1 Corinthians 2:8 the rulers of the sage some claim that Jesus was crucified demons could you refute their arguments and prove Jesus was crucified by it by Pontius Pilate in Roman rulers

It seems the Bible is anti-Semitic or how else do you explain these Bible passages? God himself wanted to kill all Jews but Moses stopped him: > (Ex 32:9-11) 9 And the LORD said to Moses, I have seen this people, > and behold, they are a stubborn people; 10 and now let my anger be > kindled against them and I will destroy them, but I will make you a > great nation. 11 And Moses prayed to the LORD his God, saying, Why, O > LORD, should your anger be kindled against your people, whom you > brought out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty > hand? God said Israel is the worst nation of the world: > (Ezek 5:4-9) 4 Then you shall take some of them again and throw them > into the midst of the fire and burn them with fire, and a fire shall > go out from them against the whole house of Israel. 5 Thus says the > Lord GOD: I have set this Jerusalem in the midst of the nations and > the countries around it. 6 And she was rebellious against my judgments > in wickedness more than the nations, and against my statutes more than > the countries that are round about her; for they have rejected my > judgments, and they have not walked in my statutes. 7 Therefore, thus > says the Lord GOD: Because you have rebelled more than the nations > that are around you, because you have not walked in my statutes and > have not done my judgments, yes, not even according to the judgments > of the nations that are around you, 8 therefore, thus says the Lord > GOD: Behold, I also will be against you and will execute judgments in > your midst in the sight of the nations. 9 And I will do to you what I > have not done, and what I will not do again, because of all your > abominations. God said all the house of Israel have a hard forehead and a stubborn heart: > (Ezek 3:5-7) 5 For you are not sent to a people of foreign speech > and a hard language, but to the house of Israel— 6 not to many peoples > of foreign speech and a hard language, whose words you cannot > understand. Surely, if I sent you to such, they would listen to you. 7 > But the house of Israel will not be willing to listen to you, for they > are not willing to listen to me: because all the house of Israel have > a hard forehead and a stubborn heart. Apostle Paul about the Jews: > (1 Thess 2:14-16) 14 the Jews, 15 who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and > persecuted the church, and displease God and oppose all mankind 16 by > hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they might be saved—so > as always to fill up the measure of their sins. But wrath has come > upon them at last!

I have a friend, a Jehovah's Witness, with whom I shared a childhood neighborhood and school up until junior high. I recall our school in Sweden sometimes serving dishes like blood pudding. In such instances, alternate meals were provided for him and also some Muslim classmates. I asked him about this recently and he said that JWs refrain from consuming blood due to prohibitions found in the Bible, such as Genesis 9:4 and Acts 15:28-29. He said meat can normally contain traces of blood but if blood was drained after the animal was killed, they can eat the meat. They would not consume products were blood was explicitly added. Here are the Bible scriptures, from King James Version **Genesis 9:3,4 ** > Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the > green herb have I given you all things. But flesh with the life > thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. **Acts 15:28,29 ** > For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no > greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats > offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from > fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare > ye well. I noticed that Christadelphians share many of the same views as JWs so wanted to ask about their view. What is the Christadelphian view on eating products containing blood?

When Paul made the following statements it appears that He had in His mind the same concepts, and was only expressing them differently in His letters to the various churches. Was He, in all these cases referring to corruption putting on incorruption? > 1Co 15:35 ¶ But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come? > Ro 6:6 (WNT) This we know--that our old self was nailed to the cross with Him, in order that our sinful nature might be deprived of its power, so that we should no longer be the slaves of sin; > Ro 6:6 (KJV) Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. > Php 3:21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself. Since Paul wrote that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord, I feel that His statements in the 3 referenced sections of scripture all refer to the Body or dwelling we possess during this lifetime. > 2Co 5:6 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: My thinking along these lines is supported by my understanding of Paul's reference to His students as having already been resurrected or experiencing the resurrection in Colossians 3:1. > Col 3:1 ¶ If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. I understand that in Dreams and visions, people who had previously died were recognized, but we are not in those cases told specifically that they had bodies. It seems to me that Paul summarized His thinking along these lines in the following 2 verses in His Second Letter to the Corinthians. > 2Co 4:10 Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body. 11 For we which live are alway delivered unto death for Jesus' sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh.

Are any Greek or Roman gods mentioned by name in the Bible? Also, are any Greek or Roman mythological characters or creatures mentioned in the Bible?

First of all: what I mean here by “Jew” is nationality/race and not religion. The question of whether Jesus was a Jew therefore means whether Jesus was an Israeli, i.e. a descendant of Jacob/Israel. The focus here is not on whether Jesus was a Jew from a religious point of view, i.e. whether he was a follower of Judaism. Was Jesus a Jew at all? He had no Jewish father, he is not from Jewish sperm. According to the Bible, a child inherits the nationality from the father. Two examples: 1. The wife of Joseph was a Gentile (Egyptian), and with her he made two children, Ephraim and Manasseh. Although their mother was a Gentile, they are still called Israelis because their father was an Israeli. They inherited their father's nationality. 2. Moses allowed the men of Israel to take Gentile women, but he didn't allow them to take Gentile men for Israeli women. Since Jesus did not come out of Jewish sperm, he can't be a Jew by nationality. It's wrong to say that Jesus was a "half-Jew" because his mother was a Jew. In the Bible, there is no such thing like "half". You are what your father is. If your father is Italian and your mother is Spanish, then you are Italian. You are not half-italian and half-spanish. You are what your father is because out of his sperm you came. However, if someone wants to claim that the nationality goes from mother to child, then he must agree that Ephraim and Manasseh were not Israelis but Egyptians since their mother was Egyptian. He must also agree that Obed was not an Israeli but a Moabite since his mother Ruth was a Moabite. If he does not agree, then his position is hypocritical. Since Jesus has no human father, he cannot biologically belong to any nationality. What does this mean now?

Do Lutherans believe in any type of intercession of the saints? Calvin believed that a general intercession of the saints was possible, but also that one could not ask for intercession from a specific saint. In this regard, do Lutherans believe in intercession like Catholics, or only in the intercession of living saints/general intercession? Preferably, I would like answers with sources from the words of Luther or from Lutheran books, **but only if possible.** Thank you!

God is described as Yahweh passim in the Old Testament, but where in the New Testament is God described as a Yahweh?

I've heard both of these claims, and they seem to have irreconcilable differences: - God does his part (the call/invitation), now you do yours (respond in faith) - God not only gave his son for you, but he will give you the faith to believe it. I'm less interested here in the broader question of the doctrine of election; I'm focusing specifically on the second bullet point: is there scriptural evidence that faith is a gift or something that we receive from God?

According to the author of this article who is from White Throne Ministries, he teaches that the spirits of the dead are not in heaven but sleep in the sands awaiting one of the two resurrections. He quotes the following verse which was written by Peter under the influence of The Holy Spirit. *Acts 2:29* >"2:29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. *Acts 2:34* >For David is not ascended into the heavens:" Jesus talked of a **separation of believers and non-believers at death** through the parable of the rich man and Lazarus and reinforced that teaching on the cross when He told him that he will be with him in paradise that same Friday. *Luke 23:43* >Jesus said to him, “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise He then says that a different meaning would be conveyed if that comma were to be removed and also that from other events that happened on that Friday we learn that Jesus did not go to paradise on that Friday because of the words Jesus said to Mary after rising from the dead. *John 20:17* >Jesus saith to her, Touch me not: for I have not yet ascended to my Father: According to that author, the words above prove that Jesus did not go to paradise on that Friday, hence justifying the need for a comma in the promise to thief verse. He backs it all up with all the verses from Acts that none of the Fathers have ascended to heaven but my question is, The Book of Revelation says there are martyrs under the altar who cry out to God for revenge against the inhabitants of the earth. These are the spirits of those martyrs that are spiritually in heaven. *Revelation 6:10* >the souls of martyrs who were killed for their faith in God cry out from under the altar, asking God when he will judge and avenge their deaths: The verse above is the first proof that the saints spiritually unite with God in paradise but their flesh await a re-union in the resurrection. The second proof is the presence of Elijah and Moses during the transfiguration for we know Moses died and the angels buried him, Elijah went to heaven with a chariot of fire. Where did their spirits come from during the transfiguration if the spirits of the righteous do not inherit paradise after death?

In his Peristephano (a collection of confessional poems on various martyrs), Prudentius asserts that prior to conversion Cyprian of Carthage practiced the dark arts: > He was pre-eminent among young men for skill in perverse arts, would > violate [a woman's] modesty by a trick, count nothing holy, and often > practice a magic spell amid the tombs to raise passion in a wife and > break the law of wedlock. The whole Peristaphano here: https://archive.org/details/prudentius00pruduoft/page/328/mode/2up Yet according to the basic recount of his early life in the wiki page on [Cyprian of Carthage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyprian) , it makes no mention of this. It was well documented that another Cyprian, the veritable Cyprian of Antioch, *did* practice such devious acts. Compared to the Cyprian of Antioch, the early life of Cyprian of Cartage seems uneventful: an unassuming rhetorician/lawyer. Later on in Cyprian of Carthage's wiki, it in fact points out that he is often conflated with Cyprian of Antioch. All this leads me to believe that Prudentius is one of those authors who mistaken the identity of these two early church figures that share the name Cyprian. That said, I cannot prove it, it's all still circumstantial evidence.

Question

Do we have any "hard" textual evidence or authoritative testimony that can assure us that Prudentius has indeed mistaken Cyprian of Carthage for Cyprian of Antioch?

Reading online, there is a significant number of people who believe Jesus was a Christian. To my mind that would require Jesus to travel to the future and read the new testament. Then go back in time to follow his own teachings and fulfil the events of the book. Is that what happened?

At the end of his letter to the Ephesians, St. Paul says (Ephesians 6:19-20) > Pray also for me, that whenever I open my mouth, words may be given me > so that I will **boldly** make known the mystery of the gospel, 20 for > which I am an ambassador in chains. Pray that I may proclaim it > **fearlessly**, as I should. Proclaiming boldly and fearlessly the Gospel is a priority for Paul. Paul in Acts is, indeed, described as speaking **boldly** (Acts 28:31). Yet when it comes to a belief that certain Trinitarians hold is **essential to salvation**, namely, that Jesus is God in the Trinitarian sense (as opposed to Jesus = God in the sense of agency, as Moses in Exodus was or the judges in Psalm 82 were), we don't seem to find any clear and consistent articulation of this in Paul's voluminous writing. Perhaps the closest is Philippians 2:6-8, which is semantically unclear, or Romans 9:5, which is grammatically ambiguous. This can be contrasted with Paul's views that Jesus = the Christ (repeated clearly and ad nauseam throughout his writings and in Acts) or that Jesus was crucified (ditto). According to those who hold Jesus is God in the Trinitarian sense *and* that this belief is crucial to the Gospel message, why does St. Paul not clearly and consistently articulate this in his writings (or does he)?

Catholics believe that the bread and wine in the communion change into the body and blood (and divinity) of the Lord Jesus Christ. They taught that the bread and wine are no longer bread and wine despite of the fact that it appears bread and wine. Rather, both are now 100% body and blood (and the divinity) of Jesus Christ himself. This change is specifically defined by Catholicism as a *change of substance* ( i.e. "Transubstantiation"). So, what are the Biblical arguments against Transubstantiation?

I recently acquired the Oxford World Classic’s edition of the Authorized King James Version of the Bible with the Apocrypha. I was reading through the introduction when I stumbled upon this very odd and seemingly incorrect passage: >To begin with, as we have just seen, this loose collection of very different kinds of material composed over a period of almost 500 years—including in the Old Testament, history, prophecy, law, devotional verse, proverbs, and even love poetry and fiction, as well as, in the New Testament, letters from named individuals—all had to be placed in a specific order. ![Photo of the Introduction to the Oxford World Classic's edition of the Authorized King James Version with a sentence highlighted ][1] I know very well that the academic consensus on the length of the period in which the entire Bible was composed is roughly 1,300 to 1,500 years, and here in the text, it appears to me that it is stating that it is 500 years. Am I misreading, misinterpreting, or is this a printing error or simply a boldfaced error (in which case I do not feel comfortable moving on with the rest of this edition)?

Matthew 18:20, "For where two or three are gathered together in My name, there I am in their midst." The same idea is also expressed at John 14:23, "Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and WE will come to him, and make Our "abode" with him." That Jesus is present wherever people are gathered in His name speaks of His deity. So, how can this be in view of the fact that only God is omnipresent?

**Jacob and his house of 70** Jacob in Egypt, Wikipedia According to Wikipedia, Jacob brought 70 people to an Egyptian pharaoh. > Israel and his entire house of 70, gathered up with all their livestock and began their journey to Egypt. > The time had come for Joseph's family to personally meet the Pharaoh of Egypt. - **Userkaf** Userkaf, Wikipedia Now, based upon this little information regards to the 70 people, I made some efforts myself to find out who this pharaoh might be, and I came across a pharaoh named Userkaf who it is claimed had a chieftain lead 70 women to him, most likely from Canaan. > Userkaf, trade & military activities, Wikipedia > > South of Egypt, Userkaf launched a military expedition into Nubia, while the Old Kingdom annals record that he received tribute from a region that is either the Eastern Desert or Canaan in the form of a workforce of one chieftain and 70 foreigners (likely women), as well as 303 "pacified rebels" destined to work on Userkaf's pyramid. So based upon this, is the reason I am asking. If the pharaoh was not Userkaf, Does anyone know which Egyptian pharaoh it was, or would have been?

I usually try to be very careful when kneeling down for things as I know the LORD only wants us to worship him and him alone. Now I love this woman I have been in a relationship with. I would like to propose to her.. and I know many people get down on one knee to propose.. but I'm not sure if I'm overthinking it but would it be wrong to do so? Is kneeling only for when worshiping the living GOD? Please advise.

When Jesus [cleared the money changers from the Temple](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleansing_of_the_Temple) , he drove them out by overturning their tables and (in John) even using a whip. Why did he not try to remove them with persuasion, by making a reasoned argument? He was certainly capable of winning arguments (eg story culminating in [Luke 13:17](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+13%3A17&version=NIVUK)) . Bible references for the story: - [Matthew 21:12-13](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+21%3A12-13&version=NIVUK) - [Mark 11:15-19](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+11%3A15-19&version=NIVUK) - [Luke 19:45–48](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+19%3A45%E2%80%9348&version=NIVUK) - [John 2:13–16](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+2%3A13%E2%80%9316&version=NIVUK) *(possibly a separate occasion to the above Synoptics)*

**Is there a catholic program or site for people to find therapist who are catholic priest?** I’ve heard of some Dioceses having counselors but what if someone would like to see a Priest specifically so as to get both a religious, spiritual approach and a medical scientific approach? Thank you for your time