**Scope: I'm seeking answers from Protestant denominations.** The concept of a "personal relationship" is fairly natural and intuitive when we think of the interactions between two human beings, like friends, spouses, or parents and children. However, attempting to extrapolate this intuition and understanding to a relationship between a human and God isn't immediately obvious. Let me explain why I think this. In human interactions, we can dissect a "personal relationship" into several core components: - **Awareness** or **Perception**: In a personal relationship between two individuals, each person must be *aware* of the other's *presence*. Put simply, they must be able to *perceive* each other's existence and acknowledge their presence. It doesn't seem logical to claim that A has a *personal relationship* with B if A isn't aware of B's existence or cannot perceive B's presence. There must be a means for both parties to perceive and be aware of each other's presence for a genuine personal relationship to exist. In human interpersonal relationships, this perception and awareness is possible through our natural senses and a well-functioning brain capable of sound cognitive processing. This combination enables us to decode and interpret sensory input into meaningful concepts, like perceiving another person's presence. - **Communication**: In a personal relationship between A and B, communication is essential. A should be able to convey coherent messages to B, and vice versa. Moreover, A must recognize when B initiates communication and vice versa, which ties closely to the previous point on awareness and perception. A needs to be able to distinguish between moments when B is speaking and moments when B is not, making it possible for A to have reactions such as "Ah, B is addressing me now" (and vice versa). - **Interactivity**: Beyond communication, it should be possible for A and B to engage in many other forms of interaction. While communication is crucial, human interaction can extend to many more activities. For instance, A and B can play a game of chess together, play table tennis together, practice synchronizing moves in a dance routine (like tango) together, take turns driving a car together, and so forth. Notice how these specific examples require fairly equal involvement from both parties. I might be overlooking some features, but the ones I've mentioned appear to be quite fundamental, particularly in human interpersonal relationships. Regarding the concept of a "personal relationship" between a human and God, do the features I outlined (*awareness* or *perception*, *communication*, *interactivity*) retain their importance? Are there additional crucial aspects? Are there interactions that are possible between two humans but are not possible between a human and God? Conversely, are there interactions that are possible between a human and God but that are not possible between two humans? In short, is there an established list of essential attributes in Protestant Christianity defining a "personal relationship" between a human and God? References to official or reputable Protestant sources are encouraged.

One way to find Job’s generation is to count the generations in the family tree for Job's contemporary Elihu (though he was young, and likely in the next generation), and compare them to the Patriarch records. These are the scriptures: Job 32:6: ”And Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite answered and said, ‘I am young, and you are very old.” Gen 11:26: “And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran.” Gen. 22:20-23: “Behold, Milcah, she hath also born children unto thy brother Nahor; Huz his firstborn, and Buz his brother… So Nahor-Buz-Barachel-Elihu = Abram- Isaac-Jacob-Judah . That would place the events of Job’s trials about the time of Jacob's sojourn in Canaan. It is curious that Job’s lifespan does not match with Jacob’s at 147, but with Terah (205), Abram (175) or Isaac's (180). However, Job seems to have had a blessing of a long life for his time. Others say Job lived later because of the use of term 'Rahab' (translated "proud") in 9:13 and 26:12; believing the use of this word is significant as it relates to later Egypt. Ps.87:4; Is.51:9.

Obviously Moses was not of the Aaronic Priesthood. Not only was he not a descendant of Aaron, but in fact he was greater than Aaron. God made him Moses’ prophet (Exodus 7:1-2). Was Moses of the order of Melchizedek? Or another order perhaps?

Reading from the book of Daniel Chapter 11, there is a man mentioned near the end of the chapter that most agree is the anti-christ. Daniel describes his eventual end as him being pressed by several kings and eventually his army abandons him: > Daniel 11 > > 44 However, news from the east and north will frighten him, so that he moves out in great fury to ruin and completely do away with many. 45 Finally, when he pitches the tents of his palace between the seas and the mountain of the holy Glory, he will come to his end, with no one to help him. However the book of Revelation describes the end of the anti-christ as a battle between his armies and Heavens armies: > Revelation 19:19 > > I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies gathered together to do battle with the rider of the horse and his army. Is the book of Daniel suggesting that the Antichrist is basically a "weak" version of himself by the time Jesus arrives, and it's the other kings of the earth that are primarily waging war against Jesus? If that is true what can we make of Revelation 13 that says: > The whole world was filled with wonder and followed the beast. Daniel mentions the other kings eating at a table with the anti-christ, would they not have his number/mark on them during this time? > Daniel 11 > > 27 These two kings, bent on mischief, will sit at the same table, speaking lies to each other; but none of this will succeed; because the appointed end will not have come yet. 28 Then the king of the north will return to his own land with great wealth; with his heart set against the holy covenant, he will take action and then return home.

To my knowledge, the things necessary for a valid confession are the following: 1. Verbal or interpreted (eg if one is mute) confession of at least all known mortal sins committed since one's last valid confession 2. The words *ego te absolvo* or the semantic equivalent said by the priest with the proper intention (presumed to be habitually held) 3. At least imperfect contrition (sorrow for sin on account of God's just punishments) and a firm purpose of amendment/intention to sin no more on the part of the penitent. The priest assigns a penance to make satisfaction for the temporal debt due to sin, which does not have to be performed in order to receive absolution. So, for instance, if the penitent intends to perform the penance, but is distracted after leaving the confessional, and subsequently forgets to do his penance, his confession is still valid. My question is whether that intention to do penance at the time of confession and absolution is necessary for sacramental validity, that is, whether one who positively intends *not* to do his penance is not forgiven, assuming all the other requirements outlined above are satisfied. Please provide citations from a reputable Catholic source, such as a teaching ministry like Catholic Answers, Ascension Press, Word on Fire, or another, or official church documents if they are available.

For this question, I will refer to Blaise Pascal's personal case, as summarized on this [website](https://godandmath.com/tag/pascals-wager/) : > ### Conversion experience > > November 23, 1654, Pascal underwent a conversion experience. He had a vision of Jesus on the cross, he wrote: > >> “From about half-past ten in the evening until about half-past twelve … FIRE … God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, and not of the philosophers and savants. Certitude. Certitude. Feeling. Joy. Peace.” > > He kept this on a small piece of paper which he kept with him sewn into the lining of his coat. > > ### Pascal and reason > > Pascal was highly dubious about the role of natural theology. In his *Pensées* , published posthumously, he wrote: > >> “It is an astounding fact that no canonical writer has ever made use of nature to prove God. They all strive to make us believe in Him. David, Solomon, etc., have never said, “There is no void, therefore there is a God.” They must have had more knowledge than the most learned people who came after them, and who have all made use of this argument. This is worthy of attention.” (*Pensées* 243) > > Natural theology for Pascal leads to the god of the philosophers, not the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of the Bible. > > He could perhaps be thought of as an early reformed epistemologist, for him belief in God was properly basic. He asserted that: > >> “The heart has its reasons, which reason does not know.” (*Pensées* 277) >> >> “It is the heart which experiences God, and not the reason. This, then, is faith: God felt by the heart, not by the reason.” (*Pensées* 278) > > Nevertheless, he did provide one argument for belief in God: Pascal’s Wager (*Pensées* 233). Simply put, if God exists we will be rewarded. If he doesn’t exist we won’t be. If we believe in God and he doesn’t exist we might have lost out on a few ‘sinful pleasures’, however, if we don’t believe in God but he does exist, then we may face eternal damnation. It’s not worth the risk of not believing in God. Pascal believed that God is beyond the reach of reason and must be known through the heart. Natural theology and philosophical arguments may point to the "God of the philosophers," but not to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. As his own conversion experience suggests, Pascal did not come to faith through intellectual reasoning but through a profound spiritual encounter. Following Pascal's thoughts and testimony, it seems that God takes an active role in conversion, especially if such experiences require an encounter with the living God. The question then becomes: when and where does this occur? **Theologically, what factors does God consider when determining the moment and place for someone to have a conversion experience, like Pascal's?**

I've heard from multiple sources that there isn't even the slightest of (extra-biblical) evidence of the Exodus story or even evidence for the presence of Israelites in Egypt. If this is true, why is this and how do Christians get over this lack of evidence? If this isn't necessarily true, what extra-biblical evidence is there of Israelites being enslaved, escaping, and wandering in the desert for 40 years?

In Catholic art and imagery how is hell symbolized? If a symbol does exist for it, why was this particular symbol chosen? In other words, does hell have a symbol?

## Background Christians commonly hold that God revealed the truth progressively in history in areas of theology like the plan of salvation and law . Many Christians also believe that the Triune nature of God was revealed progressively over time, and that early men may not have understood God to be a Trinity but the Trinity was revealed slowly with "increasing clarity as more and more of the Scriptures were written" . ## Question Given that Christians believe God has revealed different aspects of his nature over time, do any Christian denominations believe there are limits to "progressive revelation"? Specifically, could God reveal new information about his nature in the future such as another person? Or is the understanding of his nature now considered fully complete?

The Agnus Dei sacramental is one of the Church's strongest sacramental which can only be blessed by a pope. This great consecration of Agnus Dei sacramentals takes place only in the first year of each pontificate and every seventh year afterwards. > On the Wednesday of Easter week these discs are brought to the Pope, who dips them into a vessel of water mixed with chrism and balsam, adding various consecratory prayers. The distribution takes place with solemnity on the Saturday following. - Catholic Encyclopedia The last known blessing of the Agnus Dei sacramentals was in 1964 by Pope Paul VI. > In a wonderful article by Charles Hugo Doyle, entitled "The Forgotten Sacramental," the author provides a summary of the special virtues of the Agnus Dei, as cited by Popes Urban V, Paul II, Julius III, Sixtus V and Benedict XIV, which include the following benefits: > > They foster piety, banish tepidity, preserve from vice and dispose to virtue. > > They cancel venial sins and purify from the stain left by grievous sin after it has been remitted in the Sacrament of Penance. > > They banish evil spirits, deliver from temptation and preserve from eternal ruin. > > They are a protection from a sudden and unprovided death. > > They dispel fears occasioned by evil spirits. > > They are a protection in combat, and have power to ensure victory. > > They deliver from poison and from the snares of the wicked. > > They are excellent preventatives against sickness and are also an efficacious remedy -- especially in cases of epilepsy. > > They hinder the ravages of pestilence, of epidemics and infectious diseases.\ > > They quiet the winds, dissipate hurricanes, calm whirlwinds, and keep away tempests. > > They save from shipwreck and the danger of lightning and floods. An anecdote is recalled here of Pope St. Pius V, who had recourse to this expedient when the Tiber was in flood and seemed likely to submerge the city. We are told that when an Agnus Dei had been thrown into the river, the angry waters at once subsided. - Agnus Dei Sacramentals and other relics Lost Catholic culture: the Agnus Dei wax > If you visit the parish of Santa Susanna (the English-speaking parish in Rome), you can ring the bell of the second sacristy and the sister will let you into the room which is a little gift shop. There you can receive, with a little donation, the wonderful Agnus Dei wax along with this informative brochure (with an Imprimatur from 1960). - Lost Catholic culture: the Agnus Dei wax Since these sacramental have gone the way of the dodo bird (1964), how can there still be some of these wax sacramental available for the faithful? The Catholic website Fish Eaters made an update on their Agnus Dei page stating the following: > Update: I've received an e-mail from a priest who was kind enough to take the time to inform me that the Holy Father issued Agnus Dei sacramentals during the Jubilee Year 2000. Wonderful! My question is this: **Is it possible to find a source (in print or online) that states definitively that Pope John Paul II actually blessed these wax tablets of the Agnus Dei sacramentals during the Great Jubilee of the Year 2000?**

This is in response to the disciples asking why Jesus teaches in parables: > He said to them, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those outside, everything is in parables, so that although they look they may look but not see, and although they hear they may hear but not understand, so they may not repent and be forgiven." -Mark 4:11-12 New English Translation Why does he say this? Why is he teaching at all if his intent is actually that the people not see, not understand, and not repent. It seems troubling.

And also what objections are there to the position that ALL of Creation is the Body of God the Father? I do not believe that this is the same as pantheism which says the physical universe is god. The distinction in this position is God the Father is Spirit & Body. Just like Man is both spirit & body. (Man consists of both body & soul.) A dead body is not a man since there is no spirit. Similarly one can't speak of the Body of the Father as God anymore than a dead cadaver is a man. Everything that exists both spiritual & physical exist in God. So we think of ALL of Creation as the Body of God the Father. --- 1. Can one say that God the Father has Spirit & Body? 2. What are the objections to the position that ALL of creation is the Body of God the Father?

What year did Scaliger date the Exodus? Is there a list of his Chronology in English anywhere. I'm trying to find cross comparisons of ancient writers and their dating systems.

In studying through the gospels chronologically, I realized that at least two of the apostles, Andrew and most likely John, were already close disciples of John the Baptist before they met Christ. Andrew went to get his brother Peter, which implies he wasn't far away. It occurred to me that, at least for the inner core, these first disciples of Jesus did not start following Him out of a vacuum. They were spiritual men and were most probably seeking for the Messiah, as directed by John. It seems worthy of note. I could not find any biblical commentary on this , to get more information. For example, where was John baptizing? These were working men; yet they were hanging around John, away from home. Bathabera is traditionally considered to be near the north end of the Dead Sea and east of Jerusalem, and about 70 miles from Gallilee. This makes sense considering John the Baptist preached in the wilderness, and Christ was immediately led out there after His baptism. I would like to know, besides if there is any commentary on the first disciples before they met Christ, what is considered a reliable current source for ancient geography. Thank you.

I run into this phrase a lot in the Orthodox church, particularly as part of the longer phrase 'and unto ages of ages'. I understand that, generally, this means 'for a long time'. However, what does it mean specifically? Where did the phrase come from and what is its history? Thanks!

[Matthew 26:63-64 NIV](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2026:63-64&version=NIV) : > The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.” “You have said so,” Jesus replied. So do Jews believe that the Messiah is to be the Son of God or is it a later Christian invention? Jews tend to think that christians commit idolatry. However, merely believing that Jesus is the messiah is not idolatry. Rabbi Akiva did that too to someone else. The question is about the idea whether messiah is the Son of God or not. If even the high priest, and Peter, believed that, then it'll be very interesting. Peter, a jew, also equated Son of God with Messiah when Jesus asked "Who do you think I am?" This question is not about divinity of Jesus. That will be a different question. The question is whether the idea that messiah is a Son of God (perhaps in some lesser sense) originate out of judaism.

I think the following was spoken Ex Cathedra: > “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches > that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only > pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share > in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was > prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are > joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this > ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can > profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone > can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, > their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian > soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, > even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, > unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic > Church.” (Council of Florence--Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate > Domino, 1441.) So as far as 600 years ago, this was considered an infallible statement by Catholics, correct? Here is another one from 700 years ago: > “With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, > holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and > simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor > remission of sin… Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim > to every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation > are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, Unam > Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302) Why then today do Catholics seem to change their mind about it? There is indeed confusion about what Pope Francis meant about atheists . This answer on Stack Exchange states that there are other ways outside of the sacraments and union with the Catholic Church to get to heaven . To be fair, it does contradict paragraphs 1257-1261 of the Catholic Catechism. So how does the Catholic Church regard these Ex Cathedra pronouncements which were clearly aimed at people trying to break away? Now that we have Protestantism, they seem to have mellowed a bit. But I would like to get a more in depth answer that explains 1. How *Ex Cathedra* statements seem to be disregarded 2. How Catholics actually squared these statements in the first place with the teachings in the Cathechism that seem to teach the exact opposite

Can a member of the Ruthenian Catholic Church be automatically excommunicated for apostasy? As far as I know they can't be, as the *Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches* states: >"One who denies a truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or who calls it into doubt, or who totally repudiates the Christian faith, and does not retract it after having been legitimately warned, is to be punished as a heretic or an apostate with a major excommunication" (1436) Does this imply that the Church has to be officially involved in order for the person to be excommunicated?

Revelation 11:19-12:1 shows that Mary is in the Temple. What is her role here? Is it similar to the Old Ark of the Covenant, or is she there interceding to her Son?

According to Gospel of Judas, why did Judas hand over Jesus to Roman authorities? Did Jesus asked him himself to do so? If yes, then why did Jesus needed this? Did he just want to escape the material world ASAP?