Question: What was the normal way to cross the Jordan River during first century in Israel? Reading John 1:28 it says that John was baptizing on the East side of the Jordan River and I've wondered how the people would get to him. And not just him but any travel that may require crossing the river. I'm sure that it could probably be crossed by swimming but it seems that hauling goods and possessions, families, or even the upper class like the priests this wouldn't have been the case. No where in scripture do I find mention of a bridge. Through different google searches the earliest bridge I could find was circa 700CE. ---------- Information on the river itself: The baptismal site of Bethany Beyond the Jordan (John 1:28) is near the southern end of the Jordan River, across from Jericho and 8 kilometres south of the King Hussein (or Allenby) Bridge. It is 40 minutes by car from the Jordanian capital of Amman. El-Ghor: "Twenty miles below Lake Galilee the river is joined by the important Wady el-Jalud, which descends through the valley of Jezreel between Mt. Gilboa and the range of the Little Hermon (the hill Moreh of Jdg 7:1). This valley leads up from the Jordan to the valley of Esdrelon and thence to Nazareth, and furnished the usual route for Jews going from Jerusalem to Nazareth when they wished to avoid the Samaritans." Deep and turbulent during the rainy season, the Jordan is reduced to a sluggish, shallow stream during the summer. The Jordan River only reaches 20 yards across in some places, and its deepest point is around 17 feet. From the Sea of Galilee , at the level of 682 feet below the Mediterranean, the river flows through a long, low plain called “the region of Jordan” (Matt. 3:5), and by the modern Arabs the Ghor, or “sunken plain.” This section is properly the Jordan of Scripture. Down through the midst of the “plain of Jordan” there winds a ravine varying in breadth from 200 yards to half a mile, and in depth from 40 to 150 feet. Through it the Jordan flows in a rapid, rugged, tortuous course down to the Dead Sea.

In a recent news event, the former president of the USA miraculously turned his head and survived an assassination by an inch. Is God capable of controlling our bodies through putting thoughts in our heads? For example in the case of Trump, he thought to turn right and look at the statistics billboard which consequently made the bullet miss by an inch which saved his life. The most amazing fact is the timing to look at the billboard and the shot being fired coincided, which shows there is a divine intervention to save his life because he could have easily thought to look at the supporters in front which would have ended badly. Most people who have been interviewed on the media say it was divine intervention that saved Trump, is this true and is there a Bible analogy where God saved someone by changing their thoughts?

Given that **in the gospel of Jesus Christ, “the righteousness of God is revealed” (Romans 1:16-17)**, and the gospel is the good news of what God did in Christ, how is this explained in the New Testament? It does not seem obvious at first sight. ***Yet in Romans 3:21 to 26 we are told this declares God’s righteousness.*** Could those who believe God’s righteousness was demonstrated at Golgotha please answer? **What key point(s) link God’s righteousness with the punishment of God's wrath poured out?** EDIT: To clarify, Isaiah said Messiah would be punished by God in chapter 53: "...we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted... the punishment that brought us peace was upon him... Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief." **Consider the basic premise of this Q to be Isaiah 53:4-5 & 10.**

[Hebrews 1:4–14](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+1&version=GNT) contrasts Jesus with the angels. How do groups like Jehovah's Witnesses, who see him as an angel, understand these verses?

The question is: According to Baptists, does God have a soul? Understandably, the answer will have to incorporate the Baptist definition of 'soul' and, if yes, whether it differs from the 'human soul'. I apologize for the phrasing of the 'title'. The original was being wrongly resisted as a duplicate by the bot. Related: What does Lutheranism say about God's soul? , A question for Roman Catholicism about the soul of God? , According to Eastern Orthodoxy does God have a soul? , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103595/47250, https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103598/47250, https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103599/47250, https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103600/47250

John the Baptist said to those who came to him to be baptised that he baptised with water for repentance: “But after me comes one who is more powerful than I. . . . He will baptise you with the Holy Spirit and fire” (Matthew 3:11). John the Baptist distinguished his baptism (with water) from the Lord’s baptism (with the Holy Spirit). John 1:35-40 mentions two of John the Baptist's disciples, Andrew (Simon Peter's brother) and the other, almost certainly the writer of the Gospel of John. They would have been baptised in water by John the Baptist (a baptism of repentance). A[ \[CSE question\]][1] exists which asks if there is any Church Tradition to show that Jesus baptised his apostles. Here is part of the answer: "St Thomas in his Summa theologiae III, q. 72, a. 6, ad. 2 quotes St. Augustine and affirms that the Apostles were baptized. As Augustine says (Ep. cclxv), from our Lord's words, "'He that is washed, needeth not but to wash his feet' (John 13:10), we gather that Peter and Christ's other disciples had been baptized, either with John's Baptism, as some think; or with Christ's, which is more credible. For He did not refuse to administer Baptism, so as to have servants by whom to baptize others." There is nothing in the Scriptures that describes the apostles having been baptized by Jesus — but in John 3:22, we read that, “after this, Jesus and his disciples went into the region of Judea, where he spent some time with them baptizing.” However, John 4:21 informs us that “Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that he was gaining and baptising more disciples than John [the Baptist], ***although in fact it was not Jesus who baptised, but his disciples.***” The argument from Church Tradition does not appear to be in harmony with John 4:21. The disciples were baptising in water by the direction of Jesus and under His authority. Apart from knowing that Andrew and John were baptised by John the Baptist, does the New Testament say if any other of Jesus' apostles were ever baptised in water, and if any of the apostles were baptised by Jesus? Also what have biblical scholars said said about this? In response to a comment about this question, please note I have asked a different question about Christian baptism on CSE: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/103572/how-do-jehovah-s-witnesses-interpret-john-35-7-where-jesus-says-to-enter-the-ki

The question is: According to Presbyterians, does God have a soul? Understandably, the answer will have to incorporate the Presbyterian definition of 'soul' and, if yes, whether it differs from the 'human soul'. I apologize for the phrasing of the 'title'. The original was being wrongly resisted as a duplicate by the bot. Related: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103596/47250 , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103595/47250 , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103581/47250 , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103592/47250 , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103593/47250 , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103599/47250 , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103600/47250

**[Exodus 20:3](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+20:3&version=NIV)** (NIV) reads, "You shall have no other gods before Me." According to the Tanakh (Old Testament), YHWH / Yahweh / (God) is an individual divine being, and the only God. Some sections of the Scriptures seem to state that He is the universe’s only (truly existing) God; however, others portray him as a supreme god among other gods (that actually exist). [Deuteronomy 4:35](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+4:35&version=NIV) , “YHWH is God; there is **none else beside him**.” [Isaiah 44:6–8](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+44:6-8&version=NIV) , it says, “Thus says YHWH…: I am the first, and I am the last; and **beside me there is no God**… Is there a God beside me? Yea, there is no God; I know not any.” Thus, Yahweh is the *only* God that exists. ---------- But in [Exodus 15:11](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+15:11&version=NIV) , after the Israelites escape slavery in Egypt, they sing, “Who is like you, O YHWH, **among the gods** [Elohim]?” [Deuteronomy 6:14](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+6:14&version=NIV) : "Do not follow other gods, **the gods of the peoples around you**" In [Deuteronomy 10:17](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+10:17&version=NIV) , it says, “For YHWH your God is the **God of gods**, and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and terrible, who does not regard people or take bribes.” In [Psalm 95:3](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+95:3&version=NIV) , it says, “YHWH is a great God, and **a great king above all gods**.” And in [Exodus 12:12](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+12:12&version=NIV) , it says, “On that night I will pass through the land of Egypt and smite every firstborn, both man and beast, and **I will execute judgment against all the gods of Egypt. I am YHWH**.” ---------- What are we to make of this, then? Are there lesser/other gods? Do the words used for god, perhaps, have other implied contextual meanings in some passages?

The question is: According to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, does God have a soul? Understandably, the answer will have to incorporate the LDS definition of 'soul' and, if yes, whether it differs from the 'human soul'. Related: - Do Anglicans think God has a soul? - Does God have a soul according to Presbyterians? - Do Baptists say God has a soul? - What is the Methodist position on God's soul? - According to Eastern Orthodoxy does God have a soul? - A question for Roman Catholicism about the soul of God? - What does Lutheranism say about God's soul? - Do Pentecostals teach that God has a soul?

The question is: According to Eastern Orthodoxy, does God have a soul? Understandably, the answer will have to incorporate the EO definition of 'soul' and, if yes, whether it differs from the 'human soul'. Related: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103593/47250 , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103592/47250 , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103595/47250 , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103596/47250 , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103598/47250 , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103599/47250 , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103600/47250

The question is: According to Roman Catholicism, does God have a soul? Understandably, the answer will have to incorporate the RC definition of 'soul' and, if yes, whether it differs from the 'human soul'. I apologize for the phrasing of the 'title'. The original was being wrongly resisted as a duplicate by the bot. Related: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103581/47250 , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103593/47250 , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103595/47250 , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103596/47250 , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103598/47250 , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103599/47250 , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103600/47250

**Matthew 27**: > **46** And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? > **47** Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, This man calleth for Elias. During our Lord's crucifixion, people thought he was praying to Elijah. Nobody asks "what is this man doing? Prayer is only to God!". As some have commented, we do not know the faces of the people when they said that. They might have been horrified. Or they might not. That made me think: was it common and accepted to pray to Elijah during Jesus' times? If so, did they pray to other people and angels as well? Thank you very much!

The question is: According to Lutheranism, does God have a soul? Understandably, the answer will have to incorporate the Lutheran definition of 'soul' and, if yes, whether it differs from the 'human soul'. I apologize for the phrasing of the 'title'. The original was being wrongly resisted as a duplicate by the bot. Related: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103592/47250 , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103581/47250 , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103595/47250 , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103596/47250 , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103598/47250 , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103599/47250 , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103600/47250

The question is: According to Methodism, does God have a soul? Understandably, the answer will have to incorporate the Methodist definition of 'soul' and, if yes, whether it differs from the 'human soul'. I apologize for the phrasing of the 'title'. The original was being wrongly resisted as a duplicate by the bot. Related: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103593/47250 , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103592/47250 , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103581/47250 , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103596/47250 , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103598/47250 , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103599/47250 , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103600/47250

The question is: According to Pentecostalism, does God have a soul? Understandably, the answer will have to incorporate the Pentecostal definition of 'soul' and, if yes, whether it differs from the 'human soul'. I apologize for the phrasing of the 'title'. The original was being wrongly resisted as a duplicate by the bot. Related: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103599/47250 , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103598/47250 , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103596/47250 , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103595/47250 , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103581/47250 , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103592/47250 , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103593/47250

Two of the Five Solas are: - Sola Gratia: Salvation by Grace Alone - Sola Fide: Justification by Faith Alone If salvation is by "grace alone", how can "faith alone" be added as well? Only one of these two should be chosen in order to use the term "alone". From scripture grace and faith work together, e.g.: > ... we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand ... *(Romans 5:2, ESV)* > > For by grace you have been saved through faith. *(Ephesians 2:8, ESV)* Suppose someone builds a bridge over a chasm to rescue a group of hikers from a great disaster, and announces to all hikers that the bridge has been built. Arriving on the safe side, someone tells the hikers: "You arrived here *only* through the goodwill of the bridgebuilder", and "You arrived here *only* because you actually crossed the bridge". How logical is that? Clearly, the two must work together (and not together, although separately alone)?

This question is in the context of Protestant Trinitarianism. There are two schools of thought within Protestant Trinitarianism : one, founded mainly in the Westminster Confession (or Savoy Declaration) which accepts that 'the Law is a rule of life for the Christian' and looks to the commandments (whether an expansion of ten, or whether two or whether one) as the 'Law' by which the Christian is to live. This school of thought can be seen set forth in the Westminster Confession The other school of thought accepts that salvation is by grace and that the Christian is 'freed from law' (that is to say, not just 'ceremonial law' but *all law*). The 'rule of the Spirit' is just that, they say - a governance of the Holy Spirit who brings the things of Christ and ministers them to the soul, whereby the believer receives the 'shedding abroad of the love of God' and is kept, in Spirit, walking in holiness by means of faith in Christ. This school of thought can be seen set forth in the pages of The Gospel Standard . I am interested in what the former school of thought teach, regarding Titus 2: 11-14 : >For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, (12) Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; (13) Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; (14) Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works. There is no mention in these few verses of the Law being administered in order to achieve either holiness or preparation for the last day. The latter school of thought hold that the 'grace of God' refers to the Holy Spirit and that his ministrations result in sanctification. What, I would like to know, is the teaching of those who suggest that Christians are 'under the Law' (and the Westminster Confession states that this is as 'advice') in regard to these verses. Whose, exactly, is the 'grace' referred to ? And why, would they say, is Law completely missing from these exhortatory verses ?

I address this question to Christians who believe that Jesus Christ possesses both divine and human natures—those who believe that Christ has always been the Son of God, that is, God, and, since the moment of His incarnation, also the Son of Man, that is, a human. In other words, I address the following three main branches of Christianity: the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and mainstream Protestantism (those Protestant believers who directly address Jesus in their prayers): **Was Jesus Christ's soul ever created, or has it existed forever?** On the one hand, as the Son of God, Christ, being divine, has always possessed a soul—that is, the ability to have thoughts, feelings, and will. Verses like this one seem to indicate that: > “Jerusalem, Jerusalem... how often I have longed to gather your > children together” (Matthew 23:37, NIV) (clearly, the longing here extends over a period of more than 33 and a half years) In other words, at His incarnation, Christ only received a physical body, which seems to be confirmed by this verse: > "Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said: ‘Sacrifice and > offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me’" (Hebrews > 10:5, NIV). On the other hand, from the moment of His incarnation, Christ possessed human nature. A key element of human nature is the possession of a created soul, not just a physical body. If so, then Jesus Christ should also possess a created human soul—regardless of when exactly it was created (whether at the moment of conception or at some point prior). If that is the case, then which of the two options is correct: 1. Was it like His divine soul simply entered His created human soul and the two joined as one, and thus, showing no contradictions to each other and abiding in perfect harmony and agreement, can be considered one soul, one personality? 2. Or is it like, rather, in case with Jesus there is only His uncreated divine soul that Christ has always posessed eternally, and the absence of a created human soul does not exclude Him from being fully human (just as the absence of a biological human father does not)? How is this matter viewed in the above-mentioned branches of Christianity?

[Saints](http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=saints&version1=CSB&searchtype=all&limit=none&wholewordsonly=no&resultspp=500&displayas=long&sort=bookorder) are present throughout the Bible. In my understanding, Protestant use of this word applies to *all believers*, which I understand is the New Testament (and OT?) meaning of the word. In my limited understanding of Catholicism, it seems that the Roman Catholic church selects a subset of *all believers* and declares *them* to be saints. Is this then to the exclusion of other believers, i.e. saying that *not all* believers are saints?

[This article]( https://www.gotquestions.org/born-of-water.html) presents a view that to be “born of water and the Spirit” refers to spiritual cleansing. The re-birth, or the new birth, which means to be “born again”, is a spiritual rebirth. Whereas people once-born have physical life, a person twice-born has eternal life (John 3:15–18, 36; 17:3; 1 Peter 1:23). I know that Jehovah’s Witnesses promote full immersion in water for adults who understand the implications of baptism and what it signifies. From your New World Translation, John 3:5 and 7 says this: >Unless anyone is born from water and spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God… You people must be born again. It is worth noting that whereas Matthew and Luke refer to "the kingdom of God", Matthew uses the expression "the kingdom of heaven" 33 times. The kingdom of God is central to Jesus' teaching. From a Protestant perspective, we understand the two expressions to mean the same thing. Are Jehovah’s Witnesses who have submitted to water baptism deemed to have also been born from the Spirit, that they have been born again, or born from above, and are therefore confident of entering into the kingdom of heaven? Or is being “born again” restricted only to those members of the 144,000 who say they have been anointed and have a heavenly hope?