One of my latest questions concerned the issue of animal sacrifices in the Old Testament times. (https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/103127/why-were-animal-sacrifices-required-for-those-in-the-old-testament-period-but-n) . There are verses in the Bible that suggest that animal sacrifice led to forgiveness of sins (Hebrews 9:22; Numbers 15:25 (ESV): and Leviticus 4:20). One of the responses to my question (above) asserted that it is impossible to have salvation through animal sacrifice. Since childhood, we have been taught that salvation is through Jesus. The discussion on my earlier question made me ask myself whether salvation and forgiveness of sins are the same thing. If a person had their sins forgiven (for instance under the Old Testament covenant), is that different from salvation?

A popular (Eastern Orthodox) view of afterlife proclaims that God's presence is akin to torture for an unbeliever (Hell) and akin to bliss for a believer (Heaven). It claims that Heaven and Hell are different responses to presence of God, rather than 2 different places. This brings me to my question. From the Eastern Orthodox perspective can unbelievers change their attitude towards God in the afterlife, and thus turn their Hell into Heaven?

I was came across an Atheist YouTuber and one of his arguments against the existence of G-d is Schellenberg's non-resistant divine hiddenness argument and its three premises. How would you address this argument and the premises of this argument from a Christian perspective? The syllogism is as follows (see [SEP entry](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/divine-hiddenness/#ArguNonrNonb)) : 1. If a perfectly loving God exists, then God would ensure that all capable individuals who are open to a relationship with God are aware of God's existence (non-resistant seekers). 2. There are some non-resistant individuals who are capable of a relationship with God but do not believe in God's existence. 3. Therefore, a perfectly loving God does not exist.

How can Christianity be considered monotheistic when they pray to entities other than God, like Jesus, Mary, and saints? The trinity is three, not one. Aren't Christians just finding excuses for idol worship?

Is the "Western Wall" a part of the temple wall that Jesus said would Not have one stone left upon another and if so was he referring ahead to a later time because the chapter is about the end of the age. Therefore, Jesus may have been referring to a time yet to come when the Western Wall would have every stone no longer upon another stone?

This is not my own question. I just copied and pasted this question from someone else, which that person should have asked here. https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/120705/are-swinburne-like-free-will-rebuttals-to-divine-hiddeness-arguments-inconsisten > For me, the biggest reason to doubt God's existence is that he is so non-obvious/hidden in comparison to his power and performance of highly obvious and visible acts in scriptures (always "a long long time ago..."). > > I asked a philosophically-minded Catholic friend about this, wondering why if God wants us to have a relationship with Him and to act in morally correct ways, why does he make it so hard to even arrive at a conclusion that he exists, let alone whether we should follow and worship him. > > They responded with what is called a "greater goods" argument (similar to responses for Evil), in that "If God made it obvious he existed, then we'd be coerced into being good, which would subvert our moral free will. Coming to believe is in itself a greater good." > > Putting aside my disbelief in "libertarian free will" (of the kind that is supposed to make us theologically responsible for our choices), it seems odd to explain lack of evidence by appealing its impact on free will - if our will is free, then no matter what we know we will always have the capacity to do otherwise -- we just make choices with more or less information. > > I found a nice snippet from an IEP article that summarized my friend's point nicely (with citations to greats like Swinburne): > > > Several goods have been proposed as the reason (or part of the reason) that God allows undesirable nonbelief phenomena. One such good is morally significant free will. The idea here is that the greater awareness one has of God, the greater the motivation one has to act rightly (due to a desire to please God, a fear of punishment for doing wrong, and so forth), and therefore if God were too obvious, we would have such a strong motivation to do good that it would cease to be a true choice. This has been defended by Richard Swinburne (1998). Helen De Cruz also addresses this question, examining it through the lens of cognitive science of religion. She suggests that there is some empirical evidence for the claim that a conscious awareness of God heightens one’s motivation to do good (De Cruz 2016). > > In particular, the following line is borderline incoherent in light of broader Christian views on the nature of free will and moral responsiblity: > > >...if God were too obvious, we would have such a strong motivation to do good that it would cease to be a true choice. > > This flies in the face of much of Christian doctrine. For example, St Andrews Encyclopedia of Theology states (emphasis mine): > > >... God’s goodness and providential control over creation form a very powerful problem of evil: if God is the creator of the world and has providential control over it, it seems that God is also the source of evil and death in the created world. One attractive way to solve these tensions is to assume the existence of a robust human free will. **If humans have free will, God cannot determine what humans freely do in moral and spiritual matters**. Humans are morally responsible because they make their own choices. God is not responsible for evil and sin, because they are the doing of **humans, whose actions are not forced by God**. > > This directly contradicts the statement that there needs to be "epistemic distance" or murkiness to the reality of God for our choice to be a "true choice" -- all choices are true choices according to this theological encyclopedia. > > I also found a discussion by Trent Horn on this in relation to the reality of Hell and its relation to free will: > > > One of my arguments for why I believe Hell is eternal is that the damned make it eternal by continually sinning and rejecting God. **They just double down on their sins and continue to wallow in them and routinely choose them over God for all eternity**. And you probably know people like this who are stubborn, who are malicious, that even when they’re offered mercy and grace, they turn it down and they double down on their own sins and they find almost a sick kind of pleasure in their own sins and in their own stubbornness. And I think that that’s what Hell is, that Hell, it has a lock, but the lock is on the inside. That people choose to not unlock it, that **if you took someone out of Hell and place them into Heaven, they would curse God and march right back into Hell and consider it to be better**. > > Again, this Christian apologist is basically saying that our free will is so strong that even after learning of the true, awful reality of Hell, those people would *still* choose to sin and separate from God. > > In the same article, Trent Horn makes another telling remark: > > > So that’s true. God wants all people to be saved. But just because God wants something, it doesn’t follow that’s going to happen. God wants me to not ever commit a sin in my life. Now, that makes sense, right? Does God want Trent Horn to sin? No, he doesn’t want me to sin. In fact, Jesus says, “Be perfect like your Heavenly father is perfect.” God wants me, from this moment going forward, to not commit a sin. Am I going to commit a sin? You bet I’m going to. In fact, James 3:2 says that we all stumble in small ways. So, there are many things that God wants, and that represents his perfect will for us, but he understands that we are not puppets on a string, we are not marionettes. And so, there are things God wants for us, but **we can choose to not go along with his plan**. > > ---- > So, **Are Christian's trying to have it both ways?** > > They like free will because it (permanently) puts the responsibility on us, not God, for the evils that happen and choices we make. God cannot be held liable *no matter what he does* -- that is a key point apologist answers to God's apparent impotence in the face of evil and disbelief/skepticism. They claim that we should not sin because God wants us not to sin, but if we know he wants this "too well" then we are being compelled?! > > So much of Christianity is geared around fostering a deep feeling of the reality of God, and also a healthy "fear/respect" of him and of the possibility of hell. If freely choosing God is such a greater good, so great that God puts up with all the negatives of free will, why are churches working so hard to undermine that freedom? > > Overall, it seems like free will defense to Divine Hiddenness is a dead end, as it relies on a lack of free will that we are supposed to have according to the exact same theologians.

Many Christians pray and act as if Satan is right next to them all the time, tempting them to turn away from God, attacking them, etc., as though he were omnipresent... What is the Biblical basis against Satan's omnipresence?

Archibishop Cupich asked his flock to not kneel before receiving communion: [Cardinal Cupich Asks Catholics ‘to Receive Holy Communion Standing’ in Chicago Archdiocese](https://www.ncregister.com/cna/cardinal-cupich-asks-catholics-to-receive-holy-communion-standing-in-chicago-archdiocese?) . But I took a personal vow to always receive communion kneeling and on the tongue. In general, should a Catholic follow his or her own conscience in matters like this or abide by the reasoned dictates of an Archbishop? Or, to put another way, what level of fealty does a Catholic have to their Bishop in personal liturgical practices which are allowed by canon law?

A number of miracles in the New Testament are not wrought by someone just praying. Instead, there are often physical intermediaries. One example is Paul's handkerchief, which could be used to heal people in absence of Paul himself. Another is the lady touching Jesus' robe. Jesus also used mud in the eyes of the blind man. Even when other physical objects are not used, often the healer lays hands on the person being healed, which is still a physical object being used as a medium. One could even say the words used in a healing prayer are a physical medium, since the words already exist in the person's mind, and God can read everyone's mind, so aren't strictly necessary to exhibit a person's intent to heal. Why are physical mediums of one sort or another used in the enactment of all the miracles? Why don't people just think the miracle into existence?

Paul wrote that 500 people saw Jesus at once (1 Cor 15:6). If his recounting is true, it's obvious they saw *something*, but it's not clear to me why that thing couldn't have been a vague figure misinterpreted as Jesus. Here are some similar events: - 108 people saw the Virgin Mary appear at a waterfall and then to the adults of the group at Mass. Link Among the observers were doctors, psychologists, psychiatrists, engineers, and lawyers. - A second example comes from Cairo, Egypt in 1986, at a Coptic church. Mary had appeared a number of times between 1983 and 1986. Once she appeared on the roof, four Coptic bishops arrived to authenticate the vision. They did indeed see her. At other times she was seen by (non-Christian, obviously) Muslims. Link - During the supposed Miracle of Fatima, many people claimed to see the sun exhibit strange behavior, whirling toward the earth. Link - Betty Parris (age 9) and her cousin Abigail Williams (age 11), the daughter and the niece, respectively, of Reverend Samuel Parris, began to have fits described as "beyond the power of epileptic fits or natural disease to effect" by John Hale, the minister of the nearby town of Beverly. Link - Sixty-two pupils at the Ariel School aged between six and twelve said that they saw one or more silver craft descend from the sky and land on a field near their school. Some of the children claimed that one or more creatures dressed all in black then approached and telepathically communicated to them a message with an environmental theme, frightening them and causing them to cry. Several of them have maintained their account into adulthood. Link

Do Lutherans bow down to the altar? And if yes, how does that differ from Catholic veneration of statues/icons or other holy objects?

Demonic possession of course is biblical, but what about demonic paranormal activity? With some effort it's not hard to come across testimonies from Christians, and even non-Christians, telling stories of paranormal experiences, such as hearing footsteps, scratches on walls, drawers moving in and out, closets opening and closing, things flying off the shelves or walls, beds shaking, chairs moving, objects falling down, light bulbs exploding, stuff levitating, the temperature in the room suddenly dropping, horrible demonic "smell", hearing audible evil growls, etc. I'm pretty sure many of you have heard of similar experiences. Is there any biblical basis to this? Does the Bible record examples of demonic paranormal activity? Do the Scriptures support the ability of demons to manipulate objects and intervene in the physical world?

Luke 1:28: > Καὶ [And] εἰσελθὼν [having entered] πρὸς [to] αὐτὴν [her] εἶπεν [he said], Χαῖρε [Greetings], **κεχαριτωμένη [having been graced/highly favored]**, ὁ [the] Κύριος [Lord] μετὰ [with] σοῦ [you]. NIV: > The angel went to her [Mary] and said, ‘Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.’ While many people in the NT are considered to have "χάρις" [grace], Mary is the only person described as being "κεχαριτωμένη" [having been graced/highly favored]. Do Catholics attach any particular significance to this choice of words in Luke? I will accept answers from the writing of the church itself, and from Catholic apologists.

I have noticed a consistent bias in English translations of the scriptures, both old and new. Whenever the Greek προσκυνέω or the Hebrew וַיִּשְׁתַּ֖חוּ appear (in their various conjugations), if the word is applied to God proper or to "a god," then the word is translated as "worship." However, if the term is applied to your average man then it is translated as the more literal and mundane "to bow down, to prostrate oneself." A great example of this is Exodus 18:7 (NASB) >Then Moses went out to meet his father-in-law, and he bowed down and kissed him; and they asked each other about their welfare, and went into the tent. If you review the Hebrew, the word translated here as "bowed down" is וַיִּשְׁתַּ֙חוּ֙. And if we look at the Greek of this verse in the Septuagint, the word is προσεκύνησεν, the 3rd person singular aorist active indicative conjugation of the aforementioned προσκυνέω. But when these words are applied to God, we see they are translated as "worship." For example, 1 Samuel 15:31 (NASB) >So Samuel went back following Saul, and Saul worshiped the Lord. The Hebrew word here is again וַיִּשְׁתַּ֥חוּ, while the Greek from the Septuagint is again προσεκύνησεν; the exact same as for when Moses "bowed down" to Jethro. As far as I can tell, this distinction is entirely artificial and has been abused by translators to falsely build up the case for the Trinity by selectively translating the Greek word as "worship" when applied to Christ, just as when it is applied to God proper or to "a god," and not translating it in the same manner as when applied to men. For example... Matthew 28:16-17 >**16** But the eleven disciples proceeded to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had designated to them. **17** And when they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful. The Greek word translated as "they worshiped" is, of course, προσεκύνησαν. This is nearly identical to the word used when Moses "bowed down" to Jethro - only it is 3rd person plural instead of 3rd person singular. On to my question... While it appears to me that the above practice is an abuse by translators to force their biases upon the unsuspecting reader, I want to know if there is in fact a good, objective reason for this practice. Any references you can provide to substantiate your answer would be much appreciated.

Acts 7:59-60 >**59** And they went on stoning Stephen as he called upon the Lord and said, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit! **60** And falling on his knees, he cried out with a loud voice, "Lord, do not hold this sin against them!" And having said this, he fell asleep. Why did not Stephen call upon the "only true God?" It's interesting that Stephen's confession and Jesus' confession (Luke 23:34), there is a striking contrast; Jesus "commended" His spirit to the Father but Stephen, to the Lord Jesus Christ, why?

The reason I am raising this question is not so much to understand communion as to understand: * "one substance with the Father" (since that seems at odds with Hebrews 1:1-3 to me) * "consubstantiation" * "transubstantiation" My thought is by understanding this specific I might have a better idea of what they might mean. So if someone eats Jesus' body does "same substance", "consubstantiation" or "transubstantiation" suggest that Catholics are they eating the Father's substance? Again, these are probably ignorant questions but the answers might clarify for me what the Catholic theologians are on about.

I read in "The Latin Mass Explained" by Msgr. George J. Moorman that all known ancient Christian sects, distinct from the Catholic church, celebrate the mass as a sacrifice just like the Catholic church. This apparently is the entire point of the mass, that it is a continuation of the Judaic temple sacrifice, but since God doesn't need any created thing we can possibly sacrifice, the only sufficient sacrifice is God Himself, i.e. the doctrine of transubstantiation in the eucharist. In fact, Jesus carries out this sacrifice of himself during the last supper, even before his crucifixion. The idea is that sacrifice is not originally about atonement for sins, since sacrifice existed before the Mosaic sacrificial system. Instead, the fundamental reason is man destroying his most valuable possessions for the sake of God, indicating that all he is, is subjugated to God as the highest thing. However, nothing created equals God, so nothing is truly a sufficient sacrifice except God Himself, and so that is what is sacrificed in the mass via transubstantiation. The book has the Vatican's imprimatur and is written by a monsignor, so seems fairly trustworthy regarding official Catholic teaching on the matter. Is this book's claim correct, that all known ancient churches have the same understanding of the mass, that it is the actual sacrifice of God to Himself?

For the purpose of this question, assume a liberal Protestant perspective which does *not* consider homosexuality to be inherently sinful. 1 Corinthians 6:9: > Ἢ (Or) οὐκ (not) οἴδατε (do you know) ὅτι (that) ἄδικοι (the unrighteous) θεοῦ (of God) βασιλείαν (kingdom) οὐ (not) κληρονομήσουσιν (will inherit)? Μὴ (Do not) πλανᾶσθε (be deceived): οὔτε (neither) πόρνοι (the sexually immoral) οὔτε (nor) εἰδωλολάτραι (idolaters) οὔτε (nor) μοιχοὶ (adulterers) οὔτε (nor) μαλακοὶ (effeminate/passive partners in sexual immorality) οὔτε (nor) **ἀρσενοκοῖται** (???). > Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor **men who have sex with men**. (NIV) 1 Timothy 1:10: > πόρνοις (for the sexually immoral), **ἀρσενοκοίταις** (???), ἀνδραποδισταῖς (for slave traders), ψεύσταις (for liars), ἐπιόρκοις (for perjurers), καὶ (and) εἴ (if) τι (anything) ἕτερον (else) τῇ (to the) ὑγιαινούσῃ (sound) διδασκαλίᾳ (teaching) ἀντίκειται (is opposed). > For the sexually immoral, for **those practicing homosexuality**, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine. (NIV) --- "ἀρσενοκοίτης" can literally be translated as "male-bedders", i.e. people practicing male homosexuality. However, it would be the [etymological fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy) to assume this meaning based on no other evidence. My question is: For liberal Protestants who do not consider the practice of homosexuality to be a sin according to God, how is the word "ἀρσενοκοίτης" understood and/or translated into English? Please provide a reference to either the teachings of a mainstream church or a widely accepted apologist. --- I will accept answers from: * The perspective of people who do not view Paul as being the word of God and/or who disregard Paul's writing for any other reason. * The perspsective of people who accept Paul as being the divinely inspired word of God but who do not interpret these passages as saying that homosexuality is always a sin. I will not accept answers from the perspsective of people who believe homosexuality is inherently sinful -- that is not the purpose of this question. I am specifically **not** asking whether, for example, gay sex outside of marriage is a sin, or whether adultery is a sin -- that is out of scope for this question. I *will* accept answers along the lines of "ἀρσενοκοίτης means homosexuality but in the specific context of ...".

From Wikipedia : > Basilides is reported as having taught a docetic doctrine of Christ's > passion . Although Irenaeus’s makes no mention of Basilides having > written a gospel, he does record him as teaching that Christ in Jesus, > as a wholly divine being, could not suffer bodily pain and did not die > on the cross; but that the person crucified was, in fact, Simon of Cyrene : >> He appeared on earth as a man and performed miracles. Thus he himself >> did not suffer. Rather, a certain Simon of Cyrene was compelled to >> carry his cross for him. It was he who was ignorantly and erroneously >> crucified, being transfigured by him, so that he might be thought to >> be Jesus. Moreover, Jesus assumed the form of Simon, and stood by >> laughing at them. Has anyone ever refuted this claim made by Basilides, that Simon of Cyrene has died on the cross instead of Jesus?

> Isaiah 44:6, "Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel And his Redeemer, the Lord of host; **I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me.**" But Jesus Christ makes the same claim in Revelation: > Revelation 1:8: I am the Alpha and the Omega, says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty. > Revelation 1:17-18: And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as a dead man. And He laid His right hand upon me, saying, "**Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last.** I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore. Amen. And I have the keys of Hades and of Death." >Revelation 21:5-6: And He who sits on the throne said, "Behold I am making all things new." And He said to me, "It is done I am the Alpha and Omega." The point or the scope of my question has to do with the "eternality" of Jesus Christ. And since He is eternal according to John 1:1-3 He is also the one who will make all things new. According to Jehovah's Witnesses, how and why does Jesus make these statements, when according to their teaching he is not one being with God the Father?