We see Jesus telling Nicodemus in Jn 3: 5: > Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. - John 3:5 We also read at Jn 4: 1-2: > Now Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that he was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John (although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples). One wonders why Jesus did not personally baptize anyone in spite of his having emphasized the importance of Baptism. My question therefore is: **Why, according to Catholic Church, did not Jesus personally baptize anyone?**

What is God's law mentioned in this article [*Asceticism Vs. Self-Denial*](https://tifwe.org/aceticism-vs-self-denial/) ? Is it referring to the Ten Commandments? I'm new to Christianity, apologies if this is a noob question 😅

**Revelation 7** describes a woman (symbolizing a church): > **3** … and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. > **4** And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: > **5** And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. > **6** And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration. [Whore of Babylon - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whore_of_Babylon#Reformation_view#:~:text=Historicist%20interpreters,this%20association.) says of this scripture: > ### Reformation view > Historicist interpreters commonly used the phrase "Whore of Babylon" to refer to the Catholic Church. > Reformation writers Martin Luther (1483–1546, author of On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church), John Calvin (1509–1564), and John Knox (1510–1572, author of The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstruous Regiment of Women) taught this association. > > Most early Protestant Reformers believed, and the modern Seventh-day Adventist Church teaches, that in Bible prophecy a woman represents a church. > The connection noted on the seven hills of Rome is argued to locate the church. This "whore" church is described as being a "mother of harlots". --- Catholics refer to their Church as the "Holy Mother Church". Protestants saw this "whore" as representing the Roman Church, but failed to recognize the corresponding relationship between the church's "harlot daughters" and their own churches. Did they have a rational explanation of why these daughters don't represent their own Protestant denominations?

Chapter 50 in the book of Genesis is part of the Joseph Smith Translation, written by Joseph Smith himself. Verses 30 and 33 of this chapter says the following (emphasis added): > **30** **And again, a seer will I raise up out of the fruit of thy loins**, and unto him will I give power to bring forth my word unto > the seed of thy loins; and not to the bringing forth of my word only, > saith the Lord, but to the convincing them of my word, which shall > have already gone forth among them in the last days; > > ... > > **33** **And that seer will I bless**, and they that seek to destroy him shall be confounded; for this promise I give unto you; for I will > remember you from generation to generation; **and his name shall be > called Joseph, and it shall be after the name of his father**; and he > shall be like unto you; for the thing which the Lord shall bring forth > by his hand shall bring my people unto salvation. With this passage, Joseph Smith added a prophecy to the Bible book of Genesis which was originally written thousands of years ago. This prophecy is about a future seer who was (to be) named Joseph after the name of the seer's father. For a non-believer at least this looks like a possible attempt by Joseph Smith to retroactively insert a prophecy about himself into the Bible, considering that Joseph Smith was himself a son of a man named Joseph (Joseph Smith Sr. ). However I would assume that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints view this passage differently. How do they view it? 1. Is the passage viewed as a reference to some other individual named Joseph, who was also named after his father? 2. Or is the passage viewed as something that God somehow wanted Joseph Smith to include here? 3. Or is it viewed in some other manner altogether?

Where my congregation gathers, we have a Brethren-like "house church" system, which means that we have no building for the church meeting. But the number of members is increasing and we are about to face a decision: split the members into 2 house groups, or go up and rent a hall in order to gather everyone in one place. We had a discussion about that with the elders and one argument was that > There is no reference of a christian regular gathering model in the New Testment other than house gathering (eg. Act 2:46; Rom 16:5, 14, 15; 1Cor 16:19; Col 4:15; Phm 2). And the reference of the Temple in Acts 2:6 wasn't properly a christian meeting, but a practice of Judaism transfered to Christianity at that time. But the counter-argument to the above was that > There is no doctrine at all about the **place** of gathering in the New Testment. We have doctrine about how to gather, what to do and how to do almost everything in the church meeting, how to order the meeting, even the necessity of gather, but no word is written about **where** the meeting has to take place. We only have examples and to make theology out of examples we need to (specially) consider the context, and in considering the early church context (historical, cultural, religious, thological) we see why they gathered in houses, but this is no such thing as a limit, but a solid ground for us to build upon. ## The controversy After the discussion, the question was settled: **are the examples of house gatherings in the New Testament an evidence of a theological stablishment, an oral doctrinal statement and a common sense at the early church that just houses are expected to host the Church regular gathering? Or just the natural flow that the Holy Spirit chose?** ## My questions 1. Is there any writing from a reliable source of church meeting in the early church (400AD-) outside the context of a house host? 2. Is there any writing from a reliable source that the church had a prohibition on theological grounds for hosting a meeting in a rented or built hall instead of the house context? 3. Is there any good argument about why we should host the church regular meeting in a hall building, if there is no example of that in the NT? ---------- *Sorry for my bad English, Portuguese speaker here. God bless.*

I've been wondering if there is any _official doctrine_ held by Jehovahs Witnesses that would restrict them from talking about their faith in their own words? I have noticed in my interactions with them (through everything from talking to door to door missionaries to hanging out with the families of some of my friends to reading their postings on this site) that instead it is very typical for them to use the exact phrases and constructs found in officially sanctioned publications, often preferring to quote these sources (Watchtower, etc.) wholesale rather than writing or otherwise articulating their views in their own words. As a Reformed Protestant, I believe there is great value in using words and constructs whose meanings have become well defined and have been tested through time. In particular, I will even direct people to re-frame their own questions in the words Scripture uses for given topics rather than their own because I think this will help bring clarity to the issues they face. At the same time I see great value in meeting people where they are at -- in speaking the same language -- and articulating eternal truths in ways that people relate to and that specifically match the important issues. However much some Theologian may have said something better than I and I might quote them, still I do share the Gospel and articulate my faith to people using my own words. This seems fundamentally different from the interactions I see from JWs. When you ask them a question, they will seem reticent to stray from a specific track and try to find the closest matching stock answer from their repertoire. Or so it seems. My question is, is that an official stance? Is there a specific teaching or doctrine that binds them to operate this way? Or perhaps a more general doctrine that leads people to that conclusion even if it isn't a requirement?

If Jesus said that we are the temple of the Holy Spirit then could it be reasonable to assume we are the Holy place? Also we are told that if we take the mark of the beast or worship his image we will not be in the lambs book of life. I ask this because the term "Holy Place" is used and if you presume that it is from the perspective Gods view then what indeed does HE consider "Holy". We are told to be "holy" as He is Holy. I don't see how a place can be Holy. I understand that when Gods presence was in the temple it became a holy place. But now Gods Spirit resides in us. What do you think?

I've been looking at [penal substitutionary atonement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_substitution) and am finding that although Calvinists and Arminians seem to affirm it, it appears to be Calvinists who affirm it most strongly. Is this accurate?

How would you respond to the arguments listed on this website: https://trumpet-call.org/2016/01/11/ministry-of-jesus-christ-on-earth-was-only-one-year/

In a comment made on a previous question I asked, someone directed me to Moses 1:35 in the Pearl of Great Price. I read the context and saw Moses 1:32–33 , which interested me as well. The text is as follows: > And by the word of my power, have I created them, which is mine Only Begotten Son, who is full of grace and truth. > > And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by **the Son** I created them, which is **mine Only Begotten**. In LDS teaching, Lucifer and Jesus are spiritual brothers, and, indeed, we are all brothers of both Jesus and Lucifer—both of whom are our elder brothers. So, in what sense, then, is Jesus the Only Begotten Son of God according to LDS teaching, when in the pre-mortal life Elohim did have multiple sons (and daughters)?

Are Christians ignoring that Jesus was to be from King David's line and not Yahweh's?

I was recently shown an excerpt of commentary from the NIV edition of the _Life Application Study Bible_ from Tyndale/Zondervan. Frankly I was rather surprised by how blatant the eisegesis was in that specific case. Since I don't have a full copy of it to review key passages I can't tell whether this is a persistent issue or just one poorly thought out bit that slipped through. It's remarkably hard to find reviews of Study Bibles online that delve into what kind of theological background the commentary is from. Some of them are obvious¹ but most of them seem to specialize in being as "middle of the road" as possible. It's easy to find descriptions of how many maps and illustrations and reader aids a given work includes and most tout "a broad range of scholarship", but a lot harder to find anything specific about the backgrounds of the actual commentators. With that in mind I'm looking for a general break down of what went into the writing and editing of this particular work: 1. Who were the major contributors and from what theological traditions do they hail? 1. Were there any explicit boundaries set by the project as for as what hermeneutical approaches and/or theological traditions would be represented in what light? 1. Are there strong theological biases² evident at any point in the commentary? Specifically is are there consistent trends towards explanations that endorse specific views on key issues such as: * Arminian vs. Calvinist views on soteriology. * Complementarian vs. Egalitarian views of gender roles. * Premillennial, Postmillennial, or Amillennial views on eschatology. * Dispensational vs. Covenantal views on the nature of the church through history. * Credobaptist vs. Pedobaptist views on baptism. * Cessationist vs. Continuationist views of apostolic gifts? 1. Are there any notable trends in which denominations or traditions have embraced the use of or disapproved of the content of this work? Note this same commentary content seems to have been published alongside a number of different English translations. As far as I can tell it isn't important to this question that the NIV edition is used for review. ¹ For example it's no mystery what theological framework the notes in the _MacArthur Study Bible_ will represent. One can easily lookup the general editor's views on a variety of subjects and understand how he'll be evaluating passages. ² I don't use "bias" in a negative sense here, in fact I think bias is both impossible to avoid and even necessary, but I like to understand specifically what presuppositions are involved all the time.

In separate startling incidents, two Parish Priests of Roman Catholic Church of India reportedly gave up their life recently after having undergone treatment for psychological condition. In many parishes, the priests lead isolated life and are prone to suicidal tendency in case they have psychological disorder. Such incidences could have been avoided if the priests were withdrawn from the parish and kept in community life under observation. My question is: Has the Catholic Church issued any standing instructions to Bishops in order to stave off such unfortunate incidents?

It seems we have the resurrection in order. However, my question is how and when are these categories of persons resurrected? 1) Those who died under the Old Covenant 2) Those who die in the New Covenant 3) Those who are alive at the coming of Jesus. 1Thess 4:17 4) The bible speaks of the Ressurection of the Souls beheaded for the gospel. Rev 20:4 -5 I desire answers that give an overview of major Christian positions regarding this question.

As a devout Jewish woman, Mary must have prayed for the safety of her pregnancy. If Jesus was fully man & fully God; was he (in his divine nature) the one answering Mary's prayers, when she prayed for the safety of her (fully human) foetus?

The Catholic [Catechism #847](https://www.vatican.va/content/catechism/en/part_one/section_two/chapter_three/article_9/paragraph_3_the_church_is_one,_holy,_catholic,_and_apostolic.html) gives exception to the (ordinary) rule of need for baptism for salvation. This extraordinary means is found outside the visible church, in the invisible church in righteousness through conscience, while being ignorant of the direct revelation of God (cf [Rom 2:6-16](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rom+2&version=NABRE)) . Thus, the unevangelised and ill-evangelised may typically fall under it. > *Catechism #847*: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation. This development from Augustine has been reportedly credited to Aquinas 13th century who talked about "baptism of desire" where someone who desired baptism but died before receiving it could be saved by their desire and repentance; Council of Trent (1545–1563) and Second Vatican Council (1962–1965). [Pelagianism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagianism) is defined by the denial of [Augustinian Original sin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concupiscence) , that man has free will to achieve perfection, original sin did not taint human nature. The Catholicism also rejects the tainted nature of man due to original sin. The essential characteristic for salvation in Pelagianism is defined by righteousness, rather than religion or baptism/sacrament. It is best described as Synergism, which rejects Monergism with respect to salvation. The difference between the Catholic and Pelagian view maybe seen in the language and perspective, where Catholics may use the term grace or mercy to be the cause of salvation, whereas Pelagius would call it justice. The question is how do Catholic scholars differentiate it with Pelagianism? Is the difference merely of the *initiation* of the salvation process? Is it right to call Catholic view Pelagianism, except for the initiation? Semi-Pelagianism was condemned as heresy at the Second Council of Orange in 529 CE, which emphasized that the *initiative* for salvation lies with God alone, and that human beings cannot take the first step toward God without divine grace.

Are there any physical or aesthetic differences in a church's name (saint dedication), architecture, signage etc that identify it at CofE or Roman Catholic from the outside? (After years of being deaf and blind in the wilderness, I am re-discovering my Anglican faith. I travel the length and breadth of the UK for work, and want to attend church on my travels but I would prefer to know if it is CofE or RC before hand)

According to the Thayer's Greek Lexicon , the word "mediator" (greek: mesités) has the meaning of: > one who intervenes between two, either in order to make or restore > peace and friendship, or to form, or for ratifying a > covenant: a medium of communication, arbitrator > i. e. every mediator, whoever acts as mediator, does not belong to one party but to two or more "One who intervenes between two" implies the mediator to be a third distinct person, party or entity. The noun "mediator" occurs 6 times in the Bible: 1) **Galatians 3:19** > What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of > transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was > made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a **mediator**. - Galatians 3:19 The unnamed mediator in this verse is **Moses**. The Law covenant involved two parties. It was made between YHWH and the nation of Israel, with Moses as mediator. 2) **Galatians 3:20** > Now a **mediator** does not mediate for one only, but God is one. - Galatians 3:20 Paul is discussing the covenant that God made with Abraham. YHWH made this covenant which was a one-sided *promise*, and it was up to Him to fulfill it. He set forth no conditions that Abraham had to meet. (Ga 3:18) Hence why no mediator was required in the covenant with Abraham. 3) **1. Timothy 2:5** > For there is one God and one **Mediator** between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus - 1.Timothy 2:5 4) Hebrews 8:6 > But now He (Jesus) has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is > also **Mediator** of a better covenant, which was established on better > promises. - Hebrews 8:6 5) Hebrews 9:15 > And for this reason He (Jesus) is the **Mediator** of the new covenant, by means > of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first > covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the > eternal inheritance. - Hebrews 9:15 6) Hebrews 12:24 > to Jesus the **Mediator** of the new covenant, and to the blood of > sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel. - Hebrews 12:24 Jesus is called “a mediator of a new covenant.” Jesus “gave Himself as a ransom for all,” laying the basis for men and women of all sorts to be brought into the new covenant. (1 Timothy 2:6) > Trinitarians believe that Jesus intercedes **with the Father** on our > behalf. He can do this because he is a distinct person, and he is the > only competent mediator because only God can truly mediate with > himself. (https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/30648/65225) GotQuestians , a protestant website says: > As man and God, Jesus is uniquely equipped to represent both sides. He > **alone** stands in the gap between God and man. He alone meets the > righteous requirements of the law, opening the way into God’s presence > once and for all through His death on the cross and resurrection to > life However, by definition , a mediator is a **third party** who can represent both party interests, who acts as a go-between between 2 parties. In the case of the Law covenant: - God (1st party)---Moses (Mediator)---Ancient Israelites (2nd party) In the case of the New covenant it should look like: - God (1st party)---Jesus (Mediator)---Sinful Humans (2nd party) According to Trinitarian doctrine, Jesus is both fully God and fully Human. His origin being both human and divine does indeed make him the ideal and unique candidate for mediation, as no one can represent both sides better. The problem is Jesus being fully God (of which there is just ONE). Because if He is fully God according to Trinitarian doctrine, He fully IS the 1st party, in which case he can no longer be, by definition, his own mediator. While Jesus is believed to be fully **Man** as well, he IS not fully **MEN**/mankind/humanity, just as Moses fully was an Israelite, but was not fully the Nation of Israel. In the trinitarian sense, it would then look like this: - God (mediator & 1st party)--- _________ ---Sinful Humans(2nd party) There's no mediation here, as the mediator link in-between is missing. One solution attempt: from the quotes above, it is implied that the mediation happens between the first person of the Trinity, the Father, and Christians, with Jesus as the second person, distinct from the Father, who stands "**alone** in the gap between God and man" as the mediator. It would then look like this: - God the Father + God the Holy Spirit (1st party)---God the Son(Mediator)---Sinful Humans (2nd party) However, the mediation happens between **God** (not God the Father + HS only) and men according to 1. Timothy 2:5. **God** is one holistic party, and should not be divided into persons (Hebrews 3:20). Jesus pleads for us "at the right hand of **God**", not God the Father + HS only (Romans 8:34; Hebrews 7:25). He appears before **God** on our behalf, not God the Father only (Hebrews 9:24). When the Bible speaks about the true God, it always means the triune God and not a distinct person of the Godhead. So how can Jesus, a person of the triune God, who is the triune God, be a mediator between that triune God and men?

In thousands of instances in the Bible, pronouns used to describe God are singular. Every instance is singular except possibly 4. These possibilities all occur in the Old Testament. For unitarians, those 4 instances are typically explained as God referring to himself and his angelic court. Two unitarian articles that put this forth are The Testimony of Singular Pronouns from OneGodWorship.com and Let Us Make Man from BiblicalUnitarian.com. As the latter article concludes, > "Understanding the “us” texts like this does not in any way damage the > massive evidence from the singular pronouns, yet it satisfactory > explains the verses in their context." How do Trinitarians explain the heavily weighted use of singular pronouns to refer to God in the Bible, if God is 3 persons?

Although the Big Bang theory may be (like all scientific theories) subject to revision and improvement as new data becomes available, it is a robust scientific theory that is supported by a vast array of observational and experimental evidence. . The Bible says that the Earth was created before the sun and the stars: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. ...this was the first day Gen.1:1 (I selected the part that interested me.) And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day. Gen.1:14-19 (NIV) However, we know according to the Big Bang theory that the birth of the first stars (called "population III stars) dates back to 13.6 billion years ago and that the Earth is 4.54 billion years old. It is true that there have been several types of light, for example the sun is 4.6 billion years old but starlight only appeared a few million years after the big bang. So this contradicts science because in the Bible the Earth is created before light but the big bang theory says the opposite and this raises questions: Was the Bible wrong, therefore it is not the word of God ? Where is the interpretation of this text from Genesis to be taken metaphorically? If yes then where should we stop? Are we to believe that Adam and Eve are also some kind of metaphors? (Personally I don't think so, I have always had a factual interpretation of Genesis. For me 1 day was equal to one day according to the Jewish calendar: the day begins at 06:00 then ends at 18:00 then at 06 :00 etc... My pastor told me this (principle of authority, it's funny), I would like to have your expert opinion on this.)