Deut 6:4 This is taken to imply that Paul includes Jesus within the unique divine identity of YHWH, without abandoning Jewish monotheism. **My question is directed to Christians who affirm the doctrine of the Trinity:** **Apart from later creeds or patristic theology, what exegetical and hermeneutical arguments support reading 1 Corinthians 8:6 as a deliberate reworking or “expansion” of the Shema?** More specifically: - Does the immediate literary context of 1 Corinthians 8 support this reading? - What linguistic or intertextual indicators suggest Paul is intentionally alluding to Deuteronomy 6:4? - How should the distinction between “one God, the Father” and “one Lord, Jesus Christ” be understood without collapsing them into modalism or separating them into two gods? Would you agree with Dr. White’s interpretation? If so, on what biblical and contextual grounds, rather than post‑biblical theological developments? If not, what other interpretations of 1 Corinthians 8:6 exist that are in support of the trinity doctrine, and on what biblical and contextual grounds, rather than post‑biblical theological developments?