In the following 2 copies of the Scofield Reference Bible, footnote number 1 to Romans 3:21 for the word "righteousness" on page 1194 ends with "Phil. 3.9.": https://archive.org/details/scofieldreferenc00unse/page/1194 https://archive.org/details/holybible0000unse_f2h3/page/1194 Both copies are "Scofield Facsimile Series No. 2" as printed in the lower right corner of the title page (link and link ). On the other hand, in the following copy (as well as in a printed copy that I have from Church Bible Publishers), "See Rom. 3.26." has been added: https://archive.org/details/scofieldreferenc0000revc/page/1194 This one is "Scofield Facsimile Series No. 1" (link ) and has one more name listed under "Consulting Editors", namely Rev. William L. Pettingill, D.D. My printed copy from Church Bible Publishers does not have this title page at all. The additional reference "See Rom. 3.26." is also in a copy "Digitized by Google" with "Original from University of Michigan", which I cannot find online anymore, but I have a local copy downloaded some time ago (SHA256SUM d0f48765b9eb8a9e399afe0e46e7282cf8add44efe49d08d912b208b1d69f0a0) and which is "Scofield Facsimile Series No. 2" and with only 7 consulting editors, like the first 2 copies. So the difference in the footnote to Romans 3:21 does not correspond in a systematic manner to the differences on the title page! On the surface, all of those copies are the 1917 edition, judging by the preface dated Jan. 1, 1917. Any ideas why this difference? Are there other known places where the two versions differ? Is there a reason to consider one of them more reliable?

> Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. If a Trinitarian is asked which God is being referred to, which God created the heaven and the earth at the beginning, MOST, if not all will say that this was the Trinity, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. All 3 were involved in the creation of the world. So it would seem reasonable to say, >Genesis 1:1 In the beginning the Trinity created the heavens and the earth. Of course, this is supported by another favourite text, >Genesis 1:26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness... "us" and "our" being a clear and unambiguous (for the purposes of the Q) references to the Trinity. Now if we go to Heb 1:1-2 we get another angle that doesn't fit with the previous assumptions. Hebrews 1:1-2 (ESV): > Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. So who created the world? Here are 3 *possible* options that might work, there could be more. 1. Is it the Trinity - all 3 persons including the Son? 2. Or is it the Trinity *through* the Son (who is part of the Trinity along with Father and HS)? 3. The Father (God) through His son, but not involving the HS - who is part of the Trinity? If we assert that God, the Trinity (Father, Son and Holy Spirit together) created the world at the beginning in Genesis 1 AND we also assert that God created the world in Genesis 1 as Hebrews 1 states, *through his Son*, then we have just created an irreconcilable contradiction. (*Source*: Excerpts from this blog article ) **Footnote:** Some commenters may perceive this Q as an *attack* on Trinitarianism. This is not the intention to be critical of a brother's belief. We all have the scriptures to read from, some may prefer *other introduced writings* which conflict with the scriptures according to the material I have excerpted for the Q. If a respondent wishes to base on answer on 'other writings', that is understandable here at C-SE, but the Q's focus is on the passages noted and their reasonable understanding while being in accord with the broader text.

This question is aimed at those Christians who believe that someone saved can't become "unsaved" later. At least in 1 Corinthians 9:27 apostle Paul says he is not sure whether he will be saved or not (AFAIK there are other verses like this, and of course other places where Paul expresses his hope he will be saved). Here it is: > 27 No, I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have > preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize. (NIV–1984) Question is simple: how do those Christians interpret this? ---------- Related: - Can a Christian walk away from their salvation? - Do parts of Hebrews 3 and 4 imply that saved Christians can become unsaved? - [Once saved always saved. Is eternal security Biblical? \[closed\]][3] - How does 1 John 2:19 fit with the teaching that Christians can lose their salvation

I recently found out on quora that the Catholic Bible has 73 books; the Orthodox Bible contains 76 or 77 books; the Protestant 66; and the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo (Amharic) has 81 books. With these differences, how can all these Bibles be the word of God; if there is no standard version? How does one convince a non-Christian that the Bible is the infallible word of God, when there is no agreement as to what books make up the Bible?

**Thesis 1:** **When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, “Repent” [Matt. 4:17], he willed the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.** This thesis is explained by Luther afterwards that by ‘entire’ he means all day and every day. Naturally that is what entire means. And that every believer should cry perpetually for new forgiveness his whole life: > We pray throughout our whole life and we must pray “forgive us our > debts” [Matt. 6:12]; therefore, we repent throughout our whole life > and are displeased with ourselves, unless anyone may be so foolish as > to think he must only pretend to pray for the forgiveness of debts. > For the debts for which we are commanded to pray are real and not to > be treated lightly; and even if they were venial, we could not be > saved unless they were remitted. > > Luther, M. (1999). Luther’s works, vol. 31: Career of the Reformer I > (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald, & H. T. Lehmann, Eds.; Vol. 31, pp. > 84–85). Fortress Press. Why did Luther feel the need to say Christians must see themselves as much much more sinful than the Roman Catholics would allow ourselves to view our spiritual state? Why is this his number one thesis?

Could you go straight to heaven if you just kill yourself on All Souls Day? > It is observed on November 2. Roman Catholic doctrine holds that the > prayers of the faithful on earth will help cleanse these souls in > order to fit them for the vision of God in heaven, and the day is > dedicated to prayer and remembrance.

I am just confused about the Holy Trinity, Jesus said that the Spirit is God, however how can the Holy Spirit be God if it is also said that the Holy Spirit created God? Wouldn’t that mean that there was nothing and then instantly both God and the Holy Spirit just happened? Such as there isn’t and then there is, or another way to put that would be there’s nothing and then there’s something. Because I can’t see how/why Jesus would say that the Spirit is God when also the Bible says that the Holy Spirit created God. So how can God create himself before even being created?

I have a good reason to think that Luke died as a martyr partially because of the continuous persecution and pursuit of Christians by the Roman Empire. The good reason being, the fact that because of his close companionship with Paul he had received the same fate, but I just want to know more about the consensus (if there is one) and what the truth is because there seems to be other accounts. Although, I found out while searching for answers on Google on how some actually saying he just died of old age and claiming a location in Greece which is not=fully confirmed.

If Original Sin is Adam's sin, did Eve have Original Sin? If so, then how did she "catch" it from Adam? Or is her (and women's) punishment in Gen. 3:16 only due to her actual sin of pride, and not to her having Original Sin? cf. "Did Original Sin derive solely from Adam or from both Adam and Eve? "

What do they mean when they say "in the fullness of time Jesus came"? I want to know what *the fullness of time* means in this scriptural context.

Dual wills of Jesus, as human and as God, are on full display in the Synoptic gospels' account of Jesus's suffering and temptation at Gethsemane. Let's first review how each gospel recounts the story: - **Matthew 26:38-39**: > Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me. And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt. (KJV) > Then he said to them, “My soul is very sorrowful, even to death; remain here, and watch with me.” And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed, saying, “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will.” (ESV) - **Mark 14:34-36**: > And saith unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful unto death: tarry ye here, and watch. And he went forward a little, and fell on the ground, and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him. And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt. (KJV) > And he said to them, “My soul is very sorrowful, even to death. Remain here and watch.” And going a little farther, he fell on the ground and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him. And he said, “Abba, Father, all things are possible for you. Remove this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will.” (ESV) - **Luke 22:42-45**: > Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done. And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him. And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground. And when he rose up from prayer, and was come to his disciples, he found them sleeping for sorrow, (KJV) > saying, “Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done.” And there appeared to him an angel from heaven, strengthening him. And being in agony he prayed more earnestly; and his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground. And when he rose from prayer, he came to the disciples and found them sleeping for sorrow, (ESV) Reading between the lines, it's obvious there is temptation, sorrow, fear, and surrender within the human soul of Jesus and we (who are called to take up our cross) can relate. Luke also added that an angel appeared to strengthen Jesus and how the disciples were *also* sorrowful. Next, let's review several obvious doctrinal implications applicable to this episode to limit allowed interpretations: - **As God** Jesus never ceases to want to save us by being the Passover Lamb to "take away the sins of the world" (John 1:29). - Chalcedonian definition allows us to reconcile this apparent ambivalence of wills at Gethsemane by interpreting the above passages that **as Man** Jesus is struggling to align his human will with his own Trinitarian will while remaining sinless since Jesus managed to overcome all his natural feelings to *not* deviate from the Trinitarian mission to go through with the Divine plan. - Jesus who is also fully God must have continually loves Himself *immanently* in Jesus, never ceasing to do so during the whole Passion, even at the cross when Jesus cried "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" (!) We can safely assume that Jesus **as Man** could do perfectly the commandment "love your neighbor as yourself" partly because in his human consciousness he feels and trusts that he is so fully loved by God. So far so good. My question has to do with characterizing what's going on in Jesus's human mind and will so that it can help us to be more like Jesus. For example, in our own walk of discipleship, it's common to distinguish "surrender" from "submission" which for the purpose of this question, I'm defining the two terms as follows: - "submission" as **negation of will** like a soldier doing something that he may not agree personally; this has been characterized by obedience out of **slavish** mentality or out of **fear**. Colloquially we say: "I do it simply because you told me to". At best, although it is done like a robot, I am still open to doing it with better motivation in the future. - "surrender" implies **aligning one's will with another's** thus with some level of agreement; this can be characterized by obedience out of **trust** mentality (like children) and by **love**. Colloquially we say: "I do it as you asked me to, although I need help in uniting my will with your perfect loving will because of .... (you name it)". So even though we don't feel like forgiving enemies, surrendering our selfishness to love difficult people, or dying as a martyr, because we always want to be yoked with Jesus (i.e. tagging along) we then rely on his Holy Spirit (Love) to strengthen us in uniting **in love** our will with Jesus's will. It is obvious that as children of God we are asked to "surrender", not to "submit" (per definitions above). Because Jesus is our model, I think **conceiving Jesus's struggle at Gethsemane as a "submission" (negating will) rather than as a "surrendering" (uniting in love) is out of bound**. Is this true? The difficulty seems to be **textual**: those who insist on literal meaning may interpret Jesus's "not as I will, but as you will" and the language "deny himself/ lose his life" (Matt 16:24-25) as a "submission", negating his human will. **But I think this is abhorrent, since there is no virtue in mere submission without love.** Rather, we should see Jesus's sinless internal struggle episode at Gethsemane as a revelation of how hard it is to love, that even Jesus, **while operating in his human nature**, had to struggle to align his human will with His own revealed divine will, as a model for us to unite **in love** our own will with our Father's will that is revealed to us in graced discernment. This is in contrast to acting as a slave / soldier who simply executes what Scriptures command us to do. How can the Trinity doctrine and Chalcedonian definition help us here? **My question is very specific**: Formally & philosophically, **what kinds of interaction of the 2 wills are allowed within the Chalcedonian orthodoxy?** **What are some examples of interaction that are out of bound?**

If the Christian God is omniscient, He knows everything, and if He is omnipotent, He is all powerful. But these two statements seem to be contradictory. So if a Christian believes that his/her God has these two attributes, aren't these two attributes contradictory as well? Below is why I think they are contradictory: - If God is all knowing, God is able to know the future of every human being and also of Himself. - But if God knows precisely what He will do at any point in time, does He still have free will? - If God is all powerful, could He make a choice at any particular point in time that is **not** determined by His omniscience? ---- @GratefulDisciple transferring OP's comment to the Q for more context: **Note**: This is a question on theism in general, and **I'm interested in a Christian answer to help me with seeing the logic** in holding two seemingly contradictory attributes while preserving God's own free will. I pose this question with a great respect in the belief of a God and I don't mean any derogation to the faith of Christianity nor do I want to upset the users in this community.

In responding to the Question "Is it good because God wills it, or does God will it because it is good?" Someone said and I quote: > The foundation of Goodness is God. God's will is everything concerning Him, which eventually is Good. God wills it, to show himself, that He is Good; and it is good because it is of God. My question is based on this supposition: "God's will is everything concerning Him, which eventually is good. Does this have biblical basis ?

Some scholars have challenged the accuracy of the Gospels by claiming that eyewitness memories and oral tradition methods could not ensure perfect retention and transmission of the extensive teachings and encounters of Jesus, if several decades indeed transpired between Jesus's death and the publication of the first Gospel , and perhaps half a century or more transpired before the publication of the final Gospel, as is the common Gospel origins theory. For example, in Robert McIver's “Collective Memory and the Reliability of the Gospel Traditions,” he claims that “much can happen to traditions that are preserved in human memories for this length of time.”1 He then "focuses much of his attention on the frailties of memory, in the areas of transience, suggestibility, and hindsight bias. These can drive variations in details and also drive falsehoods, not only when eyewitness testimony is presented in court, but also when past events are remembered in general."2 Therefore, I need to ask, how early would the first Gospel need to be to avoid this challenge to Gospel accuracy due to memory loss and transmission errors? 1 Robert K. McIver, Memory, Jesus, and the Synoptic Gospels (Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), 1. 2 Daniel B. Moore, A Trustworthy Gospel: Arguments for an Early Date for Matthew’s Gospel (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2024), 93; McIver, Memory, 10–11.

In connection with the term "God", mainstream Christology often uses the term “nature of God” or “divine nature”, especially when it comes to describing the triune God’s essence or substance, as it is found in Christ who is said to be the "God-man" in the hypostatic union , having both a fully human and a fully divine nature. Considering myself a human, I think to understand what is meant by "human" nature, as being part of the human species/lifeform. The term “divine nature” however seems quite abstract, and is found **only once** in the Bible, in **2 Peter 1:4** > by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious > promises, that through these you may be partakers of the **divine > nature**, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through > lust. Re-born Christians have the “great and precious promise” of being “partakers of the divine nature”. The same Christians „shall be like Him (God)“ according to the Bible (1. John 3:2). One could conclude from this that Christians who become "partakers of the divine nature", fully inherit the "divine nature" when they go to heaven, and thus become fully God, if the term "God" is to be understood as a lifeform. On this point, I think most mainstream Christians would agree, that this is not the case - heavenly resurrected Christians don't become the "God" lifeform, but the "spirit" lifeform, as they receive a **spiritual body**. > It is sown a natural body, it is raised a **spiritual body**. There is a > natural body, and there is a **spiritual body**. > As was the man of dust, so also are those who are made of dust; and as > is the heavenly Man, so also are those who are heavenly. And as we > have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image > of the heavenly Man. (1. Corinthians 15:44,48-49) Some Trinitarian Bible commentators agree: > **the Divine nature** may be understood of **the glory and immortality of > the other life**, wherein we shall be conformed to God, and whereof by > the promises we are made partakers. - Matthew Poole's commentary > **that by these you might be partakers of the divine nature;** not > essentially, or of the essence of God, so as to be deified, this is > impossible, for the nature, perfections, and glory of God, are > incommunicable to creatures; nor, hypostatically and personally, so as > the human nature of Christ, in union with the Son of God, is a > partaker of the divine nature in him; but by way of resemblance and > likeness, the new man or principle of grace, being formed in the heart > in regeneration, after the image of God, and bearing a likeness to the > image of his Son, and this is styled, Christ formed in the heart, into > which image and likeness the saints are more and more changed, from > glory to glory, through the application of the Gospel, and the > promises of it, by which they have such sights of Christ as do > transform them, and assimilate them to him; and which resemblance will > **be perfected hereafter, when they shall be entirely like him, and see > him as he is** - Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible **“God is a spirit” (John 4:24)** A spirit is a (for humans) invisible supernatural lifeform. Thayer's Greek Lexicon describes the lifeform as: > 3. "a spirit, i. e. a simple essence, devoid of all or at least all grosser matter, and possessed of the power of knowing, desiring, > deciding, and acting"; Hence the question: the only time the Bible speaks of the "divine nature" it appears that from a biblical standpoint it means the lifeform of "incorruptible spiritual bodies". What other meaning can be drawn of the unique term "divine nature" from a biblical perspective? What is the biblical exegesis behind this term often used to describe God's essence? That the Almighty God is a unique person/being is out of the question, but is God a unique type of **lifeform** as appears to be the understanding and intermittent use of the term by people believing in the homoousion ? If so, what is the biblical basis for this claim? If not, what does the biblical term "God" really mean?

We read in Psalm 110:4 (KJV): > The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek. Hebrews 6:13-17 gives an explanation on why God swore: > When God made his promise to Abraham, since there was no one greater for him to swear by, he swore by himself, 14 saying, “I will surely bless you and give you many descendants.” 15 And so after waiting patiently, Abraham received what was promised. People swear by someone greater than themselves, and the oath confirms what is said and puts an end to all argument. 17 Because God wanted to make the unchanging nature of his purpose very clear to the heirs of what was promised, he confirmed it with an oath. One is inclined to conclude that God manifested his Human Nature by making an oath in the way human beings did. What is the take of Bible scholars of different denominations, on the subject?

People claim that the Islamic Mahdi will be the Christian Antichrist due to similarities such as ruling for 7 years and riding on a white horse.There are also similarities between the Islamic dajjal and Jesus (Isa) as dajjal will heal the sick and perform miracles and claim to be the Messiah to the Jews. Can anyone tell me if these claims are wrong?

Part of an answer to [this question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/101909/how-do-dispensationalists-tell-which-passages-are-for-jews-and-which-are-for-gen) has prompted me to ask a question about the **biblical basis for refuting a literal interpretation of the millennial reign of Christ Jesus. Here is a partial quote of the Dispensational Futurist Interpretation:** >In Revelation the thousand years are taken literally, assuming Israel on earth, and the church suspended above it in heaven for the entirety of this period. Old Testament priesthood, sacrifices, temple, and covenant figures are expected to be reinstituted beneath the heavenly suspension of the church for the duration, the Lord himself being, as is supposed, on earth reigning over Israel and the world. One reason for challenging the literal interpretation is based on what happened when the Son of God died on the cross. The veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom by an unseen hand. See Matthew 27:51; Mark 15:38; Luke 23:45. This signifies (to me) that the temple priesthood and animal sacrifices, and even the temple itself, had become redundant when the Son of God laid down his life as the final, the ultimate sacrifice. Why on earth would a literal temple, human priests, and animal sacrifices have to be reinstituted after Jesus cried out “It is finished!” (John 19:30) Rather than ask for the biblical basis for this dispensational literal view (because that question has already been asked and answered), I am looking specifically for New Testament verses where Jesus himself contradicts such an idea. I have already found some, but **I seek input from Christians who disagree with a literal temple, priesthood and animal sacrifices in the millennium.**

Some Christian traditions believe that all infants go to heaven. In this view, wouldn't it be better if everyone died before they are born, so they avoid becoming sinful, and thus guaranteed to go to heaven? ### Evidence Christians Believe This Doctrine Here's one question showing a prominent Christian believes something like this (and also indicates potential problems with the view). > Dr. William Lane Craig has famously stated the following, When justifying the slaughter of the Canaanites: >> Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God's grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation. And another question . > The Westminster Confession of Faith reads: >> Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ (10.3)

Fire as understood by physical humans consumes and destroys the fuel that it ignites and then goes out. The unredeemed soul is what many religions teach will be tormented eternally in fire of hell. Given the concept of fire in physical world it seems that the fire that does not consume must be taken as not literal by our physical ability to comprehend but must mean something else and the scary pictures of Dantes inferno are artist conceptions based on physical understanding. I would like an **overview** of various hellfire beliefs as to what kind of fire torments the spirits that are said to be tormented in hell.