In the Liturgy of the hours I found a very strange text that looks like heresy to me. It is written by Tertullian, who actually joined the Montanists. This text is really confusing. To me the text sounds like "personal prayer, not Mass, is the new form of sacrifice". I dont know what he is saying at all. I have been told that Mass is the new sacrifice. I read this text as if he was saying Mass isn't even important. What is he saying in this text and why is included in the Liturgy of the hours? Second Reading From the treatise On Prayer by Tertullian: priest: The spiritual offering of prayer >Prayer is the offering in spirit that has done away with the sacrifices of old. What good do I receive from the multiplicity of your sacrifices? asks God. I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams, and I do not want the fat of lambs and the blood of bulls and goats. Who has asked for these from your hands? >What God has asked for we learn from the Gospel. The hour will come, he says, when true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth. God is a spirit, and so he looks for worshippers who are like himself. >We are true worshippers and true priests. We pray in spirit, and so offer in spirit the sacrifice of prayer. Prayer is an offering that belongs to God and is acceptable to him: it is the offering he has asked for, the offering he planned as his own. >We must dedicate this offering with our whole heart, we must fatten it on faith, tend it by truth, keep it unblemished through innocence and clean through chastity, and crown it with love. We must escort it to the altar of God in a procession of good works to the sound of psalms and hymns. Then it will gain for us all that we ask of God. >Since God asks for prayer offered in spirit and in truth, how can he deny anything to this kind of prayer? How great is the evidence of its power, as we read and hear and believe. >Of old, prayer was able to rescue from fire and beasts and hunger, even before it received its perfection from Christ. How much greater then is the power of Christian prayer. No longer does prayer bring an angel of comfort to the heart of a fiery furnace, or close up the mouths of lions, or transport to the hungry food from the fields. No longer does it remove all sense of pain by the grace it wins for others. But it gives the armour of patience to those who suffer, who feel pain, who are distressed. It strengthens the power of grace, so that faith may know what it is gaining from the Lord, and understand what it is suffering for the name of God. >In the past prayer was able to bring down punishment, rout armies, withhold the blessing of rain. Now, however, the prayer of the just turns aside the whole anger of God, keeps vigil for its enemies, pleads for persecutors. Is it any wonder that it can call down water from heaven when it could obtain fire from heaven as well? Prayer is the one thing that can conquer God. But Christ has willed that it should work no evil, and has given it all power over good. >Its only art is to call back the souls of the dead from the very journey into death, to give strength to the weak, to heal the sick, to exorcise the possessed, to open prison cells, to free the innocent from their chains. Prayer cleanses from sin, drives away temptations, stamps out persecutions, comforts the fainthearted, gives new strength to the courageous, brings travellers safely home, calms the waves, confounds robbers, feeds the poor, overrules the rich, lifts up the fallen, supports those who are falling, sustains those who stand firm. >All the angels pray. Every creature prays. Cattle and wild beasts pray and bend the knee. As they come from their barns and caves they look out to heaven and call out, lifting up their spirit in their own fashion. The birds too rise and lift themselves up to heaven: they open out their wings, instead of hands, in the form of a cross, and give voice to what seems to be a prayer. >What more need be said on the duty of prayer? Even the Lord himself prayed. To him be honour and power for ever and ever. Amen.

Non-Trinitarians who do not believe Jesus is God Almighty include Unitarians, Socinians, Arians, Jehova's Witnesses, etc. This would not include, supposedly, Modalists and LDS/Mormons. The idea of atonement in the Old Testament was that a sinner would bring an offering to atone for his sin, and the death of that animal (and thus, its life) would take the place of the sinner's. In his *Temple, Its Ministry and Services *, Alfred Edersheim wrote, >The fundamental idea of sacrifice in the Old Testament is that of substitution, which again seems to imply everything else—atonement and redemption, vicarious punishment and forgiveness. The firstfruits go for the whole products; the firstlings for the flock; the redemption-money for that which cannot be offered; **and the life of the sacrifice, which is in its blood (Lev 17:11), for the life of the sacrificer**. Hence also the strict prohibition to partake of blood. Even in the ‘Korban,’ gift (Mark 7:11) or free-will offering, it is still the gift for the giver. This idea of substitution, as introduced, adopted, and sanctioned by God Himself, is expressed by the sacrificial term rendered in our version ‘atonement,’ but which really means covering, **the substitute** in the acceptance of God **taking the place of**, and so covering, as it were, **the person of the offerer**. Now, this would be a 1:1 relationship, i.e. one sinner, one animal. If Jesus is just a man (or even an angel, another created being), even if he be a sinless man (just like the animal was sinless and was offered as an atonement), how can Jesus effect atonement for all of humanity (John 1:29 ) rather than just one person?

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?

In John 11, Jesus calls Lazarus out of the tomb by name, and he comes back to life. This seems to imply a personal and direct calling from Jesus. In Christian eschatology, during the resurrection of the dead, will all believers be called in a similar personal manner, or is Lazarus’ case unique? Are there biblical passages or theological interpretations that suggest a general principle about how believers are resurrected and whether each will be individually addressed by name?

According to fundamental Belief 24: (Christ’s ministry in the Heavenly Sanctuary) the SDA believe that Christ began his investigative judgement in 1844.This they refer to as the end of 2300 days of Daniel's prophecy. Daniel 8:14 NASB >14 And he said to me, “For 2,300 evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary will be [q]properly restored.” In the prophecy Daniel refers to the restoration of the sanctuary which the SDA clear identify as the heavenly sanctuary.But its not clear in Daniel's prophecy which one he was referring to.Should the text be understood from a literal or non literal sense. How can one understand this interpretation of Christ ministry in the heavenly sanctuary?

All of us know that Jesus had ascended to God the father after he had resurrected, we know that he will come again at the end of time to judge the people and found the kingdom of God on earth. The question is, will he descend as an adult man as he ascended to God the father, or will he be reborn again as an infant in a new incarnation?. Note: there are many who claimed to be incarnations or reincarnations of Jesus, some of them belong to new Christian denominations, look: [Wikipedia List of people claimed to be Jesus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_claimed_to_be_Jesus) Esoteric Christianity like Liberal Catholic Church adopts reincarnation and oneness of god who is both transcendent and immanent and accept Tritheism as three persons in that one God,i.e: the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are manifestations of that one transcendental immanent God. Look: [The Liberal Catholic Church](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.thelccusa.org/about/doctrine.html&ved=2ahUKEwiJqtDln9vmAhVaBGMBHVuACIgQFjAVegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw3tmC-K73qW9T0pMn8NF4yE&cshid=1577636090716) and [Liberal Catholic Church (Wikipedia)](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Catholic_Church&ved=2ahUKEwiJqtDln9vmAhVaBGMBHVuACIgQFjATegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw1jVuej_N56fVnUqmJKBsJ5&cshid=1577637685926) I would like answers to be biblically based, it's preferred to be by scholars of Christianity, especially of orthodox Christianity.

Paul instructed a young minister, Timothy, in his first letter to that man: >The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons...They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.
For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving because it is consecrated by the Word of God and prayer. (1 Timothy 4:1-5) It seems that--without allowing irresponsible eating, and without ignoring common sense dieting--that generally Paul taught that there is to be no restrictions on one's diet...especially in connection with religious institutions or required religious observances. And there are today several religions or even Christian denominations that forbid certain foods to be eaten. Seventh Day Adventism is one of those denominations. And no doubt they are familiar with this warning by Paul. So how do they respond to Paul?

Moses 8:25-30 >25 And it repented Noah, and his heart was pained that the Lord had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at the heart. > >26 And the Lord said: I will destroy man whom I have created, from the face of the earth, both man and beast, and the creeping things, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth Noah that I have created them, and that I have made them; and he hath called upon me; for they have sought his life. > >27 And thus Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord; for Noah was a just man, and perfect in his generation; and he walked with God, as did also his three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. > >28 The earth was corrupt before God, and it was filled with violence. > >29 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth. > >30 And God said unto Noah: The end of all flesh is come before me, for the earth is filled with violence, and behold I will destroy all flesh from off the earth. VERSUS Genesis 6:6-13 >6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. > >7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. > >8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord. > >9 ¶ These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God. > >10 And Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. > >11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. > >12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. > >13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth. My question is why was the wordage changed around who was "repented". In Moses it makes it seem like because of Noah's sorrow and the dangers against his life God who was already angry at the world flooded the earth because of Noah's faith. Whereas in Genesis, it seemed to be Gods decision to flood and the earth and Noah was an innocent bystander who God decides to save. But the Pearl of Great Price being a collection of extras a retranslations of the bible maybe the mormons decided Genesis was incorrect. Or do these two sections go hand in hand. Let me know your thoughts from an LDS perspective and outside perspective.

Malachi 3:1-5 (ESV): > “Behold, **I send** my messenger, and he will prepare the way **before me**. And **the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple**; and **the messenger of the covenant** in whom you delight, behold, he is coming, **says the LORD of hosts**. 2 But who can endure the day of his coming, and who can stand when he appears? For he is like a refiner's fire and like fullers' soap. 3 He will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver, and he will purify the sons of Levi and refine them like gold and silver, and they will bring offerings in righteousness to the LORD. 4 Then the offering of Judah and Jerusalem will be pleasing to the LORD as in the days of old and as in former years. > > 5 “Then I will draw near to you for judgment. I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, against the adulterers, against those who swear falsely, against those who oppress the hired worker in his wages, the widow and the fatherless, against those who thrust aside the sojourner, and do not fear me, says the LORD of hosts. Trinitarians usually interpret Malachi 3:1-5 as evidence that Jesus is Jehovah, by picking up on the fact that Jehovah is speaking in the first person about himself, but then it turns out that the one who came was Jesus. For more details, here are [two](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/56076/38524) [examples](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/56079/38524) of this kind of exegesis on the passage, taken from the hermeneutics site. Of course, this way of exegeting Malachi 3:1-5 totally contradicts the Christological views of Biblical Unitarians. How do Biblical Unitarians exegete Malachi 3:1-5?

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?

I have recently met people who are Reformed Baptist. However, I'm having a hard time understanding what their major beliefs are, especially in comparison to other Baptists. The Wikipedia article gives a good overview of the history of the group, but doesn't summarize the major theological beliefs. Do they still hold to the defining Baptist tenet that only adult baptism is valid? Are there other major differences between them?

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

In a [debate](https://youtu.be/fSYwCaFkYno) between [John Lennox](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lennox) and [Peter Atkins](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Atkins) on the topic *"Can science explain everything?"*, at minute [44:47](https://youtu.be/fSYwCaFkYno?t=2687) John Lennox claims: > Lennox: "And the major reason why I believe that Christianity is true is because--and here comes science again as a base--because **Christianity is testable**." > > Atkins: "Oh nonsense. How can it be tested?" > > Lennox: "Well, Peter, let me face that head-on. Christ said that if a person considered the evidence and came to believe that he was God incarnate who was dying on a cross to give forgiveness and bring peace with God, well we can test that! I've tested it! And I've seen hundreds of people test it. I mean, take an example. I was lecturing at Harvard a while ago to a couple of thousands of people, and when I'd finished, a young Chinese student stood up and he said 'look at me!'. So we we looked at him. And I said why should we look at you? And he was absolutely beaming. He said 'you should look at me because six months ago I came to a lecture you gave at Penn State University. I was at the end. My life was in a complete mess. And something you said triggered a search. And I started to read the New Testament for myself and I became a Christian. And just look at me now.' Now ladies and gentlemen, I've seen that happen not once, not twice, dozens of times. And when you see addiction to drugs transformed at the foot of the table, when you see broken relationships mended, and you ask people what happened to you, and they say variously 'I became a Christian', 'I had an encounter with Christ', you begin to put two and two together and make four! **And I wouldn't sit here for a nanosecond if I didn't believe these promises that Jesus made actually can be fulfilled in a person's life today**. **And that's immensely important to me, the testability of Christian relationship with God**." He makes similar claims in a short 5 min long video titled [Is Christianity testable? | John Lennox at Texas A&M](https://youtu.be/MA9vqWkfrVc) . What is the biblical basis for John Lennox's view? Is this a common view? --- EDIT: for those interested in a philosophical counterpart to this question, consider visiting [Is Christianity testable? Philosophy Stack Exchange](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/105659/66156)

To Peter Turner’s point A) Scripture is the source that says blood was necessary and that blood was sufficient, question revolves around why a Non-Trinitarian Jesus has sufficient worth to save mankind from sin of He is not God and therefore not infinitely valuable as God is. > “*For by **a single offering** (blood offering) he has perfected **for all time** those who are being sanctified*.” ‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭10:14‬ ‭ . > *“he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but **by means of his own blood**, thus **securing** an eternal redemption.”* ‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭9:12‬ To point B) this question is for non Trinitarians, if moderators require a more specific group, to Jehovah Witnesses. (Not for Modalist Non-Trinitarian) —————— The OT foreshadowed a coming sacrifice through which sin would be purged and expunged > “For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.” ‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭10:4‬ ‭ Animal sacrifices were done in faith anticipating the future redemption of mankind But why was Jesus’ death/blood sufficient? If Jesus was merely a coequal to satan or of the same kind any other ‘angel’ as some claim, and NOT God incarnate (as Trinitarians say He is) then why is an angel incarnate a sufficient sacrificial lamb for the sins of mankind? It is clear that prior to incarnation Jesus existed as a non “Adam” man, two texts, one is His own admission because the conversation was prior to the prepared body > *“Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, “Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but **a body have you prepared for me**;” “Then I said, ‘Behold, **I have come to do your will**, O God, as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.’‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭10:5‬,7 > “For **I have come down from heaven**, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.” ‭‭John‬ ‭6:38‬* And secondly *“But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, **from eternity**.””* ‭‭Micah‬ ‭5:2‬ ‭ If He is not God, as God the Father is God, but a created being on what basis is His sacrifice sufficient? > “But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent ( not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, **how much more will the blood of Christ**, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.” ‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭9:11-14‬ Why is His blood sufficient if he is not the eternal God? ———— - Animals were used in substitution for sin as foreshadowing - One man could die for another man or take the punishment in substitution - **Since when can an angel substitute the sins of all mankind? It would make sense if it were the eternal everlasting God but a created being makes no sense, humans are created, as are angels why is one angel worth all of mankind?**

Let me start by quoting a [question](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/111993/104300) and top [answer](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/112012/104300) from a different site: > **Is Alzheimer’s disease evidence for the non-existence of the soul?** > > As Alzheimer's disease kills off neurons, a person's personality and cognitive abilities gradually fade away. Doesn't this suggest that the self or "soul" is simply an emergent property of the brain's physical structure and function, rather than some immaterial essence or spirit that exists independently of the body? > > The classical notion of the soul as an immaterial, eternal essence that exists independently of the physical body is challenged by the way Alzheimer's systematically dismantles a person's mental faculties and sense of identity over time. As the disease destroys neurons and neural connections, the patient's personality, memories, and very "self" seem to disintegrate, suggesting that these aspects of the human experience are products of the brain's physical structure and function, rather than some non-physical soul. > Alzheimer's disease (and other brain disorders with some observable > physical effect along with psychology and neuroscience generally) does > seem to make the existence of an immaterial soul much less plausible > and less useful or necessary for explaining anything. > > Science tells us that: > > - Different parts of the brain correspond to different neural functions. > - Physical changes in the brain affects your memories, your emotions, your ability to reason, etc. > - People consistently behave in certain ways given certain environments and stimuli (which isn't direct evidence against a soul, > but does support the claim that we're merely the result of our biology > and environment). > - Etc. > > But the existence of a soul is ultimately unfalsifiable, so someone > can accept all of that and still hold that there's an immaterial soul > by saying roughly either of the following: > > - The soul sort-of mirrors the brain, with some unclear connection between the two (which seems to render the soul completely unnecessary > as a hypothesis) > - There's some separate part of your being that is your soul (but we have no reason to think such a part exists, we don't know what that > part would do, and we already know parts of your physical brain > affects memories and emotions and your reasoning ability, so does the > soul exclude all of that?) > > Also, if one accepts evolution and common descent, the human-only soul > is also a lot less plausible, given the unclear line between humans > and other apes. [Related > answer](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/110085/does-it-matter-if-certain-professions-have-a-lower-rate-of-theism-and-if-so-wh/110089#110089) . **What arguments do Christian apologists use to defend the soul's existence against the materialist challenge posed by Alzheimer's disease?**

The problem of **theodicy** is the answer to the question of God's justice posed by the evil plainly observable in the world: If God is all-powerful, he has the power to prevent evil. If God is all-knowing, he knows that evil is happening and how to prevent. How, then, can God be just if he does not prevent evil when he could? It's very popular to answer this with the idea of **free will**. God could prevent evil, but he allows people to do evil because our free choice to do or not do evil is necessary in order for us to genuinely do good. In particular for us to have genuine love for God we must have a free choice with the possibility of not loving him. I'm surprised by how commonly people find this an emotionally satisfying answer to the theodicy problem; to me it doesn't help at all. When I first heard it, it seemed strikingly hollow to me. And it still does today. (Please note I'm only talking here about the emotional appeal, not the intellectual appeal.) First of all, it doesn't seem relevant to the theodicy problem. "People have free will, therefore God is justified in not stopping evil" seems like an obvious non sequitur. Free will doesn't generally justify non-intervention in our day-to-day lives. For instance, a police officer who failed to stop an active shooter could not make the excuse that doing so would have interfered with the shooter's free will, nor could the officer defend his own justice by saying that the only way for people to freely obey the law is if they also have the free uncoerced option not too. While it's certainly desirable for people to freely choose to follow the law, I don't see why one would infer from that that it's better not to enforce the law. In the same vein, I note that loving parents regularly interfere with their children's free choice in order to protect them from harm. A father who allowed his child to walk off a cliff when he could have prevented it would be arrested, and couldn't defend himself by saying that he was respecting his child's free choice. Secondly, the claim that genuine love requires the real possibility of not loving seems artificial to me. I don't think I've heard love defined that way outside of this specific context, and it does not seem to apply anywhere else in Christian theology. For instance, we believe that the persons of the Holy Trinity are all mutually loving one another. We would surely never say that the Father's love for the Son is not genuine, nor would we say that the Father might possibly not love the Son. But if neither of those is true, then it cannot be the case that genuine love requires the genuine possibility of not loving. Similarly, isn't the future we look forward to in the Resurrection a future wherein we no longer have the possibility of sinning? But surely we cannot say that in the New Heavens and New Earth we will no longer have free will. And even in popular usage, we often talk about "love" without thinking about whether there is the possibility of not loving. E.g. when I tell my mom I love her, neither of us are thinking that it necessarily entails the possibility it could have been otherwise. I'm sure free will theodicists would say that that is implicit, but it certainly isn't close to the top of mind in most situations. It's not how I *normally* think about love. I am certainly aware that it's possible to philosophize your way out of those problems. This is not intended to be a refutation of free will theodicy, I am simply explaining why it's counterintuitive to me. The solutions to these problems require complex, sophisticated arguments which sacrifice the simple satisfaction that so many people find in free will theodicy. **My question is primarily psychological:** I want to understand why the free will theodicy is appealing. Is it that people generally don't consider these objections, which appear to me to be both obvious and catastrophic? I'm skeptical of that because I don't believe I'm that much smarter than average. Or are the philosophical answers to them actually obvious and straightforward? I'm skeptical of that too because I don't think I'm that much stupider than average. I'd like to believe there is some other explanation which I'm not thinking of. For instance, perhaps there is a better framing of free will theodicy which shifts the intuition such that my objections don't seem so severe. I could imagine that might be possible without requiring too much complexity to be easily understood. **I'm not asking for an explanation that is both airtight and simple**. That's too much to ask from any theological idea. Rather, I'd like to see a simple explanation that doesn't have *obvious* holes. Or if that's not possible, then I'd like to understand the psychology a little better of those who are satisfied by free will theodicy. Perhaps the objections that seem natural to me appear forced? Or perhaps they really do find the sophisticated philosophical defenses of free will theodicy emotionally compelling even though the simple explanation isn't (except as a summary of something more complex)? ---- I apologize if this sounds like a "gotcha" question, but it is a genuine concern for me. Many people I meet put a lot of stake in free will theodicy and I'd like to understand why a little better. Also, to be perfectly clear, I don't believe free will theodicy is a useless or anti-Biblical idea. But I see it as a minor plank or supplementary to a broader theodicy, not as the primary defense of God's justice.

*Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy* (IEP) article on Philo claims that Philo > “laid the foundations for the development of Christianity … as we know it today.” It says > “Philo’s primary importance is in the development of the … foundations of Christianity.” More specifically, it claims that the Logos theology , that became the standard explanation of Jesus after the church became Gentile dominated in the second century, was inspired by Philo, namely, that Philo, by synthesizing Judaism and Greek philosophy, developed concepts which formed the basis for the Christian interpretation of Jesus Christ. The IEP article mentions > “Clement of Alexandria, Christian Apologists like Athenagoras, Theophilus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and by Origen” as Christian theologists who used Philo’s concepts to explain the Biblical Son of God. Furthermore, and much more important, the IEP article claims that Philo influenced the Bible itself. (Philo lived and wrote a few decades before the writers of the New Testament.) The article says Philo > “may have influenced Paul, his contemporary, and perhaps the authors of the Gospel of John … and the Epistle to the Hebrews.” To justify these statements, the IEP article points to the following similarities between Philo and the New Testament: Same Titles ----------- In Philo, the Logos exists before everything else and, therefore, is called the “first-born” (IEP), “the ‘first-born’ of God” (Blogos ), and the first-begotten Son of the Uncreated Father (IEP). Consequently, both Philo's Logos and Jesus Christ are called: - Logos (the Word - John 1:1), - The first-born (Col 1:15; Heb 1:6), and - Son of God. Eternal ------- In both Philo and the NT, the Logos is eternal: - In the NT, the Son "was" in “the beginning” (John 1:1-2) and is “the First and the Last” (Rev 1:17). “His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity” (Micah 5:2). The Arians liked to add, “From everlasting I was established” (Prov 8:23). - Similarly, in Philo, the Logos was begotten from eternity (IEP). The Logos has an origin, but as God’s thought, it also has eternal generation (IEP). God begat the Logos eternally because it is a manifestation of God’s thinking-acting (IEP). Created and Maintains All Things -------------------------------- In both Philo and the NT, the Logos created and still maintains all things: - In Philo, the Logos is “the organizing principle of matter” (Blogos), the power by which God made and ordered all things (IEP), and the bond holding together all the parts of the world (IEP). - In John, God created all things through the Logos (John 1:1-3; cf. Col 1:16; Heb 1:2; 1 Cor 8:6) and also maintains all things through His Son (Heb 1:3; Col 1:17). Entrusted Power --------------- In both Philo and the NT, the Logos receives His power from God: - In Philo, the Logos has no autonomous power, only an entrusted one (Wikipedia ). - Similarly, in the New Testament, the miracles which Jesus performed were performed by God “through Him” (Acts 2:22). God “seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion” (Eph 1:17-21). The Angel of the Lord --------------------- In both Philo and the NT, the Logos is the Old Testament Angel of the Lord: - Many Christians identify the Old Testament Angel of the LORD as the pre-existent Christ. - Similarly, Philo describes the Logos as the revealer of God symbolized in the Scripture by an angel of the Lord (IEP). Reveals God ----------- In both Philo and the NT, the Logos reveals the invisible and incomprehensible God to the created things: - In Philo, “God is revealed to His creation through the Logos” (Blogos). - Similarly, in the New Testament, God “alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see” but the Son is “the exact representation” of God’s nature (Heb 1:3); “the (visible) image of the invisible God” (Col 1:15). Therefore, Jesus said, “He who has seen Me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). Light ----- In both Philo and the NT, the Logos illuminates the soul: - In Philo, the Logos illuminates the human soul and nourishes it with a higher spiritual food (Wikipedia ). In the mind of a wise man thoroughly purified, it allows preservation of virtues in an unimpaired condition. (IEP) - Similarly, Jesus said, “I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness” (John 8:12). And John wrote: “In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.” “There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man” (John 1:4, 9). Begotten -------- In both Philo and the NT, the Logos is neither uncreated as God nor created as men: - In Philo, "the ontology of the Logos would most closely resemble an emanation from the divine essence” (Blogos), and “an extension of a divine being” (IEP). The Logos is more than a quality, power, or characteristic of God; it is an entity eternally generated as an extension (IEP). Therefore, the Logos … is neither uncreated as God nor created as men (IEP). - Similarly, in the NT, the Son is the only being ever “begotten” by the Father. If we interpret this fairly literally, it seems to indicate that He came out of the being of God. The Nicene Creed interprets “begotten” as that He was not created but came from the substance of the Father. The anti-Nicenes warn that humans do not understand what “begotten” of God means and that we should not introduce non-Biblical words or thoughts. Mediator between God and man ---------------------------- In both Philo and the NT, the Logos is the mediator between God and man: - In Philo, the Father is the Supreme Being and the Logos, as his chief messenger, stands between Creator and creature (IEP). The Logos is a perfect being, procuring forgiveness of sins and blessings (IEP); the mediator between God and men (IEP). “The Philonic Logos is the bridge between the infinite God and finite creation” (Blogos). - Similarly, in the New Testament, “there is one God, and ***one mediator*** also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim 2:5; cf. Heb 8:6; 9:15). Everything that the creation receives from God, including existence, sustenance, knowledge, and salvation, flows through His Son. Also, through Christ, we draw near to God and worship Him. Question -------- It is fairly common knowledge that the pre-Nicene Fathers (the Apologists ) explained the Son of God in terms of Greek philosophy. My main question is whether Philo influenced the formulation and contents of the New Testament. Perhaps I can frame the question like this: Jesus and Philo lived at the same time. Jesus said that all power and all judgment have been given Him but He never said that He is the Logos or that God created all things through Him. However, Philo, at that same time, taught that the High God created all things through His Logos. So, did John, Paul, and Hebrews get the idea that Jesus is the Logos and that God created all things through Him from Philo?

Agustín Fernández de San Vicente, Canon of the Cathedral of Durango, traveled in 1822 to California as a political emissary. He was a gambler and a dandy who, unsurprisingly, dressed better than the mendicant friars ministering to Californians at the time: > ... the canon's attire was really striking and colorful. His outfit was reddish in color. Whenever some girl or woman would be taken aback by the splendor and colors of his outfit, she would ask, "Who is that man?" [_Testimonio of Juana Machado_, in Beebe and Senkewicz] > > He wears a small calotte, a blue frock coat and a three-cornered hat.... [_The Khlebnikov Archive_] It's not clear to me whether the two quotes describe the same outfit. Traveling through California and conducting meetings with local officials, would the canon have worn some kind of clerical clothing, vestments, or some other non-church clothing? Would his cathedral college have entitled him to fancier clothing than a parish priest of the same diocese?

I recently watched the debate between the Apostate Prophet and Jake Brancatella from DebateCon earlier this year. Jake was a touch aggressive and AP was flakey, but a good discussion regardless. Jake pointed out something interesting in his argument that I think demands attention: In Genesis 37, Joseph's second dream depicts the sun, moon, and eleven stars all bowing to him. Israel then interprets this as Joseph being lauded by his mother, father, and brothers. However, Rachel was already dead and thus was unable to bow to her son in Egypt. **What is the generally-accepted solution to this problem?** I can think of four answers, but I'm not confident about any of them: 1. Rachel and Israel already played favorites with Joseph, before the whole debacle. The window for this is pretty small, because Israel was flabbergasted by the idea when Joseph brought it up. 2. This is a post-mortem thing that will happen in the afterlife. This is unverifiable on our end and I think defies logic. 3. This is not about Rachel, but one of Israel's other wives (Leah was also probably dead, so not her. Still, two other potential candidates). This seems like a bit of a stretch, but it's possible. 4. Rachel (and all the other wives) were of one flesh with Israel through marriage, so his actions may turn over to them via association. I don't think there's precedent for such a reading. What thoughts do others have on this matter? I'll be the first to say that I may be missing a simple answer somewhere.

What does virginity really mean? It appears to me either not to be a categorical variable, or an arbitrary state. My commonplace understanding of virginity would mean that someone had no sex so far; that would lead to virginity being a continuous variable instead of a categorical one, as sex can mean anything between fingering, licking, masturbation, penetration and so on. In the reception history, virginity seems to be a testable claim (see e.g. Jeanne d'Arc). We know now that there is no test for virginity. We could also assume that virginity is a state of mind, but that would make it kind of arbitrary if we do not assume asexuality. There could be another definition, but I doubt that that is how it could be interpreted in our times, and that would be based on the value of a woman for marriage, which would boil down either to the possibility of pregnancy outside of wedlock or sexual experience of any sort, depending on why virginity has such a high value in certain cultures regarding marriage. I am sure I missed something. How do different denominations teach this? What errors did I make in my naive pre-assessment?