From my understanding, the pre-tribulational rapture doctrine suggests that separate terms are used for the rapture event and Christ's complete arrival at the end of the tribulation. Specifically, proponents assert that *the Day of the Lord* refers to Christ's final arrival, while a term like *the Day of Christ* pertains to the rapture event. I believe John MacArthur and others have supported this perspective, stating that *the Day of Christ* refers specifically to the rapture. I am personally very persuaded of the opposite—that these various terms actually refer to the same event, each emphasizing different aspects of it. Regardless of the broader debate, focusing specifically on *the Day of Christ*: if this term indeed refers to the rapture event, how does one reconcile the belief that the rapture occurs prior to the onset of the great tribulation in light of 2 Thessalonians 2:1–3? 2 Thessalonians 2:1–3 says: >"Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition..." I find it difficult to see how one could justify the rapture occurring prior to the tribulation when considering passages like this. If *the Day of Christ* is distinct from *the Day of the Lord*, wouldn't this passage at least suggest a mid-tribulational view of the rapture, given that Paul explicitly states *the day of Christ* will not occur until a falling away happens and the man of sin is revealed? I suspect that those with a pre-tribulational view might point to the word *"revealed"* (ἀποκαλυφθῇ) as the key to their understanding. Perhaps the argument is that the man of sin being *"revealed"* is not the same event as him taking power or standing in the Holy Place? Do they interpret this as merely his coming to existence on earth, rather than his active rebellion or defilement of the temple? By no means am I am an expert in Biblical Greek, but I find this to be an unlikely interpretation of the term/phrase. Perhaps the argument instead interprets this passage as suggesting that the rapture occurs after the falling away but before the man of sin is revealed? In other words, they might propose that Paul is stating *the Day of Christ* occurs after the falling away and the revealing of the man of sin then follows. However, there seems to be no grammatical or contextual support for this view that, as I see it. Anyway, thank you in advance for any input.

I recently met in the street a JW who I like to talk to and he told me that the teaching on the treatment of those who have been disfellowshipped has changed. They are now not so ostracised as they once were; at least that is my current understanding. So my questions are: 1. What change has been made? 2. When was the change made? 3. What was the previous teaching? 4. What is the current teaching? 5. Is there any practical reason or current situation which anyone thinks has precipitated the change? Thanks

It like what **title says** it simple. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peshitta didn't explain well

In Revelation 4 we see the Lord God Almighty sitting on the throne of heaven, who is described as the Creator of all things: >**Revelation 4:8** And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, *Holy, holy, holy, **Lord God Almighty**, which was, and is, and is to come.* > >**9** And when those beasts give glory and honour and thanks to **him that sat on the throne**, who liveth for ever and ever, **10** The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying, > >**11** Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: *for thou hast **created all things**, and for thy pleasure they are and were **created.*** In the next chapter, we read that *the Lamb is in the **midst of the throne*** with the elders. The Lamb takes the scroll from the 1 who is sitting **on the Throne** being worshiped as the **Creator of everything.** >**Revelation 5:6** And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood **a Lamb** as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth. **7** And **he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne.** Now in the Old Testament we frequently see **YHWH** described as the **Creator of everything**: Isaiah 44:24 (NASB) >Thus says **YHWH**, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, “I, YHWH, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens **by Myself** and spreading out the earth all **alone.** Isaiah 45:18 (NASB) >For thus says **YHWH**, who created the heaven (He is the God who formed the earth and made it, He established it and did not create it a waste place, but formed it to be inhabited), **“I am YHWH, and there is none else.** Hebrews 1:10 quotes the psalmist: >“You, **YHWH**, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your **hands**.." **YHWH is 1.** ('echâd) Putting all these verses together, one might conclude that it is YHWH who creates all things and sits on the throne, and the Lamb is someone else. But is this what Trinitarians think? According to Trinitarian interpretations of Revelation 4 & 5, who is being worshiped as the Lord God Almighty who created the heavens and earth? And who is this lamb who takes the scroll from the Creator's right hand? For further clarity: "God is on the throne" does not answer the question. Which person/substance/essence/nature of the trinity concept is on the throne being worshipped as the 1 who created everything? Scripture identifies "God Almighty" as YHWH. He declares this of Himself. Genesis 17:1 Authorized (King James) Version >And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, ***YHWH*** appeared to Abram, and said unto him, ***I am the Almighty God***; walk before me, and be thou perfect. Exodus 6:3 Authorized (King James) Version >and I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of ***God Almighty***, but by my name ***YHWH*** was I not known to them.

The complexity and intricacy of the whole array of sacrifices instituted in the wilderness as the children of Israel were instructed to do so, is , in retrospect, clearly a setting forth of all that Christ suffered, expressed in various ways and by different means. The wave offering, the heave offering, the burnt offering, the sin offering : all demonstrate different aspects of the sufferings and death of Christ at Golgotha. But what is there in the Old Testament writings that would have given someone at that time the prospect to look forward to, that, eventually, in God's own time, they would all be realised in *the offering up of a humanity* ? I say 'offering up of a humanity' as I am being careful in the way I express the matter of the humanity and the Deity of Jesus Christ, the Son of God and because I am seeking a response on the basis of Trinitarian Protestantism.

An article in the booklet quoted from below causes me to wonder if this, the preferred text of religious Jews and Hebrew Christians, is at any risk of textual changes being made to it, which would not be good changes. The article in question states that Bomberg: > “…produced the first Rabbinic Bible in 1517. This was the first to > present a complete Masorah, and in time it became the ‘textus > receptus’ of the Old Testament. (Endnote: It was known in Hebrew as > the Mikraot Gedelot.) …[one] edition the Ginsburg 1894/1998 was used > as the basis for the Old Testament for many Reformation-era > translations such as the English Authorised Version and the Dutch > Statenvertaling. (Endnote: During the Reformation period it was used > by R.I. Estienne (also known in Latin as Robertus Stephanus, 1503 – > 1559 in his Hebrew Bible of 1544-1546.)” *Quarterly Record* TBS, Issue > No. 649 October-December 2024, pp. 4-6 Bomberg then produced the second edition in 1524, making this year of 2024 the 500th anniversary of the Second Rabbinic Bible. However, my concern arises due to this paragraph: > “Sadly, in our own day the Hebrew Masoretic text preserved for us by > Divine providence is undermined by those who wish to add text outside > of the Masoretic editions. The majority of these look to ancient > translations in other languages.” (Ibid. p.5) **My question is: Does this mean that the Septuagint (Greek) translation of the Hebrew scriptures is not entirely reliable?**

A booklet giving a helpful chart on the various kings post-Solomon, says **king Hezekiah started to reign over Judah in 715 B.C.** On the corresponding chart for the kings of the Northern Kingdom of Israel, it details its last king, Hoshea, as reigning from 733 to 722. Then, when starting to read 2 Kings chapter 18, I noted that it said: > “Now it came to pass in the third year of Hoshea son of Elah king of > Israel, that Hezekiah the son of Ahaz king of Judah began to reign. > Twenty and five years old was he when he began to reign; and he > reigned twenty and nine years in Jerusalem.” 2 Kings 18:1-2 K.J.V. However, according to the chart in *A Concise Chronology of the Bible*, (John D. Brand, p.31, Edinburgh Bible College, 2014), **the third year of Hoshea’s reign would be 729/30, not 715**. So, which of those two dates is correct, or are they both correct if there were issues of co-regency involved? ***As an aside,*** the Hebrew scriptures speak of the 10-tribe kingdom of Israel, and the 2-tribe kingdom of Judah, Benjamin being that second one, as in 2 Chronicles 11:1. Yet the tribe of Benjamin never seems to be mentioned as that second tribe thereafter. Or have I missed a later verse about that?

Josef Ben Caiaphas was the Jewish high priest during the time of Jesus’ ministry and for a few years afterwards. He was a strong opponent of Jesus and His message. Acts 4:1-22 informs us that Caiaphas continued to persecute the followers of Christ, being present at the trial of Peter and John. He is believed to have been born around 14 B.C. and died a few years after the crucifixion of Jesus. One source says he died in Crete and was buried in HaShalom Forest (Yaldei Israel Garden), Jerusalem. I would like to know if Josephus has any additional information about Caiaphas after the crucifixion of Jesus and up to the death of Caiaphas.

It strikes me recently just how many people will say that "Money is the root of all evil." when the actual Bible verse is... "A love of money is the root of all evil." I wonder why people say that and what is the ***cause*** of this most often misquoting of this Bible verse. Not only do people "misquote" Bible verses, but often attribute sayings to the Bible that were never there, but found in only cultural folklore or perhaps used in some sermon or hymn of Christianity. Why is there this tendency? What is the ***discernable cause*** for such a tendency?

I have only quotations from Lactantius and Sulpicius Severus (where he talked about St. Martin), but ChatGPT said that there are quotes from Cyprian, Ambrose, Tertullian, Chrysostomos, Gregor of Nazianz, Origen and many more. BUT when I search for the exact quotes on NewAdvent.org, I can’t find these quotes that ChatGPT gave me. And that is very disappointing. So I hope that you can help me maybe. Thanks and may god bless you all!

From [Bayesian epistemology (SEP)](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-bayesian/) : > ### Bayesian Epistemology > *First published Mon Jun 13, 2022* > > We can think of belief as an all-or-nothing affair. For example, I believe that I am alive, and I don’t believe that I am a historian of the Mongol Empire. However, often we want to make distinctions between *how strongly* we believe or disbelieve something. I strongly believe that I am alive, am fairly confident that I will stay alive until my next conference presentation, less confident that the presentation will go well, and strongly disbelieve that its topic will concern the rise and fall of the Mongol Empire. The idea that beliefs can come in different strengths is a central idea behind Bayesian epistemology. Such strengths are called *degrees of belief*, or *credences*. Bayesian epistemologists study norms governing degrees of beliefs, including how one’s degrees of belief ought to change in response to a varying body of evidence. Bayesian epistemology has a long history. Some of its core ideas can be identified in Bayes’ (1763) seminal paper in statistics (Earman 1992: ch. 1), with applications that are now very influential in many areas of philosophy and of science. > > [...] > > ### 4.2 Objective Bayesianism > *Objective Bayesians* contend that, in addition to coherence, there is another epistemic virtue or ideal that needs to be codified into a norm for prior credences: freedom from bias and avoidance of overly strong opinions (Jeffreys 1939; Carnap 1945; Jaynes 1957, 1968; Rosenkrantz 1981; J. Williamson 2010). This view is often motivated by a case like this: > >> Example (Six-Faced Die). Suppose that there is a cubic die with six faces that look symmetric, and we are going to toss it. Suppose further that we have no other idea about this die. Now, what should our credence be that the die will come up 6? > > An intuitive answer is 1/6, for it seems that we ought to distribute our credences evenly, with an equal credence, 1/6, in each of the six possible outcomes. While subjective Bayesians would only say that we may do so, objective Bayesians would make the stronger claim that we ought to do so. More generally, objective Bayesians are sympathetic to this norm: > >> **The Principle of Indifference**. A person’s credences in any two propositions should be equal if her total evidence no more supports one than the other (the *evidential symmetry* version), or if she has no sufficient reason to have a higher credence in one than in the other (the *insufficient reason* version). Consider a person who subscribes to *Objective Bayesianism*. According to the principles outlined above, such a person would strive to eliminate bias and avoid overly strong opinions in their priors. They would also adhere to the principle of indifference, assigning equal credence to propositions in the absence of reasons or asymmetries in the evidence to justify favoring one over another. Within these epistemological constraints, can an Objective Bayesian epistemologist become a Christian while remaining consistent with Objective Bayesianism? Can belief in God, miracles, angels, demons, the resurrection, souls, an afterlife, and similar doctrines be justified within the framework of Objective Bayesian Epistemology? Have any Christian authors written about this?

I have collected various Catholic editorial headlines about this… *“The Catholic Church has always held to the primacy of conscience and taught that individuals must follow their consciences even when they are wrong…you should always follow your conscience.... Pope Francis on Saturday reaffirmed the “primacy” of using one's conscience to navigate tough moral questions in his ….Conscience takes priority over church teaching…Both the natural law and the Church have always upheld the moral necessity for each person to act in accordance with the dictates of his or her conscience.. 'It is never wrong to follow the convictions one has arrived at—in fact, one must do so.”* I do not understand this teaching. What Biblical or Catholic Tradition or natural law demands this teaching? The Catechism (#1782) and references to some Encyclicals seem to just repeat each other without a firm basis for this teaching. It seems counter intuitive and against right reason that everybody MUST do whatever they think is right despite a misinformed conscience, an erroneous conscience, a lax conscience, a dead conscience, and more. I understand the teaching that conscience should be formed rightly but how can Primacy of conscience be justified (even when wrong) above obeying certain teaching of the Catholic Church? I am not interested in theologians opinions, I am looking for firm and definitive teaching of Biblical, unanimous Church Tradition or natural law.

It is well known that the Great Schism of 1054 was a process and not a single event. I am looking for information on when the other Eastern Patriarchates broke communion with Rome after the Schism. The Georgian Church was neutral or remained in communion until the middle of the 13th century. What about the others? Where can I find the most detailed account of the aftermath of the Schism?

I'm struggling with this question for a while: It seems like dogs do know what dogs are. Is it possible for a dog to only recognize individuals and not grasp the universal concept of dog? I thought this ability to recognize universals was the ability that God gave to Adam (to name things) and thus that separated him from the animals. How did the Christian scholastic theologians (such as St. Thomas Aquinas) separate the animal and spiritual capacities of human beings?

I'm referring to Carlo Alvaro's paper [The “Heaven Ab Initio” Argument from Evil](https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/14/2/200) : > HAIAFE (“Heaven Ab Initio” Argument from Evil): > > 1. As a perfect being, God’s goal is to create free-willed creatures that choose to love God and forever exist with him in a state of > eternal bliss. > 2. An omnibenevolent God would want to create free-willed beings in a state of eternal bliss devoid of evil if he could and if evil and > suffering were unnecessary. > 3. An omnipotent God can create free-willed beings directly in a spiritual state of eternal bliss devoid of evil. > 4. However, God created physical creatures in a physical world that is full of unnecessary evil and suffering. > 5. Therefore, God is either not omnipotent, not omniscient, or not perfectly good. > > (A possible extended conclusion: 6. Therefore, there exists a deistic > god that created the universe, but this god is not a person who > willfully created the world or that has a relationship with humans. > Hence, god cannot prevent or eliminate evil and suffering). In short, Alvaro argues that there is a way for God to create free-willed beings that can grow morally without ever experiencing evil. The option is for God to create free-willed beings directly in a spiritual form in a non-physical state of eternal bliss. In such a state, there are no objects of temptation, and by directly creating spiritual beings, God can eliminate carnal pleasure, which is the root of lust and evil and suffering. This, therefore, precisely demonstrates that “There is no morally sufficient reason for God to allow instances of evil” and, a fortiori, it shows that the God of classical theism does not exist. How do Christians rebut Carlo Alvaro's position? Alvaro anticipated and responded to a few responses to his argument: 1. The Freedom Objective: > A strong objection to God’s creating free creatures directly in heaven concerns freedom of choice. Namely, one might concede that God can create free-willed creatures directly in heaven and even that many of them might live happy lives in heaven. However, if God created his children directly in heaven, essentially, he would force them to accept such an eternal life without giving them a choice. 2. The “Morally Good Reason”: > First, the theist can reply that even if the HAIAFE is valid, in the end, it is not possible to know God’s mind. Additionally, for all we know, it might turn out that God has morally good reasons for creating humans the way he did. Perhaps, when time comes and we meet him, God will explain to us why he did not create us directly in heaven. 3. The “Resurrection of the Body”: > Concerning our resurrecting in heaven with a physical body, not all theists believe that this is true. Even if it is assumed that it is, it does not undermine the HAIAFE. So I am particularly interested in other responses to Alvaro's argument.

A recent question asked for a natural theology answer to this question. I am however more interested in a denominational answer with the valid reasoning, theology, doctrine, etc. of that denomination. During my research to answer the question I found some specific arguments for the case that "God lied" I'm interested in Eastern-Orthodox, Catholic, Angelcan, Any Protestant denomination, as well as any other denominations such as Jehovah's witness, Mormons, and the many others I am unaware of. Please clearly state which denominational opinion you are refuting from, if that denomination uses more than Scripture as a valid source of information please state that fact clearly. For example: "From the position of the Eastern Orthodox church, we use sources of scripture, the writings of saints, the apocryphal texts, as well as the church tradition as valid sources..." --- #### Example 1 - 1 Kings 22:19-23 (NKJV) > 19 Then Micaiah said, “Therefore hear the word of the Lord: I saw the Lord sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing by, on His right hand and on His left. 20 And the Lord said, ‘Who will persuade Ahab to go up, that he may fall at Ramoth Gilead?’ So one spoke in this manner, and another spoke in that manner. 21 Then a spirit came forward and stood before the Lord, and said, ‘I will persuade him.’ 22 The Lord said to him, ‘In what way?’ So he said, ‘**I will go out and be a lying spirit** in the mouth of all his prophets.’ And the Lord said, ‘**You shall persuade him, and also prevail. Go out and do so.**’ 23 Therefore look! The Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these prophets of yours, and the Lord has declared disaster against you.” This is also found in 2 Chronicles 18:18-23 as well The basic argument here is the same as the legal argument of "Call to action" makes the person who commanded or asked for a crime to be committed guilty of the crime. --- #### Example 2 - 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 combined with 2 Peter 3:9 > And for this reason God will **send them strong delusion**, that they should believe the lie, that **they all may be condemned** who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. > The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, **not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance**. Strong delusion implies that God is messing around with free will as well as this seems to contradict the other scripture. --- #### Example 3 - Genesis 2:17 and Genesis 5:5 Similar but not exactly the same as this other question > but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for **in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.**” >So all the days that Adam lived were **nine hundred and thirty years; and he died.** --- #### Example 4 - Jewish scholar Yael Shemesh - Genesis 18:12-13 >"In one case we even find God twisting the truth in order to preserve amicable relations between Abraham and Sarah and to prevent Abraham’s feelings from being hurt. Upon overhearing the prediction that she was about to become pregnant, Sarah laughs, “Now that I am withered, am I to have enjoyment—with my husband so old?” (Gen. 18:12); God, however, quotes her in Abraham’s hearing as having said, “Shall I in truth bear a child, old as I am?” (Gen. 18:13), making no reference to Abraham’s inadequacy. This episode was used by the Sages of the Talmud as a proof-text showing that it is permitted to deviate from the strict line of truth in order to establish peace (BT Yeb. 65b; BT B.M. 87a)." (Yael Shemesh, Lies by Prophets and Other Lies in the Hebrew Bible, 2. Lies in the Bible (paper|Bar-Ilan University), p. 4.) --- If it is too vague, I can divide the question into 7 specific ones that are each denomination specific.

1 Kings 11:41 says: >Now the rest of the acts of Solomon and whatever he did, and his wisdom, are they not written in the book of the acts of Solomon? What is the biblical and historical background to this "book of the acts of Solomon" and have any manuscripts been found to support the existence of additional information about what Solomon did? Or are such writings apocryphal?

I am trying to figure out if the paradise mentioned by Jesus several times in scripture is the same garden that Adam and Eve lived in till they were sent out. The first mention of this paradise is the scene at the crucifixion of Jesus where he tells the thief at the right that the he will be with him in paradise after he repented. **Luke 23:43** >Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.” The second mention of the paradise of God is in the book of Revelation which was shown to John By Jesus who appeared to him while he was in jail in the island of Patmos. Jesus promises the saints who overcome the world the right to the tree of life which is in the paradise of God. **Revelation 2:7** >He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who conquers I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God. This same tree is mentioned being in the garden of Eden and is protected by a flaming sword that turns in all directions. **Genesis 3:22** >And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever. So if the tree of life is one, can we conclude that the Garden of Eden is the Paradise of God? And if that is true then did Adam and Eve live in a spiritual paradise of God in the flesh before being sent forth from the garden? Adam and Eve being sent from a spiritual dwelling to a physical dwelling here on earth is not impossible because Jesus who is the second Adam left his spiritual dwelling and came to the physical world to be crucified, this movement between the two worlds is not new. Besides the saints with their resurrected bodies inherit the garden.

Okay so I was looking around on google for some answers about where some of the demon names that are "Biblical" came from, and I came across the Testament of Solomon . It isn't in the Bible from what I can tell. (It may be, if so, can I have some references?). It is an account of how Solomon enslaved demons using Michael's ring and made them rebuild the temple. There's something about all of this that just feels off. Does anyone know if its considered true by the majority or if its just considered untrue?

There are Luther (German) Bible to English parallels out there, however, the Luther Bible includes the Apocryphal texts and the English parallels do not. What I want to know is if there are any English language bibles, which include the Pseudodeuteronomic and Apochryphal texts in their right place as well? Like maybe an "Extended" Bible version that includes all the official as well as all the lost and or excluded texts all in English?