During a Bible discussion for seekers last week, one of them asked a question that led me to ponder this questions. As I understand it, the body of Moses (not Elijah since he never died) should still have been in the grave at the time of the Transfiguration of Jesus--and would be pretty decomposed at that point. However, his spirit (and probably souls) would have been in Paradise at that time--still separated from his body until the resurrection at the last day. > And after six days Jesus took with him Peter and James, and John his > brother, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. 2 And he was > transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his > clothes became white as light. 3 And behold, there appeared to them > Moses and Elijah, talking with him. Matthew 17:1-3 ESV If that is true, then what exactly did Peter, James and John see on the Mount of Transfiguration? Did they see the spirit of Moses? Can our spirits be seen with physical eyes? Were the disciples perhaps allowed to see spiritual things as Elisha appears to have done in 2 Kings 6? > When the servant of the man of God rose early in the morning and went > out, behold, an army with horses and chariots was all around the city. > And the servant said, “Alas, my master! What shall we do?” He said, > “Do not be afraid, for those who are with us are more than those who > are with them.” Then Elisha prayed and said, “O Lord, please open > his eyes that he may see.” So the Lord opened the eyes of the young > man, and he saw, and behold, the mountain was full of horses and > chariots of fire all around Elisha. 2 Kings 6:15-17 ESV As a side note, the rich man and Lazarus presumably "saw" each other as well. I'm looking for the Protestant understanding of this.

I've been reading a lot from Messianic Jewish sources. I'm really interested in the [Siddur](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siddur) , but I can't find any sources which can tell me if the prayers and rituals in the Siddur were practiced in Jesus' time? Basically, I'm trying to figure out if the prayers in the Siddur are prayers with which Jesus would be familiar.

For example, thanking God for food. > For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer. (1 Tim 4:4–5,ESV)

How long did it take for a couple who were perfect to have a child? Why Adam and Eve never got pregnant before the fall?

I am an adoptive mother. Years after adopting two children I have learned that 80% of children NOT living with a biological parent was exposed prenatal to alcohol. 4-5% of the entire population of the developed world is so impaired by prenatal alcohol exposure that if the resources existed to actually diagnose everyone, they would have a diagnosis of Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder. This disorder impairs the typical development of the brain and body. My child has FASD as well as 4 other diagnoses that are as a direct result of the fewer and less connected neurons and reduced speed of conduction. My child has impaired coordination, initiation, language skills and has an intellectual disability. It is expected that my child will not be able to care for themselves and will likely live in a group home unless supports fail and is homeless because no one understands the disabilities and helps when I am no longer around. The alcohol consumed during pregnancy was done responsibly… one to two beer a couple times a week. This would not be considered overindulgence. There is NO safe amount of alcohol use during pregnancy. As I have grieved this diagnosis I have reflected on how I have contributed, if any, to the social acceptance of alcohol consumption. My contribution is very little. My experience is that alcohol smells bad, tastes worse, burns going down and alters who you are and what you do. I cannot think of another individual who has done more to promote the production, and consumption of alcohol than Jesus: **the first miracle involves turning water into wine, and it is a critical element in some churches' communion**. It has become more than difficult for me to praise him after this life experience. If the purpose of the wine is to provide joy and gladness then it’s unlikely that it was just fresh unfermented juice. While wine and juice may not have been linguistically distinguished until more recently, I don’t think it’s plausible that when speaking of wine this was always fresh unfermented juice because there is a harvest time and a single time of year to make wine. It would be impossible to source just juice year round for something like communion. Wine would have almost always been actual wine with alcohol. So with the discussion about wine not really being wine out of the way, can anyone help me view this from another angle? And if you haven’t guessed, I really don’t relate to the idea of alcohol actually gladdening effectively. I am certainly not feeling the gladness watching my children struggle everyday with simple things. **Why would Jesus perpetuate the use of alcohol?** He either didn’t know, or he did know but did it anyway. My faith has experienced significant rupture. Sadly. I wish it were not so.

I read in the *Wikipedia* article on the [Indissolubility of Marriage in the Catholic church](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_the_Catholic_Church#Indissolubility) that: > a natural marriage, **even if consummated, can be dissolved** by the Church when to do so **favours the maintenance of the faith on the part of a Christian**, cases of what has been called [Pauline privilege](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_privilege) and [Petrine privilege](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrine_privilege) . In these cases, which require intervention by the [Holy See](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_See) , the Church admits real divorce, the actual dissolution of a valid marriage, as distinct from the granting by merely human power of a divorce that, according to Catholic theology, does not really dissolve the marriage bond. Reading the linked articles on Pauline and Petrine privilege, a big condition is whether either party was correctly baptized at the time the marriage was validly contracted. But what if one spouse became so opposed to the other's practice of the Catholic faith, let's say due to acting on some fundamentalistic Protestant tenet that calls a Catholic to be a non-Christian? How about when one spouse renounced his/her Christian faith altogether and became a hindrance to the Catholic spouse's practice of Catholicism? **Are there any conditions where a consumated marriage between two validly baptized Christians (one of them Catholic) can be dissolved?** For the sake of this question, the marriage was registered in the parish of the Catholic party as a sacramental marriage.

Christian healing ministries abound. A quick search on any search engine can lead to lots of ministries that claim to be able to heal the sick, as well as testimonials of people who claim to have received healing of some ailment during a healing crusade, or because someone prayed for them, etc. I'm not questioning the sincerity of all people nor claiming that everyone is lying, on the contrary, I truly believe that a significant percentage of the testimonies out there must be genuine, in the sense that people are telling the truth when they share their personal experiences of healing. That said, I'm still curious to know if any Christian healing ministry out there has undertaken the effort of documenting at least some of their healings, by keeping copies of the medical records of the healed person and the results of a subsequent medical examination confirming that the person is completely healed. Has a Christian healing ministry ever done that? _______________________ Responding to concerns raised in the comments: By healing ministry I mean either an individual or a group of people who claim to have the gift of healing or to have been called by God to heal the sick as an active occupation. However, for the sake of getting answers, other medically documented cases of healing occurred in similar circumstances are acceptable too, such as: - A holy place where people are commonly reported to get miraculously healed. - Someone who gets prayed for (and healed) by someone else and has the medical records to prove it (in this case the healed person is the one with the evidence, not the healing ministry, but that's fine). - And any other situation that is close to what I'm looking for that I may be overlooking.

> 8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den. When is this verse supposed to be fulfilled? I would guess not today (or even tomorrow.) Furthermore, if in heaven, we are to be like angels, to neither marry nor be given in marriage, where are the children to come from?

Calvin begins his [*Antidote*](https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/calvin_trentantidote.html)1 with the following word (*Preface*): >The name of Sacred Council2 is held in such reverence in the Christian Church, that the very mention of it produces an immediate effect not only on the ignorant but on men of gravity and sound judgment. And doubtless, as the usual remedy which God employed from the beginning in curing the diseases of his Church was for pious and holy pastors to meet, and, after invoking his aid, to determine what the Holy Spirit dictated, Councils are deservedly honored by all the godly. There is this difference, however, — the vulgar, stupified with excessive admiration, do not afterwards make any use of their judgment, whereas those of sounder sense allow themselves, step by step, and modestly, indeed, but still allow themselves to inquire before they absolutely assent. And so it ought to be, in order that our faith, instead of rashly subscribing to the naked decisions of men, may submit to God only. > >... I see one glaring contradiction here: - "Men of sound judgement" consider [General] Councils "Sacred" and, if they are "godly," they "honor" said Councils, since their teaching is what "the Holy Spirit dictated" and in fact are "the normative remedy which God employ[s]" for combating heresy ("curing the diseases of his Church"). - "However," a Council's teaching can be rejected ("[not submitted to]") on the nebulous and subjective ground of its being against "their judgement" and "sounder sense," in which case the teaching is deemed actually "the ... decisions of men" and not God. I like to think of myself as having a basic grasp on logic. So when I read this, the gist is: - Councils have the authority to agree with me, because God is behind them. *Only have the power to agree with me*, because ones who don't are no Councils at all, but the decisions of men; and *because they agree with me*, God is behind them (question-begging). Of course it's clear to see this is logically incoherent and fallacious—but my point is that it is the necessary conclusion of the above. What am I missing here? How aren't Councils hereby portrayed as no-more-important-opinions-than-any-believers' simply stated 'louder,' in bigger numbers (in some caess), and with more insistence (bullying)? (It's 'bullying' if it's not legitimate authority taking punitive measures (such as excommunication/anathema). P.S. Even though this question is primarily to do with Calvinism, answers from a similar or identical stance on the basic role and meaning of Councils are welcome to answer it as well. NOTE: Nothing I have asked or said or ever will ask or say is asked with an intentionally offensive, or disingenuous spirit. Any offense caused is therefore neither intended nor my fault—in addition to being, by definition, a misreading of my question. Thanks in advance. --- 1 i.e. to the Council of Trent 2 i.e. as an institution in general

I understand there are state-sanctioned churches in China, but that implies that Bibles in China are edited by the CCP. Would an Anglican Bible be legal, or at least easy, to bring into China?

One of my favorite Bible translations has always been the King James (I suppose because of the medieval feel), but I have always been fascinated by the much longer history of the Catholic Church and I recently was informed that the KJV is not considered a valid translation in Catholic canon. This sparked curiosity on my part I was wondering in what ways the KJV was different from a traditional Catholic translation, and can the differences be chalked up to slightly different translations of ancient Greek? Or was it fundamentally changed to fit a Protestant perspective?

What are the rules or guidelines on how a Christian should engage with others who would like to discuss philosophies, beliefs, ideas, and practices of other religions or belief systems? - Are Christians allowed to discuss / engage in the ideas to some degree? Or is it shunned. - How does Christianity incorporate ideas outside the main canon / system? _(Generally speaking)_ - Are certain topics to be never discussed? This would help me ask better questions to the Christianity community in general, but also would serve as a gauge as to how to interact. Basically, what is acceptable conversation topics in the end.

After the reforms of the 16th century, the Scots Confession served as the primary confession for the Church of Scotland for just over 80 years. In 1648 it was replaced by the The Humble Advice of the Assembly of Divines , a later revision of which is widely known as the Westminster Confession of Faith and is still used today in many Protestant denominations. Meanwhile I don't hear much about the Scots Confession. I'm curious what changes switching to the Westminster Confession brought over the Scots Confession of the previous century. According to what the Westminster divines set out in the WCF, on what points would the Scots confession have been considered either incomplete, not clear, or outright wrong?

We started a "new tradition" a few years ago of having a Mass at the cemetery with a procession at night on All Souls Day. This year, All Souls Day is on a Saturday. According [to this](https://catholicvote.org/archdiocese-explains-how-weekend-will-affect-all-saints-day-all-souls-day-masses-this-year/) it means that the Mass is not truly an All Souls Day Mass. I'd imagine that also means that the vestments should be green and the readings from the Sunday Mass, etc... Does it also mean that the intentions ought to be regular Sunday intentions as opposed to something special that we'd be likely to do on All Souls Day? Is it inappropriate to treat the events after Mass as if it were still All Souls Day?

Which earliest sources does Christianity posses that claim that apostle John spent the last years of his life in Ephesus?

Are there Christian books for fence-sitter agnostics—those for whom spirituality and God feel as foreign as trying to explain colors to someone blind from birth or quantum mechanics to a 5-year-old? Such readers might be curious about what Christian spirituality actually entails: what it means, in practical terms, to have a "relationship" with an unseen, undetectable being who, if real, seems hidden in another dimension. How is this relationship supposed to work? How might such a being interact with you? Are there books that address these questions directly, making Christian spirituality concrete and relatable instead of abstract and vague? Ideally, these books would use down-to-earth examples and clear language, leaving readers with genuine insights instead of confusion. Additionally, the book should explore what readers might expect if they choose to engage more deeply in Christian spirituality. What does it mean to "go deep" in a spiritual context? What kinds of experiences or changes—emotional, mental, spiritual, or even supernatural—might they encounter? Clear explanations of this deepening process, with illustrative examples of what a genuine journey of faith might look like, would provide the reader with a clearer roadmap to understanding. Regarding denominations, I'm open to multiple perspectives, so it would be great to receive book recommendations representing the major branches of Christianity—namely, Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and the major subbranches of Protestantism, including Evangelicalism, Anglicanism, Lutheranism, and Pentecostalism/Charismatic traditions. This way, I can gain a well-rounded understanding of Christian spirituality as viewed through different theological lenses, practices, and traditions.

My earlier question https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103636 received the following criticism in the comments: > Rather than asking for truth about a religious concept, ask something like *"What, if anything, have the church fathers or notable theologians written explaining how God chooses specific times, places, and people for significant conversion experiences?"*. That asks for objective facts (e.g. "Martin Luther wrote "…") as opposed to subjective opinion (e.g. *"It is absurd to ask …"*). Most of us might agree with that opinion, but it is still an opinion. Whereas Catholics, Hindus, and Atheists would all agree with the statement about Luther, even though they all disagree with what Luther said. Thus, I ask: **What, if anything, have the church fathers or notable theologians written explaining how God chooses specific times, places, and people for significant conversion experiences?**

If you look at historical records, the concept of a soul has existed long before it was ever "revealed" by any ancient prophet, with tribes and ancient civilizations already coming up with an ethereal substance that connects them together as a species, probably to feel important with respect to animals or to create a connection with their pre-existing deities. In fact, the Jews formally recorded the idea of the soul in their religious texts based on traditional beliefs which had not come from divine inspiration. So, if souls as described in the Bible and prophetic texts are a human invention derived from reason and other social beliefs, then how could this possibly coincide with what is actually true? The "system" for our connection with God and the supernatural world could literally be anything outside our wildest imaginations, and it just so happens that it's exactly the same as how humans had originally believed it to be? Do souls really exist? But then, if souls don't exist, can heaven or hell even exist either? In fact, those have also existed as concepts since ancient times, and it's clear how their creation by a society could positively benefit it (e.g. an elder telling kids they will suffer eternally if they disobey, lie, steal, etc. and this evolving into widespread belief)... Without these principles, everything about Christianity falls apart, so where does the reasoning go wrong? Sorry if this seems a bit anti-religious, but they're genuine doubts of mine.

The *glorified body* of Jesus who appeared to the disciples after resurrection is one of the most foundational truths of Christianity, the basis of our hope for our future resurrection of the body as well. **My question**: since in his glorified body Jesus ate and drank with his disciples before his Ascension ([Lk 24:42-43,John 21:12-14,Acts 10:41-43](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lk+24%3A42-43%2Cjohn+21%3A12-14%2CActs+10%3A41-43&version=NLT)) , can we conclude that there is eating and drinking in the new heaven and new earth since we will have similar glorified body that Jesus has, and which was shown to be capable of eating and drinking? Or should we interpret the verses as "accommodation" only, so that Jesus can prove to the disciples that he is REAL and/or that the resurrection is BODILY (not just spirit)? Or maybe we should interpret the eating and drinking not literally, but find the theological message behind them? ### Food for thoughts 1. For an argument that Luke didn't intend the eating and drinking to be read literally, read the 1988 *Gregorianum* journal article [Did Jesus Eat the Fish (Luke 24:42-43)?](https://www.jstor.org/stable/23577821) by Jesuit scholar [Gerald O'Collins](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_O%27Collins) . 2. If there IS eating and drinking in the new creation, how about the final product of our glorified digestive system? Pardon the image, but are there toilets in heaven? How about the [39 trillion microbes that we carry in our human microbiome](https://www.sciencefocus.com/the-human-body/human-microbiome/) , are they glorified as well? 3. If there is NO eating and drinking in the new creation, how should we understand the references to the - **Great Banquet** ("eat at the feast" *cf*. Luke 14:18-24, "eat and drink at my table" *cf*. Luke 22:29-30), and the - **Marriage Supper of the Lamb** ("until that day when I drink it anew with you" *cf*. Matt 26:29, "I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes" *cf*. Luke 22:16, "Blessed are those who are invited to the wedding supper of the Lamb!" *cf*. Rev 19:6-9)?

I recently [answered](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/103715) my own question https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103704 , and I'm noticing that each tradition seems to emphasize different aspects of Christian spirituality. In fact, I shamelessly provided all of the book references in the aforementioned answer to ChatGPT and asked it to give me a brief summary of the spiritual emphases in each Christian tradition, and this is what I got: > ### Eastern Orthodox > 1. **Mystical Union with God**: The focus is on achieving a transformative communion with God, often through contemplative prayer > and ascetic practices. *Theosis*, or becoming partakers of the divine > nature, is a central theme. > 2. **Hesychasm**: Silent, meditative prayer, especially the *Jesus Prayer*, is emphasized as a way to achieve inner stillness and unity > with God. > 3. **Tradition and Liturgy**: The liturgy itself is seen as a mystical encounter with the divine, integrating believers into the life of the > Church. > > ### Catholic > 1. **Contemplative Prayer and Mysticism**: Catholic spirituality often emphasizes the practice of contemplative prayer, especially as seen in > the works of mystics like St. Teresa of Avila and St. John of the > Cross. > 2. **Sacraments as Means of Grace**: The sacraments are seen as primary means by which God’s grace is imparted, fostering a spiritual > connection to the divine. > 3. **Service and Community**: Catholic spirituality includes a strong focus on service and commitment to the community, aligning with the > Catholic social teaching of *caritas* (love). > > ### Protestant > 1. **Personal Relationship with God**: A central Protestant emphasis is on the personal, direct relationship with God, often nurtured > through Bible reading, prayer, and individual faith. > 2. **Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone)**: Protestants view Scripture as the highest authority and often emphasize daily engagement with the > Bible as a means of spiritual growth. > 3. **Practical Discipleship**: A focus on living out one’s faith through spiritual disciplines, such as fasting, solitude, and service, > is common, as seen in works by authors like Richard Foster and Dallas > Willard. > > ### Pentecostal/Charismatic > 1. **Empowerment of the Holy Spirit**: There’s a strong emphasis on experiencing the power and presence of the Holy Spirit, often through > gifts like prophecy, speaking in tongues, and healing. > 2. **Miracles and Signs**: This tradition emphasizes the supernatural, viewing miracles and signs as evidence of God’s active presence in the > world. > 3. **Personal Revival and Witnessing**: Pentecostal spirituality focuses on personal revival, fostering a sense of urgency to spread > the Gospel and witness to others. I haven't fact-checked every detail, but overall the output appears consistent with the book titles. The main point, however, is that each Christian tradition emphasizes different aspects of Christian spirituality. My question, then, is: **would it make sense to attempt a synthesis of these spiritual insights from each tradition to create a "best of all worlds," so to speak? And if so, have there been any recent attempts within Christianity to propose a "hybrid" approach to spirituality that combines these insights?** For instance, could there be a theory of spirituality that integrates the Pentecostal emphasis on the Holy Spirit, the Eastern Orthodox focus on mystical union with God, and the Catholic emphasis on sacraments? Is such a synthesis even possible in principle, or are these perspectives fundamentally incompatible and irreconcilable? I'm asking this question because it seems to me that if each Christian tradition has developed unique practices and doctrinal emphases that nurture different aspects of an individual's relationship with God, then perhaps a more comprehensive theory of spirituality could emerge by integrating these insights. After all, it’s the same God, the same Holy Spirit, the same Jesus, the same spiritual laws, the same universe—so at first glance, I don’t see why a combination of insights wouldn’t be possible. To make an analogy, it would be like Google and Microsoft joining forces to combine their expertise rather than competing, or if Pepsi and Coca-Cola were to collaborate to create an even better drink.