One doctrine that has been consistently taught in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is that, if people had accepted the gospel but didn't have the opportunity in this life, they will still be saved and be able to receive all the blessings of the gospel. This general idea goes back to at the latest Joseph Smith's vision of the celestial kingdom, where he was surprised to see his brother who died before the restoration of the church. D&C 137 > 5 I saw Father Adam and Abraham; and my father and my mother; my > brother Alvin, that has long since slept; > > 6 And marveled how it was that he had obtained an inheritance in that > kingdom, seeing that he had departed this life before the Lord had set > his hand to gather Israel the second time, and had not been baptized > for the remission of sins. > > 7 Thus came the voice of the Lord unto me, saying: All who have died > without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they > had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom > of God; > > 8 Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who > would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that > kingdom; > > 9 For I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, > according to the desire of their hearts. Now, the covenant of marriage is seen as vitally important to receive the highest blessings in the celestial kingdom (D&C 131 ). LDS perform proxy sealings in the temple for those who were married in life but not in the "new and everlasting covenant" that is eternal marriage. With regard to those that, for some reason or another, did not have the opportunity to marry in this life, no proxy marriages are (kind of obviously) performed. Yet it has been consistently taught since at least Lorenzo Snow that there will be opportunity for those eventually (in the millenium I suppose) to be married. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-lorenzo-snow/chapter-9-sacred-family-relationships?lang=eng&id=p8#p8 > People who have no opportunity of marrying in this life, if they die > in the Lord, will have means furnished them by which they can secure > all the blessings necessary for persons in the married condition. The > Lord is merciful and kind, and He is not unjust. There is no injustice > in Him; yet we could scarcely look upon it as being just when a woman > or a man dies without having had the opportunity of marrying if it > could not be remedied in the other life. There would be injustice in > that, and we know that the Lord is not an unjust being. My sister > Eliza R. Snow, I believe, was just as good a woman as any Latter-day > Saint woman that ever lived, and she lived in an unmarried state until > she was beyond the condition of raising a family. … I cannot for one > moment imagine that she will lose a single thing on that account. It > will be made up to her in the other life, and she will have just as > great a kingdom as she would have had if she had had the opportunity > in this life of raising a family. (Quote from 1899, shortly after becoming president of the church in 1898) Was Lorenzo Snow the first to formulate the doctrine this way? Surely all the building blocks were already there even in Joseph Smith's time. Please correct me if I am wrong in this, but I assume none of the standard works go into this topic, so what we have here is an example of doctrine defined by "the modern-day prophets consistently taught it".

Most English translations in Rev 5:9 read something like "You purchased people for God by your blood from every tribe and language and people and nation." However, the Revelation ECM/CBGM data prefers the reading τῷ θεῷ ἡμᾶς over the reading of τῷ θεῷ (supported by only one Greek manuscript, 02). If I am not mistaken, this would read something like "you purchased ***us*** for God by your blood...". My question(s) pertain to the significance of this change in reading. Who are the 24 elders? How does this reading change our understanding of their identity and function? Are they a part of the redeemed?

What are the Biblical arguments used by those who teach that God does not know every detail of the future? I've seen three answers as to whether God knows every detail of the future. - 1. "God knows every detail of the future, including things that He hasn't planned". 2. "God knows every detail of the future because He plans every detail of the future". 3. "While God could control every detail of the future, He does not, and sometimes things happen that He does not expect to happen". A complete response should discuss all three. **Conclusion** I accepted Kristopher's answer as it best answered the question. I awarded the 200 point bounty to Andrew Shanks as his answer and comments were most helpful in refining my answer, which was the goal of the bounty.

According to Wikipedia : > The modern Jewish Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread is seven days, starting with the sunset at the beginning of Nisan 15. and > According to some interpretations, the Gospel of John (e.g., 19:14, 19:31, 19:42) implies that Nisan 14 was the day that Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem. The article mentions that this was the first Easter controversy which petered out around the 4th century and that "Jehovah's Witnesses continue to celebrate the memorial of Christ's death on Nisan 14." Recently, an answer on Biblical Hermeneutics asserted that Jesus was crucified on Nisan 14. This indicates the interpretation is still supported in some modern traditions. Are there any denominations that interpret John 19 as placing the crucifixion on Nisan 14? Do the Jehovah's Witnesses base their memorial on John 19?

Christian theology affirms that Jesus Christ is fully divine and fully human. At the same time, Scripture describes real human limitations during his earthly life (e.g., growth in wisdom, learning, and dependence on ordinary means of communication). Given this, I am asking how Christian doctrine understands Jesus’ knowledge of human languages during his earthly ministry. - Did Christ, by virtue of his divinity, possess complete knowledge of all human languages while incarnate? - Or did the incarnation (often discussed in terms of kenosis) entail genuine limitations such that his linguistic knowledge was exercised within normal human bounds? - How do major Christian traditions (e.g., Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant) reconcile divine omniscience with apparent human limitations in this area?

What is the difference between the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches?

I’m researching the story of the Seven Sleepers of Ephesus. I understand that it is not part of the canonical Bible, but that it appears in early Syriac Christian writings, such as the homilies of Jacob of Serugh (5th–6th century CE). I’m curious about how this story is viewed within Christian traditions today, particularly Eastern/Syriac Christianity: Is it considered purely devotional or moral literature, or is it treated as a historical event? How do clergy or believers engage with it—do they tell it as a story for inspiration, include it in liturgy, or otherwise reference it? Are there any standard interpretations or lessons emphasized by these communities? I’m interested in both historical and contemporary perspectives on the story in Syriac/Eastern Christian traditions.

According to the doctrine of the trinity the Son is eternal. Is this in reference to his divine nature only or the physical and divine? If it is both physical and divine, then did the body shrink down into Mary?

Can a woman whose husband is a credo-baptist believer still go to mass with her husband and family? If they want to delay baptism of their children until they are capable of thinking for themselves will you get kicked out of the Catholic church? They are both Catholics; the husband just feels that baptism is something a person has to decide for him/herself to do. The parents do want their kids baptized; they just want them to choose to do so (when they are mature enough to decide).

I asked, "What is the Boethian solution?" One answer was - >The Boethian solution refers to a philosophical argument, most famously detailed in Boethius's *The Consolation of Philosophy*, that resolves the problem of divine foreknowledge and human free will. Boethius argues that God is eternal, existing outside of time, and thus perceives all of time—past, present, and future—at once, much like a person outside of a train can see the entire track at once. For God, there is no "fore"-knowledge but an "eternal present" where all events are simply "present" to Him, not predetermined by His knowledge. Therefore, an event happening does not occur because God foresaw it, but rather God simply sees it happening in His eternal present, a fact that does not remove human freedom. The answer added - >This theory contradicts the scriptural concepts which Paul expresses, namely ; foreknowledge, predestination and election. How does God's being outside of time contradict foreknowledge, predestination and election?

In Trinitarian readings of 1 Corinthians 8:6, it is often argued (e.g., by Dr. James White ) that Paul intentionally echoes the Shema of Deuteronomy 6:4 and “expands” it by identifying: - “one God” with the Father - “one Lord (κύριος)” with Jesus Christ On this view, Paul is said to include Jesus within the unique divine identity of YHWH while maintaining Jewish monotheism. **My question is directed to Christians who hold a non‑Trinitarian or Unitarian view:** **What are the primary exegetical and hermeneutical objections to interpreting 1 Corinthians 8:6 as a deliberate expansion or reformulation of the Shema?** In particular: - What reasons are there for denying that Paul is intentionally alluding to Deuteronomy 6:4? - How should the distinction between “one God, the Father” and “one Lord, Jesus Christ” be understood within first‑century Jewish monotheism? - Does Paul’s use of κύριος necessarily imply identification with YHWH, or can it be explained in functional or representative terms? Answers should focus on biblical, linguistic, and contextual considerations, rather than appeals to later creeds or post‑biblical theology.

According to Colossians, there appears to be some disagreement amongst the first century church on *whether* to keep the Sabbath: > Colossians 2:16 > > Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a **Sabbath day**. Did the first century church keep the Sabbath? And if so which day was it on? The Jewish Saturday or the new Christian Sunday?

The question arises whether the millennium is a literal 1000 year period, or a symbolic one. Perhaps the answer could be better ascertained if we look at other prophesied time periods, ones that were already fulfilled, and see what that shows us. Off the top of my head I can think of the several below, all of them fulfilled literally; but I'm not sure how to research this and perhaps others might be able to contribute some other instances, whether literal or symbolic. Here are the instances already thought of: The dreams of Pharaoh's officials interpreted by Joseph as to occur in 3 days in Genesis 40; The 7 years of famine in Pharaoh's dreams in Genesis 41; Nebuchadnezzar’s dream about his insanity in Dan. 4; The 70 years of the Babylonian captivity as prophesied in Jeremiah 25:11-13 and 29:11; Jesus' prophesy regarding being in the tomb 3 days in Matt. 12:40, Mark 8:41, and John 2:19; The destruction of Jerusalem, occurring in the generation still living after Jesus' death and resurrection in Matthew 24:34. The question is directed to any serious student of the Bible. Note that the prophesy has to have been fulfilled already (partial fulfillment is fine), in order to evaluate whether it was literal, or symbolic. Please Note: I am not looking for a defense or rebuttal of pre-post or a-millenialism, nor for general instances of fulfilled prophesy, but for specified time periods of future events, that were fulfilled.

I’m trying to identify an edition of Misquoting Jesus by Bart D. Ehrman that includes a Q&A section containing the following quote: >If he [Bruce Metzger] and I were put in a room and asked to hammer out a consensus statement on what we think the original text of the New Testament probably looked like, there would be very few points of disagreement—maybe one or two dozen out of many thousands. The copies I’ve checked (Amazon paperback and Kindle editions) do not include this Q&A. Does anyone know which edition or supplemental material contains this exchange, or where the quote is sourced?

One of the defining characteristics of Dispensationalism is the distinction between Israel and the Church. Israel, meaning the Jewish people, was given specific promises regarding the land of Israel, which are not applicable to the Church in any way but to the Jews only. As I understand it, Dispensationalists believe these will be fulfilled during the Millennium. I am still trying to wrap my head around the Dispensationalist idea of Israelology, by which they mean the study of the Biblical concept of "Israel." They would define it as an ethnic/genetic category, as the descendants of Israel, a.k.a. Jacob. In Orthodox Judaism, one is considered a Jew if your mother is Jewish or if you are a Halahically valid convert to Judaism, i.e. it is both matrilineal and by conversion. My understanding is that Dispensationalism, at least in its classical form, would exclude converts to Judaism from their definition of "Israel" (see for instance this article ). **What is unclear to me is whether physical descent is defined (by Dispensationalists) matrilineally or patrilineally or some mixture. For instance, if my maternal grandfather and/or paternal grandmother are part of Israel, am I?** I have not been able to find a source that gives a well-defined answer to this question. ChatGPT told me that the Dispensationalist theologian Arnold Fruchtenbaum, head of Ariel Ministries argued in his book *Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology* for a patrilineal-only definition of Israel, but without having a copy of that book, I haven't been able to track down any explicit statement to that effect. The quote from Jon Mark Ruthven cited in this article suggests that Ruthven might include either matrilineal or patrilineal descent: > The tradition of identifying a Jew as one whose mother was Jew may represent an attempt to preserve the genetic identity of Jews in the Diaspora. Before that, Jews were those whose fathers were Jews. During the dispersion, oppression of the Jews made it difficult to know who someone’s father was, due to the frequent rape of Jewish women by their oppressors, in times of war and peace. Conversions to Judaism, of course, complicate this purely genetic model somewhat. But the children of these concerts will marry Jews and raise their children to do the same. So Jewish genes soon predominate. However, the quote doesn't define what "Jewish genes" means. It surely does not imply that a genetic Jew is someone whose genetic material is mostly derived from the patriarchs, as that would almost certainly not be applicable to anyone at all who is separated from them by more than two generations. He also does not say whether the shift from patrilineal to matrilineal was legitimate as regards the covenants. To be clear, I am asking about the full Israelite identity, as Dispensationalists often separate partaking fully in the covenants verses spiritual blessings only. I am asking about those who are full partakers in the OT covenants -- is it common among Dispensationalists to believe that this is exclusively for those who are patrilineally descended from Jacob? How is this Israelite identity determined?

While I believe that some of the spiritual gifts listed in the Bible are still operational to us today in the Body of Christ, should the Apostolic sign gifts to do healings and miracle still be existing, or were ceased to be in operation once John had passed away? Looking to have those who hold to Charismatic Biblical Theology to answer this please

Revelation tells us that there is a Temple of God in Heaven, and that in that Temple is the Ark of his testament. Revelation 11:19 KJV > And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail. God directed Moses twice to make sure that he built the Tabernacle after the pattern God had shown him on the Mountain. Exodus 25:9 KJV > According to all that I shew thee, after the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all the instruments thereof, even so shall ye make it. Exodus 25:40 KJV > And look that thou make them after their pattern, which was shewed thee in the Mount. The word translated here as *pattern* could have just as easily been translated *model*. >H8403 תַּבנִיתּ tabniyth (tab-neeth') n-f. >1. structure >2. (by implication) a model, resemblance >KJV: figure, form, likeness, pattern, similitude. Are there any theological suppositions about this?

As a child, I had consistent nightmares about a demonic character who would offer me the power to fly but would demand blood from me as payment. These nightmares began at age 6 and continued until approximately age 12. I had several recurring nightmares again from age 19 until age 23, with essentially the same form: this demonic character would appear in my dreams and demand blood. These dreams became more violent and graphic, with the demon showing me his name written in blood on my thighs, and demanding that I etch his name on my body with a blade that he would offer in my dreams. Obviously, these nightmare have been deeply disturbing to me. I moved to Israel at age 28 (6 years ago). Until last night, I had not had any dreams with this character since moving to Israel. Last night, I had a similar dream, but the demon appeared as a dead and bleeding (but somehow still alive) character trying to drown me in dark water. I want to emphasize that I don't believe in demons (or angels). I'm not a spiritual person, and I'm only minimally religious (Jewish). But I'm wondering if anyone can speak to the potential significance of these dreams (if there is any). What do Christian teachings have to say about demons?

### Question During discussions of the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith's golden plates, I often hear about "The Kinderhook Plates". What are these plates, what is their connection to Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, and what is their significance?

I'm reading *St. Seraphim of Sarov: On the Acquisition of the Holy Spirit (Conversation with Motovilov)* ([pdf](https://eeparchy.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2013/05/ST.-SERAPHIM-OF-SAROV-ON-THE-ACQUISITION-OF-THE-HOLY-SPIRIT-Conversation-with-Motovilov-.pdf)) . For context: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seraphim_of_Sarov - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolay_Motovilov On pp. 5–6, Seraphim says (emphasis mine): > "Your Godliness deigns to think it a great happiness to talk to poor > Seraphim, believing that even he is not bereft of the grace of the > Lord. What then shall we say of the Lord Himself, the never-failing > source of every blessing both heavenly and earthly? Truly in prayer we > are granted to converse with Him, our all-gracious and life-giving God > and Savior Himself. **But even here we must pray only until God the > Holy Spirit descends on us in measures of His heavenly grace known to > Him**. **And when He deigns to visit us, we must stop praying**. Why > should we then pray to Him, 'Come and abide in us and cleanse us from > all impurity and save our souls, O Good One,' when He has already come > to us to save us, who trust in Him, and truly call on His holy Name, > that humbly and lovingly we may receive Him, the Comforter, in the > mansions of our souls, hungering and thirsting for His coming? > > "I will explain this point to your Godliness through an example. > **Imagine that you have invited me to pay you a visit, and at your invitation I come to have a talk with you**. But you continue to > invite me, saying: 'Come in, please. Do come in!' Then I should be > obliged to think: 'What is the matter with him? Is he out of his > mind?' > > "So it is with regard to our Lord God the Holy Spirit. That is why it > is said: Be still and know that I am God; I will be exalted among the > nations. I will be exalted in the earth (Ps. 45:10). **That is, I > will appear and will continue to appear to everyone who believes in Me > and calls upon Me, and I will converse with him as once I conversed > with Adam in Paradise, with Abraham and Jacob and other servants of > Mine, with Moses and Job, and those like them.** > > Many explain that this stillness refers only to worldly matters; in > other words, that during prayerful converse with God you must 'be > still' with regard to worldly affairs. But I will tell you in the name > of God that not only is it necessary to be dead to them at prayer, but > **when by the omnipotent power of faith and prayer our Lord God the Holy** > **Spirit condescends to visit us, and comes to us in the plenitude of** > **His unutterable goodness**, we must be dead to prayer too. > > "The soul speaks and converses during prayer, **but at the descent of > the Holy Spirit** we must remain in complete silence, in order to hear > clearly and intelligibly all the words of eternal life which he will > then deign to communicate. Complete soberness of soul and spirit, and > chaste purity of body is required at the same time. The same demands > were made at Mount Horeb, when the Israelites were told not even to > touch their wives for three days before the appearance of God on Mount > Sinai. For our God is a fire which consumes everything unclean, and no > one who is defiled in body or spirit can enter into communion with > Him." As I understand it, Seraphim describes prayer as "inviting" the Holy Spirit, and teaches that when the Spirit "visits" in a special way, one should cease speaking (even cease verbal prayer) and attend in silence to what God communicates. This sounds mystical/contemplative, and also resembles some Pentecostal/charismatic language about experiencing the Spirit's presence. How do Protestants generally evaluate this kind of pursuit? Specifically: - Do Protestants believe Christians should *seek* special "visitations" or intensified experiences of the Holy Spirit during prayer, beyond the Spirit's ordinary indwelling? - Would Protestants agree with the idea that, when such a visitation occurs, one should stop speaking and listen in silence for communication from the Spirit? - Are there particular Protestant traditions (e.g., Reformed, Lutheran, Anglican, Baptist, Methodist, Pentecostal/charismatic) that would affirm or reject this, and on what biblical/theological grounds?