Are there any current Christian denominations that view Jesus as a human moral teacher, rather than as the supernatural Son of God? I am looking for specific examples of denominations that state this viewpoint (or some variation) as part of their creed.

[Gregory of Nyssa's](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_of_Nyssa) book [The Life of Moses](http://books.google.com/books/about/The_life_of_Moses.html?id=wAJ6fwFAligC) is, if nothing else, a very interesting read. He goes through Moses' account in Exodus and ascribes spiritual meanings to every little detail, although it is doubtful that any of them would pass muster in a pulpit today. Augustine would also do allegorical interpretations, such as the following: >“Thus as great and brilliant a scholar as Augustine offers the following interpretation of the parable of the Good Samaritan: > >A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho = Adam > >Jerusalem = the heavenly city of peace from which Adam fell > >Jericho = the moon, and thereby signifies Adam’s mortality > >Thieves = the devil and his angels > >Stripped him = namely of his immortality > >Beat him = by persuading him to sin > >And left him half-dead = as a man he lives, but he died spiritually, therefore he is half-dead > >The priest and the Levite = the priesthood and ministry of the Old Testament > >The Samaritan = is said to mean ‘Guardian,’ and therefore means Christ himself > >Bound his wounds = means binding therestraint of sin > >Oil = comfort of Good hope > >Wine = exhortation to work with a fervent spirit > >Beast = the flesh of Christ’s incarnation > >Inn = the church > >The morrow = after the Resurrection > >Two-pence = promise of this life and the life to come > >Innkeeper = Paul The above interpretation, however, is a requote from Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart's classic and authoritative book [*How to Read the Bible for all its Worth*](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/24193776-how-to-read-the-bible-for-all-its-worth) , as an example of how modern interpretation is *NOT* to be done. They are right, of course, because allegory really isn't testable in the end. My question is this - how did the vast majority of modern Christians come to realize that allegory was not the best hermeneutical principle for reading Scripture? Historically, when did the shift occur, what triggered it, and how did Chalcedonian Christianity come to realize this was not the way to read the Bible? Along these lines, are there any major strains of Christianity that would accept this? (My guess would be that if anyone still does this, it would be the Eastern Orthodox, but I'd need confirmation)

Just about every branch of Christianity teaches the human soul becomes implanted in the embryo somewhere before birth. Many branches also believe the human soul is immortal. At the same time, I've read reports that as many as 60% of pregnancies end in miscarriage . This is in the context of our very developed medical system, historically speaking, so stands to reason the miscarriage rate was even higher in the past. Altogether, does this imply that most of the immortal souls in the afterlife are the souls of embryos, at least according to the views of most Christians?

As Christians, we can look at New Testament passages and conclude the Jews of the New Testament era _were_ expecting the Messiah. What I am looking for in this question is: What evidence is there _outside_ the New Testament that the Jews of the NT era were expecting "very soon" the coming of the Messiah. And what understanding did they have of the type of person the Messiah would be and of the type of work he would accomplish? Did the Jews think the Messiah was coming _soon_ and _what type of work_ did they think would he do? Please show your sources. Thanks.

I’m looking at this from a purely biblical perspective. “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"; In connection with God, however, 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”. They „shall be like Him (God)“ (1. John 3:2). One could conclude from this that Christians who become "partakers of the divine nature", 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. > 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) Hence the question: the only time the Bible speaks of the "divine nature" it is clear that from a biblical standpoint it means the lifeform of "incorruptible spiritual bodies". So is "God" a type of lifeform as appears to be the understanding and intermittent use of the term by people believing in the homoousion , or is it a general title that the one Almighty God carries in the highest possible sense?

The name of the LORD is sacred and to be given to God alone. This is seen in Isaiah 42:8: > “I am the LORD; that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to carved idols.” ‭‭‬(‭ESV‬‬) Along with Psalm 148:13: > Let them praise the name of the Lord, for his name alone is exalted; his majesty is above earth and heaven. (ESV) However, in Philippians 2:9 we read that: > Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, (ESV) How can Jesus receive the name above every other name unless he already is God?

What are the names of some nowadays Churches or Denominations that hold Peter Abelard or Faustus Socinus views on atonement or Salvation? I mean Churches that hold the Moral or Example theory of atonement.

I was reading a question on the hermeneutical site about Jacob taking Esau’s blessing and there was a question raised in the comments of **“Was Esau’s inheritance even something to be negotiated?”** Which I thought was an excellent question but which might be better answered here. So what were the norms of inheritance in Jewish culture and for what reasons might exceptions be made?

What is the reason Satan hates humans according to scripture? Were we in anyway responsible for his fall according to the Bible? Why is he dedicated to our destruction? By way of analogy, the Islamic tradition is that God created humans to be higher than the angels and other spirits (ostensibly because a human being goes through many trials in his path to loving and worshipping God). That God gave the angels and other spiritual beings a test that they failed but Adam passed it. As a result, God ordered the angels and other spirits to bow down to Adam (in honor, recognition or veneration like one bows to a King). They all accepted but Satan said: "I can not bow down to a mere mortal made from clay. I am superior to him." God cursed Satan and banished him from His presence and all those who follow Satan. Satan, thus, blames Adam for his fall, instead of blaming his own pride/self.

The Catholic Church considers the Pope infallible, but only in limited circumstances. The Pope is a human being like the rest of us, and capable of sinning. However, when the Pope speaks *ex cathedra* , i.e. with papal authority, he is infallible. How do Catholics know when the Pope speaks *ex cathedra?*

For Catholics, is Sunday observance necessary for salvation? Is Sunday observed in the same way as the Sabbath was observed, or is there a difference? Additionally, what about the observance of the day and the Eucharist? Is it mandatory to attend Mass *and* receive the Eucharist? If possible, I would like to know about Catholic documents or catechisms that define this. Thank you!

Is there any way we could come to several persons, one essence via pure logic outside of scripture (i.e. natural theology)?

In 1 Thessalonians 4:14 Paul tells us that the people that He refers to as "sleeping" will rise from the dead just like Jesus. > 1Th 4:14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. Jesus both died and was resurrected on earth. Meaning that Paul was speaking here about the earthly resurrection that He referred to in Romans 6:13. Meaning that the "sleepers" are backslidden believers. > Rm 6:13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God. I am curious to find out how rapturists deal with this.

I know the Seventh Day Adventist church is known for following certain Old Testament laws found in Leviticus such as the food/dietary laws. However I'm also under the impression that they don't follow all 600+ Levitical laws either. Is there a reason why they follow certain Levitical laws like food/dietary but don't follow others, such as wearing clothing made of two different materials (Lev 19:19) or cutting the hair at the sides (Lev 19:17)? To what extent do they keep the laws?

> *1 Kings 8:9 (NIV)* There was ***nothing*** in the ark ***except*** the > ***two stone tablets*** that Moses had placed in it at Horeb, where the Lord made a covenant with the Israelites after they came out of > Egypt. > > *Hebrews 9:3-4 (NIV)* Behind the second curtain was a room called the > Most Holy Place, which had the golden altar of incense and the > gold-covered ark of the covenant. This ark ***contained*** the gold > jar of ***manna***, Aaron’s ***staff*** that had budded, and the > ***stone tablets*** of the covenant. 1 Kings 8:9 says that inside the Ark of the Covenant there was only the two stone tablets of Moses. But Hebrews 9:3-4 mentions three things, the gold jar of manna, Aaron’s staff that had budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant. Keeping in mind that the Ark of the Covenant was no more during the time of Jesus, the writer of Hebrews simply recalled from the Torah or from tradition about the contents of the Ark. In fact, even the writer never saw the Ark with his own eyes, let alone what was inside. Regarding the pot of manna, > *Exodus 16:33-34 (KJV)* And Moses said unto Aaron, Take a pot, and put > an omer full of manna therein, and lay it up ***before the Lord***, to > be kept for your generations. As the Lord commanded Moses, so Aaron > laid it up ***before the Testimony***, to be kept. This verse only says "before the Lord/Testimony" and not *inside* the Ark. Regarding the staff of Aaron, > *Numbers 17:10 (NIV)* The Lord said to Moses, “Put back Aaron’s staff > ***in front of the ark of the covenant*** law, to be kept as a sign to the rebellious. This will put an end to their grumbling against me, so > that they will not die.” This verse also says that the staff of Aaron was placed in front of the Ark. **Questions:** 1. Do these verses from the Old Testament contradict the Epistle to the Hebrews? 2. What exactly was kept inside the Ark of the Covenant?

What renowned atheist Richard Dawkins has claimed to be is looked at on this blog site, with the link to the video where he says it at the end of this question: https://possil.wordpress.com/2024/05/09/without-foundations-the-building-falls/ Renowned atheist Richard Dawkins has now declared himself to be a ‘cultural Christian’. He cherishes the cultural artifacts and traditions of Christianity, from hymns and Christmas carols to beautiful parish churches and old-fashioned liberalism. He ‘feels the Christian ethos’, and considers the UK a Christian country and that ‘to substitute any alternative religion would be truly dreadful’. How very nice of him to say so. But has the emergence of ‘Cultural Christianity’ muddied the once-clear waters as to what Christianity really is? How did we get from the martyrdom of 10 of Jesus’ Apostles for refusing to renounce belief in Christ, to atheists today saying they are cultural Christians? And could it be argued that the one word in their claim that should not be allowed is ‘Christian’? They could call themselves cultural atheists supporting the cultural side of Christianity, perhaps, but we all know that in this sound-bite era, a two-word designation goes down without question, while an exact designation has many people fast asleep halfway through reading it. All right. That’s not very nice of me to say so. Those questions still remain important, though: What have Christian artifacts and traditions got to do with claiming to be any kind of a Christian? Can an atheist ever claim to be any kind of a Christian? Does such a claim show the atheist has no real understanding of what it is to be a Christian? Has the emergence of ‘Cultural Christianity’ muddied the once-clear waters as to what it is to be a Christian? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COHgEFUFWyg Question addressed to atheists and Christians who have examined the logic behind such a claim.

> “But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of > heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.” – Matthew 24:36 ESV The third person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, is conspicuously missing from this list of personages who know or don’t know when Jesus will return. Jesus did mention that the angels didn’t know, but how do Trinitarians explain why Jesus chose not to include the Holy Spirit as either knowing or not knowing? It's my understanding that Trinitarian doctrine defines one God existing in three coequal, coeternal, consubstantial divine persons: God the Father, God the Son (Jesus Christ) and God the Holy Spirit. They are three distinct persons (*hypostases*) sharing one essence (*homoousion*). Also note that Paul provides this insight: > . . . these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the > Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. - 1 Corinthians > 2:10 ESV Thus, I would assume that the Holy Spirit would know. Related but different: https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/44375/mark-1332-why-doesnt-the-holy-spirit-know Similar, but not answered from Trinitarian doctrine: https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/41560/how-do-trinitarians-deal-with-mark-1332-in-regards-to-the-holy-spirit

Why did the Jews in John 1:20-21 ask John the Baptist if he was the Christ and then if he was the Prophet? Since the coming Prophet mentioned in Deut. 18:18 is the Messiah, it seems that their question was redundant. Or did they just not know that the Prophet and the Messiah were one in the same? I think I may just have answered my own question, but please elaborate.

What is the original explanation Christian Scholars gave for these Jewish prophecies not being fulfilled? > A. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28). > > B. Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6). > > C. Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, > suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword > against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4) > > D. Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite > humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world—on > that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9). [cite](https://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/jewsandjesus/#1)

In 2 Thessalonians 2:3 and Acts 20:29 I interpret them to mean that there would be a literal apostasy of the early Christian church or is there another meaning to them that I am missing? >2 Thessalonians 2:3: Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; > > Acts 20:29: For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.