Ezekiel 37:9-10. > Then he said to me, “Prophesy to the breath; prophesy, son of man, and > say to the breath, Thus says the Lord God: Come from the four winds, O > breath, and breathe on these slain, that they may live.” 10 So I > prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they > lived and stood on their feet, an exceedingly great army.ESV The choice of translators in English is to take "breath" instead of "spirit." Regardless of this, what is supposed to mean. Breath would be the spirit of the trichotomists? Clearly the concept of Soul seems to be absent in this text. How was this interpreted throughout history?

Bit of a mouthy title, but I remember reading a few years ago that the entire New Testament (perhaps with the exception of very few verses) and most of the Old Testament could be reconstructed from the writings of the early church fathers just because they had written so much about the Bible and referenced so many verses. To put it another way, if you took all of the writings of the early church fathers, pulled out every verse and reference, then put them together, you would have almost 100% of the New Testament and most of the Old Testament. Is this a new claim, or does it have its origins in a more distant past (say, older than a century)? Is the claim accurate? **What is the evidence for this claim?** (If the claim is technically false because the early church fathers didn't quote all that much, but technically true if a significantly longer time span is taken into account, then please say so.)

I'm studying Reformed theology. In looking at a collection of Reformed creeds, I'm finding a repeated theme of dividing the Old Testament (OT) commandments into three types: - moral - ceremonial - judicial This classification to my knowledge has not been articulated in the Scriptures, but seems to have been started by the church fathers (and later formalized by Aquinas) in an effort to discern which of the requirements of the OT law were "binding" on Christians and which were "abrogated" by Jesus' death on the cross. Leaving out (for the purposes of my questions) the so called "judicial" commandments, I'm seeking to reconcile the historical Reformed theology within its own boundaries on its stance on the division between moral and ceremonial requirements of the law as pertaining to observing a weekly day of rest by Christians. The 4th Commandment of the Decalogue is usually classified as part of "ceremonial" law. For example, the Geneva Catechism, 1542 (quoted from Ligonier Ministries, “We Believe.” ) states regarding the 4th Commandment: > 168. M. But does he [God] forbid us any labour on that day [Saturday]? C. This commandment has a distinct and peculiar reason. In so far as the observation of rest was a part of the ceremonial law; it was abrogated at the coming of Christ. > 169. M. Do you say that this commandment respected the Jews only, and was therefore merely temporary? C. Yes, so far as it was ceremonial. In other words, "ceremonial" requirements seem to be equated with "abrogated" (non-binding on Christians) as opposed to "moral" requirements that are still binding. The Geneva Catechism doesn't spell out what nullifies the mandate of the 4th Commandment to observe the original Sabbath for Reformed Christians, but other Reformed confessions do. They seem to follow the interpretation of Paul's words (e.g., Romans 14:5, Galatians 4:10) that teaches that observation of days "as such" is contrary to Christian teaching. For example, the Second Helvetic Confession, 1566 (ibid.) states: > Yet herein we give no place unto the Jewish observation of the day or to any superstitions. For we do not account one day to be holier than another, nor think that mere rest is of itself liked of God. However, as we read texts of other (later) Reformed creeds, we find that observation of days is not at all abrogated. For example, on one hand, when it comes to its views on the law of God writ large, the Westminster Confession of Faith, 1646-47 still supports the classification/division of the OT commandments noted earlier (ibid.): > 2. This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables: the first four commandments containing our duty towards God; and the other six, our duty to man. > 3. Beside this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, his graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the new testament. However, when addressing the 4th Commandment specifically, the Westminster Confession, 1646-47 (ibid.) states, emphasis supplied: > 7. As it is the law of nature, that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God; so, in his Word, by a positive, **moral, and perpetual commandment binding all men in all ages**, he hath particularly appointed one day in seven, for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto him... In other words, while maintaining that portions of the Ten Commandment (i.e., the 4th Commandment) are "ceremonial," Westminster Confession (as well as the Savoy Declaration, 1658 and the Second London Baptist Confession, 1677/1689 that followed it) seems to seek to impose its mandate (albeit altering the day which they propose to be kept) on Christians. So the questions that I have are these: 1. Is Westminster's stance on the subject of 4th Commandment still an authoritative view in the Reformed churches? If not, what superseded it and how does it differ from Westminster on the subject? 2. If the 4th Commandment is considered to be "ceremonial," why would it be extended to Reformed Christians as "moral" and binding (even if applied to another day)? 3. If the 4th Commandment is viewed to be both "ceremonial" and "moral" at the same time (held to be teaching/binding Christians to observe one day per week, just not the original Sabbath), how are Paul's words (e.g., Romans 14:5 or Galatians 4:10) not taken to condemn observation of any other day as the Lord's Day in the same way they are taken to condemn observing the original Sabbath?

**How does Christianity view compassion?** According to Christianity, does compassion mean to "suffer together", as in this Google search result? > What is the true meaning of compassion? Compassion literally means “to suffer together.” Among emotion researchers, it is defined as the feeling that arises when you are confronted with another's suffering and feel motivated to relieve that suffering. Compassion is not the same as empathy or altruism, though the concepts are related. **Does the Bible also teach that compassion mean to "suffer together" or does compassion also have another implicit meaning?** **EDITED and this section moved to answer as below**

Luke and Matthew tell of when Jesus brought a young girl back to life. Before he did it however, Jesus says to the people that the girl is only sleeping: > **Luke 8:52** > > Meanwhile, all the people were wailing and mourning for her. "Stop wailing," Jesus said. "She is not dead but asleep." > > **Matthew 9:24** > > he said, "Go away. The girl is not dead but asleep." But they laughed at him. Why did he tell the people that she was only asleep when she was clearly not? A few things come to my mind: 1. It was a parable 2. He wanted to hide his power from the people, as he did at other times. The problem here is that that would've been a lie. So, what reason was there to tell the people that she was sleeping, rather than that she was dead and he raised her from the dead?

There are some who take Matthew 5:28 where Christ speaks of adultery of the heart as true physical adultery and thus grounds for divorce. I think this is a heart issue as noted in the context of the entire 5th chapter. Clearly lusting after a woman is a sin yet does it rise to the level of true physical adultery which may be grounds for New Testament divorce. I am looking for input on this issue. “But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” ‭‭Matthew‬ ‭5‬:‭28‬ ‭NIV‬‬ https://bible.com/bible/111/mat.5.28.NIV

When Luther broke from Catholic traditions and (according to Protestants) returned to early Catholic faith and to the teaching of the gospel in the New Testament, a lot of attention was paid on the main difference, that being justification by faith alone. It is right to identify this as the main split, however a second order split seems to go largely unnoticed, which is a different view of sin altogether. Luther thought Christians sin every day, every hour, or rather, every second with ‘mortal sins’, as opposed to ‘venial’ or minor sins. Note: Catholics differentiate types of sins into multiple categories, something that Luther also rejected entirely. It seems most Protestants have little interest in understanding the Catholic views, so the difference over the concept of sin is unsurprisingly easier to find documented by Catholics. **Even though it is written as an apologetic to the Roman Catholic view, here is a fairly good summary on the different view as described by Catholics.** The basic difference is regarding the desires of our flesh: - **Catholic view:** > From the explanation given, it is plain that the opposition between appetite and reason is natural in man, and that, though it be an imperfection, it is not a corruption of human nature. - **Protestant View:** > Concupiscence is of itself sinful, and being the sinful corruption of human nature caused by Adam's transgression and inherited by all his descendants, is the very essence of original sin In other words those basic desires that we face every day, in the form of temptations, or in the form of preventing us from perfectly loving God, are not necessarily sins according to Roman Catholic teaching but are essential sins according to Protestant teaching. This Protestant teaching is considered heresy by official Catholic doctrine. In other words, Luther described himself as being way too sinful than what can be accepted by the leaders of the Catholic church, which Luther rejected as being even more sinful than he. Luther says many places in his writings that ‘all our righteousness are as filthy rags’ and all sin is damnable, otherwise it is not a sin, so that even in our good works we sin. Or simply put: > No one is able to love God from his whole heart, etc., and his > neighbor as himself [Mark 12:30–31]. We therefore say that a man is > justified by faith, not by love. (Luther’s Works Vol 34, Page 309) So, my question is: **Is this view of sin unique to Protestants, or are there some other large groups taking the name Christian that also see themselves as committing damnable sins, every day (or in less shocking language ‘to be imperfect’ due to the ‘remaining sinful desires of the flesh’), that they need not fear damnation from, due to their justification apart from their own works? Or is it only the Protestants who have this radical view of sin?** Note: This is by no means saying Luther says we can sin willingly and claim to have faith, he means in our imperfect state due to the flesh, we do sin perpetually unwillingly as we make a most admirable attempt to resist sin and love God because our flesh is essentially sinful, which Catholics deny. ---------- To provide some detail on the background history overt his split between the Catholic Church and Luther and provide some additional historic references. Some modern protestants may not even be aware of fundamental difference. ---------- It actually stems from the 95 Thesis by Martin Luther that eventually resulted on this point in condemnation from the Council of Trent , Canon XXV > CANON XXV.-If any one saith, that, in every good work, the just sins > venially at least, or-which is more intolerable still-mortally, and > consequently deserves eternal punishments; and that for this cause > only he is not damned, that God does not impute those works unto > damnation; let him be anathema. A man named Latomus condemned Luther in response to his thesis and Luther subsequently defended his view. In response to Latomus Luther defended his view that even in good works Christians sin. It goes without saying that sin, according to Luther was always damnable if not covered by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness by faith. > If the works of righteous men are sins, as Thesis 7 of this > disputation states, this is much more the case concerning the works of > those who are not righteous. and > The works of God (we speak of those which he does through man) are > thus not merits, as though they were sinless. In Eccles. 7[:20], we > read, “Surely there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and > never sins.” In this connection, however, some people say that the > righteous man indeed sins, but not when he does good. They may be > refuted in the following manner: “If that is what this verse wants to > say, why waste so many words?” or does the Holy Spirit like to indulge > in loquacious and foolish babble? For this meaning would then be > adequately expressed by the following: “There is not a righteous man > on earth who does not sin.” Why does he add “Who does good,” as if > another person were righteous who did evil? For no one except a > righteous man does good. Where, however, he speaks of sins outside the > realm of good works he speaks thus [Prov. 24:16], “The righteous man > falls seven times a day.” Here he does not say, “A righteous man falls > seven times a day when he does good.” This is a comparison. If someone > cuts with a rusty and rough hatchet, even though the worker is a good > craftsman, the hatchet leaves bad, jagged, and ugly gashes. So it is > when God works through us. (Luther’s Works Vol 31, Page 44) and > The first article attacked by Latomus is this: Every good work is > sin. First, he deduces unacceptable consequences from this thesis; > second, he opposes it with contrary [views]; third, he impugns my > premises. In driving this Sennacherib [2 Kings 19:28; cf. Isa. 37:29] > back to his own land, I shall begin with the last point and thus start > by defending my own position. In order to deprive me of that wonderful > verse in Isa. 64[:6] which reads, “We have all become like one who is > unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like filthy rags,” he > interprets it so that neither he nor I can use it. > > Luthers Works 32, Page 161 Or again Luther describing the sinful nature in complete opposition to a view that imagining obtaining sinless perfection, even if it be for a few minutes in one day: > In this alone we are saved, therefore, that having sin and living in > sin we grieve because we have it and cry to God for deliverance, in > accord with John’s saying (1 John 1:8–9): “If we say we have no sin, > we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our > sins, He is faithful and just and will forgive our sins and cleanse us > from all unrighteousness.” In this way, yes, in this way, “The > sacrifice acceptable to God is a broken spirit; a broken and a > contrite heart, O God, Thou wilt not despise” (Ps. 51:17). “For there > is no man who does not sin,” says Solomon in his prayer (1 Kings > 8:46). And Moses in Ex. 34:7 says: “Before whom no man of himself is > innocent.” And again, Eccl. 7:20 says: “There is not a righteous man > on the earth who does good and never sins.” And again, “Who can say, > ‘I have made my heart clean?’ ” (Prov. 20:9). Therefore: “There is > none righteous. All have turned aside” (Ps. 14:3; Rom. 3:10, 12). Thus > we pray: “Forgive us our debts” (Matt. 6:12). And where do these sins > and debts come from? Because no one fulfills the Law except Christ. > For no living man is justified before God, because his heart is always > weak toward the good and prone toward evil. He does not love > righteousness without in some way also loving iniquity. But Christ > “loves righteousness and hates wickedness” (Ps. 45:7). As the apostle > explains later on in chapter 7:25, “With the flesh we serve the law of > sin, but with the spirit the Law of God.” And thus we are partly > righteous, but not wholly so. Thus we have sin and debt. When we pray, > therefore, that our righteousness be made perfect in us and that our > sin be taken away, we are praying at the same time to finish this > life. For in this life this inclination toward evil will never be > perfectly cleansed, just as the Children of Israel, to use a figure of > speech, could not drive out the Jebusites. Hence, immediately after > the petition “Hallowed be Thy name” (which takes place through our > sanctification from sins and evil works) comes the petition “Thy > kingdom come” (Matt. 6:10), as if he were saying that it will not be a > complete sanctification except in Thy kingdom. But this also will not > come except through tribulations. Therefore the words “Thy will be > done” follow, just as Christ prayed in the garden in the time of His > tribulation. (Luther Works 25, page 246)

I've heard that there were two points of Catholic doctrine in Aquinas' Summa Theologica that were later successfully defended to the contrary. One, I think is the Immaculate Conception of Mary (although I don't know where that is in the Summa) and I'm not sure what the other one is. Excluding things that might not exactly measure up to modern science. What are the points of doctrine in the Summa that don't line up with Eternal Law?

This is a question particularly for those who believe, based on Biblical data in the New Testament, that the Sabbath is no longer binding for New Covenant Christians since Jesus has fulfilled the Law and has become our rest. Particularly for those of you who hold this theological view (please neglect to answer if you don't hold this view, as the question will not apply to you) how do you interpret Exodus 20:11 in particular, and reconcile it with your theology? I will explain what I mean, and then conclude with my concrete question at the bottom. After the command to observe the Sabbath, Exodus 20:11 in the ESV says: "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy." This verse begins with the word "for," which can also be translated "because." In other words, it seems God is grounding to the Israelites his command to observe the Sabbath in his creation pattern. Am I missing something? Grammatically, it seems to me God is effectively saying, "because" I myself rested on the 7th day after creation, you therefore are to rest too. Although this is a command in the Old Covenant, under which New Covenant Christians are no longer bound, the grounding in Creation (and the facts of Creation never change, unlike the binding and fulfillment of covenants) could be seen as making this commandment in particular binding on everyone, at all times, forever, even though it is an Old Covenant law. **The fact of God resting on the 7th day will never change, and since this is his grounds for the commandment to observe the Sabbath in Exodus 20, it almost seems as if the Sabbath commandment should be binding on his people, including New Covenant Christians forever.** **Question:** In light of your conviction that the Law is no longer binding on New Covenant Believers, how should we make sense of Exodus 20:11 in particular? I am asking specifically how to reconcile this verse with all the Scriptural data, and not a vague and general debate on Sabbath-keeping. Full disclosure, personally, all my life I believed the Sabbath did not apply to Christians because of all the data in the New Testament on how to view the Law. But I am so lost on how to reconcile my current theology together with a coherent theology from Exodus 20:11.

The documentary series *This Changed Everything: 500 Years of the Reformation* includes a section in episode 1 about Martin Luther's marriage to Katharina von Bora. Dr. Frank James (President and Professor of Historical Theology at the Biblical Theological Seminary) includes his input as well, and says that it was due to their love for each other. > Narrator: Martin Luther turned the idea of marriage on its head when he married a runaway nun, Katharina von Bora. In a society that views marriage as a financial and social contract, Luther's marriage is revolutionary. > > Dr. James: Well, there was no social status to be gained for the two of them getting married, and there was no money. I mean, he didn't have any money, and she didn't have any money. So what did they have? They had love. […] Before it was based on social status and a dowry. Suddenly, this whole notion of marrying someone because you love them becomes a significant paradigm shift in the concept of marriage. This is in contrast to the Wikipedia page of Katharina von Bora , which states that Luther arranged marriages for runaway nuns like her so that they could be provided for > Luther at first asked the parents and relations of the refugee nuns to admit them again into their houses, but they declined to receive them, possibly as this was participating in a crime under canon law. Within two years, Luther was able to arrange homes, marriages, or employment for all of the escaped nuns—except for Katharina. […] > > Katharina had a number of suitors, including Wittenberg University alumnus Jerome (Hieronymus) Baumgärtner (1498–1565) of Nuremberg and a pastor, Kaspar Glatz of Orlamünde. None of the proposed matches resulted in marriage. She told Luther’s friend and fellow reformer, Nikolaus von Amsdorf, that she would be willing to marry only Luther or von Amsdorf himself. While it's clear that Katharina stated her desire to marry Luther, it's not clear to me that the two chose to marry out of mutual love for each other (in other words, it wasn't a love marriage ). Which account is correct? Was Martin Luther's marriage to Katharina von Bora due to their love for each other?

The first Christians such as Justin Martyr, the Church Fathers such as Augustine, the Reformers such as Luther were all anti-Semites. Why was that so? Here are some quotes: > Luther: "Accordingly, it must and dare not be considered a trifling > matter but a most serious one to seek counsel against this and to save > our souls from the Jews, that is, from the devil and from eternal > death. My advice, as I said earlier, is: First, that their synagogues > be burned down, and that all who are able toss in sulfur and pitch; it > would be good if someone could also throw in some hellfire. That would > demonstrate to God our serious resolve and be evidence to all the > world that it was in ignorance that we tolerated such houses, in which > the Jews have reviled God, our dear Creator and Father, and his Son > most shamefully up till now but that we have now given them their due > reward." > > > John Chrysostom: "Again the Jews, the most miserable and wretched of > all men. But today the Jews, who are more dangerous than any wolves, > are bent on surrounding my sheep; so I must spar with them and fight > with them so that no sheep of mine may fall victim to those wolves. > Isaiah called the Jews dogs and Jeremiah called them mare-mad horses. > This was not because they suddenly changed natures with those beasts > but because they were pursuing the lustful habits of those animals." > > Pope Clement VIII: "All the world suffers from the usury of the Jews, > their monopolies and deceit. They have brought many unfortunate people > into a state of poverty, especially the farmers, working class people > and the very poor. Then, as now, Jews have to be reminded > intermittently that they were enjoying rights in any country since > they left Palestine and the Arabian desert, and subsequently their > ethical and moral doctrines as well as their deeds rightly deserve to > be exposed to criticism in whatever country they happen to live." https://www.jpost.com/blogs/the-jewish-problem---from-anti-judaism-to-anti-semitism/the-jewish-problem-adversus-judeaos-against-the-jews-376333

Many Christians believe that Jesus is God (it's just a matter of realizing how widespread trinitarianism is, for example). However, there are Christians that go one step further and act on this belief, treating Jesus for all practical purposes as God almighty. They pray to Jesus, they talk about Jesus all the time, and they even worship Him as God (for some good illustrative examples, please see [this](https://youtu.be/Z5a-hW9AJQI?t=159) and [this](https://youtu.be/QsYyuK1w3q0)) . Likewise, there are Christians who do pretty much the same with the Holy Spirit. A very good example is Benny Hinn's best-selling book [Good Morning, Holy Spirit](https://www.amazon.com/Good-Morning-Holy-Spirit-Benny/dp/0785261265) , which has been read and cherished by thousands, if not millions of Christians around the world. In this [video clip](https://youtu.be/wJ-urZd2x2k) you can see Benny Hinn leading a whole stadium to worship the Holy Spirit. **Question**: According to Biblical Unitarians: Does worshiping either Jesus or the Holy Spirit as God entail committing the sin of idolatry? When Christians worship Jesus or the Holy Spirit as God, are they sinning? If the answer is yes, then what happens to those Christians who have systematically committed this sin throughout their lives and die never repenting? Will they go to Hell as unrepentant idolaters, or does the answer depend on other conditions? _____________________ Answering to the comments: why would idolaters go to Hell? 1 Cor 6:9: *Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral **nor idolaters** nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men*

I know very little about Jehovah’s Witnesses other than that in general they reject traditional Christianity and think that only through their new teaching, can people understand the truth, whatever that is. What are the central departures that they take from the gospel message believed by Christians from Nicea up until their founding in the late 1800s?

Kurt Vonnegut, a 20th century American writer who identified himself as a Christ loving atheist wrote this little prayer in a fictional setting, as part of the plot of his "Slaughterhouse five" novel. It could be found on page 52 in the 1969 edition of his book. "*God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom always to tell the difference*" Are there any biblical verses that rhymes with the above excerpt, in terms of what it conveys?

According to [Acts 8:1](https://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Acts%208:1&version=nrsv) and [Acts 22:20](https://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Acts%2022:20&version=nrsv) , Saul participated in the martyrdom of Stephen, at least by granting approval to those who physically stoned him to death. Saul later underwent a conversion and became recognized (by the Roman Catholic Church and in Christendom generally) as a saint, St. Paul. Are there any other saints recognized by the Catholic Church who had participated in the martyrdom of other saints recognized by the Catholic Church?

There does not appear to be any evidence for Marian veneration during the first and second century. As far as I am aware, the *Didache* (also known as *The Teachings of the Apostles*) and the *Epistle of Barnabas*, both of which tend to be considered first-century, do not mention Mary at all. The phrase "*theotokos*" (God-bearer or the mother of God) seems to be attributed to Athanasius and Gregory of Nazianzus during the fourth century. My understanding is that during the fifth century, the Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431) endorsed the title “*theotokos*.” After this event influential theologians like Augustine of Hippo started focusing even more time and attention on doctrines elevating the position of Mary. Please note that this question is not about whether the veneration of Mary is right or wrong. I simply need to establish the time line of events within the Church that led to the acceptance of the title "*theotokos*" at the Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431) and how the veneration of Mary developed thereafter. EDIT: I found this article on the subject: https://classictheology.org/2021/11/29/the-history-of-mary-veneration-a-protestant-prospective/

Do Anglicans have the minor orders of subdeacon, acolyte, exorcist, lector, and door-keeper (porter), like in the Catholic Church (cf. Council of Trent ses. 23 ch. 2 ), and the major order of deacon? (I know they claim to have the priesthood .)

I understand that a form of this question would have been previously asked, however I think I have a slight difference with regard to a solution to this problem, with regard to God. The problem of evil is a question that potentially dismisses the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God, on the grounds that how can that God exist in the world when the evil of man and the suffering of humans and animals within our world exist and not only because of the actions of those animals and humans, there are natural disasters outside the control of man that cause suffering. Why does this God allow that to happen when God has the power to prevent it? My response to the Epicurean problem of evil is: why would God create a world without evil in the first place, because if so, there would be nothing to reward the inhabitants of that world who have lived a just and moral life and whose actions tried to limit the amount suffering that their actions caused within that world to others, etc? Is the Epicurean problem of evil (a.k.a. the [Epicurean paradox](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurean_paradox)) a dumb question with regard to God, not just from the Christian perspective but also from the perspective of all world religions? Why would God begin with heaven first, when heaven is a place free from evil? How can you reward behaviour within heaven with a better life after your presence there?

In [Did John misread the Septuagint? - Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/90362/did-john-misread-the-septuagint) , we have conflicting views: > … given our belief that Christ dictated the book [of Revelation] … and: > … the vision was from Jesus, but the words were not necessarily dictated, rather they could have been John's own words of what he observed in that vision. What is the division of beliefs among the various denominations regarding scripture?: - The text was literally dictated by God (or holy agent). - The text was the writers' words (except where explicitly stated. E.g. Revelation 2:1's "*Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; …*"), as inspired by God. - The text contains sacred truths, but also human opinions etc. - The text originates solely from the human imagination. Note that I'm not asking which view is correct, only about which major denominations hold which views. Also, I would hope the last category is empty, but it won't be surprising if it isn't.

I read the following on the internet: > Jesus continued practicing Judaism, per Luke 4:16 ("as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read"). > > The Pharisees criticized Jesus because they (incorrectly) thought he violated God's commandments, something they wouldn't have cared about if he hadn't been Jewish. [Luke 4:16](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%204&version=NIV) says: > He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. He stood up to read, and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place [where it is written](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2061&version=NIV) : > > "The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” > > Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him. He began by saying to them, “**Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing**.” > > All spoke well of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from his lips. **“Isn’t this Joseph’s son?” they asked**. > > Jesus said to them, “Surely you will quote this proverb to me: ‘Physician, heal yourself!’ And you will tell me, ‘Do here in your hometown what we have heard that you did in Capernaum.’” > > “Truly I tell you,” he continued, “no prophet is accepted in his hometown. I assure you that there were many widows in Israel in Elijah’s time, when the sky was shut for three and a half years and there was a severe famine throughout the land. Yet Elijah was not sent to any of them, but to a widow in Zarephath in the region of **Sidon** [in Lebanon]. And there were many in Israel with leprosy in the time of Elisha the prophet, yet not one of them was cleansed—only Naaman the **Syrian**.” > > **All the people in the synagogue were furious when they heard this**. **They got up, drove him out of the town, and took him to the brow of the hill on which the town was built, in order to throw him off the cliff**. But he walked right through the crowd and went on his way. As reported, above, Jesus speaks from Isaiah. The [Isaiah passage](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2061&version=NIV) continues to say: > They will **rebuild the ancient ruins and restore the places long devastated; they will renew the ruined cities that have been devastated for generations**. Strangers will shepherd your flocks; foreigners will work your fields and vineyards. And you will be called priests of the Lord, you will be named ministers of our God. **You will feed on the wealth of nations, and in their riches you will boast**. Instead of your shame you will receive a double portion, and instead of disgrace you will rejoice in your inheritance. And so **you will inherit a double portion in your land**, and everlasting joy will be yours. In my faithfulness I will reward my people and make an everlasting covenant with them. Their descendants will be known among the nations and their offspring among the peoples. All who see them will acknowledge that they are a people the Lord has blessed > > I have posted watchmen on your walls, Jerusalem; they will never be silent day or night. You who call on the Lord, give yourselves no rest, and give him no rest till he establishes Jerusalem and makes her the praise of the earth. > >The Lord has sworn by his right hand and by his mighty arm: “**Never again will I give your grain as food for your enemies, and never again will foreigners drink the new wine for which you have toiled**; but those who harvest it will eat it and praise the Lord, and those who gather the grapes will drink it in the courts of my sanctuary.” Jesus later did not appear to teach what Isaiah taught. In fact, the very opposite, for example, Jesus's ministry did not appear concerned with accruing worldly material wealth ([Matthew 6:24](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%206%3A24&version=NIV)) ; Jesus appeared to prophesize the destruction of The Temple & the towns ([Mark 13:1-3](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2013%3A1%2D3&version=NIV)) ; and Jesus appeared to deemphasize Jewish tribal identity ([Luke 10:25-37](https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=good+Samaritan&version=NIV) ; [Colossians 3:11-13](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians%203%3A11%2D13&version=NIV)) . Is/was it the "practice of Judaism" to publicly claim you are a special anointed Prophet, to quote the Jewish prophets out of context, to praise Gentiles in Lebanon and Syria, and to make the Jewish congregation so angry to throw you off a cliff?