Given a person X who leads a "moral life" based on the law laid out in the Bible. Given that X does not believe in the existence of God or any other God. If the Christian Faith happens to be the truth, can X be saved (meaning being accepted into heaven)? Can X be saved if X follows all laws, except for those who are calling for a direct relationship with God? Can X be saved if X follows his or her conscience, but because of lacking knowledge of the law is still sinning? What are the different positions on these questions of each denomination?

According to the Old Testament, the messiah would be a direct linage of David (Isaiah 11:1, Jeremiah 23:5, Jeremiah 33:15, 2 Samuel 7:12-13), but according to the New Testament Christ has no earthly biological father, which poses a problem, since linage we carried through the father (Numbers 1:18), so my question being if Christ was the messiah, how could he be when the messiah was from the direct linage of David? And Christ did not have a direct male linage

I just finished watching CosmicSkeptic's video titled [Christianity's Biggest Problem](https://youtu.be/5KDnnp0sDkI) , in which Alex O'Connor, the owner of the channel, presents the problem of animal suffering as the biggest objection to the belief in a loving God. In particular, he refers to the kind of animal suffering which cannot be attributed to a human cause, and therefore, cannot be "explained away" as the consequences of humans freely choosing to do evil against animals. The following are examples of non-human caused animal suffering: - An animal agonizing for hours before dying because a tree unexpectedly fell and broke one of its legs. - An animal burning alive due to a natural wildfire. - Animals causing suffering to each other due to predator-prey dynamics. - Animals suffering due to natural disasters in general. Are there Christian philosophers who have attempted to reconcile the belief in a loving God with the existence of non-human caused animal suffering? What would be some examples of these attempts of reconciliation?

> Ex Deo Nascimur, > In Christo Morimur, > Per Spiritum Sanctum Reviviscimus > > From God we are born, > In Christ we die, > (and) in (/per) the Holy Spirit we are reborn (revived) This is an old saying that I think is attributed to the Rosicrucians . I'm trying to back track it further as it clearly predates them by at least a millennia. Any ideas on the origins?

I was listening to a discussion in which someone mentioned that the phrase "the scripture cannot be broken" was a technical phrase used in rabbinic discussions in first-century Judaism, but no explanation was given. My guess is if that's true then it must mean something like the authority of the scripture can't be negated. Any help here?

In the Athanasian Creed, the three Persons are one God, and the ‘one God’ is the Trinity. The question is, how are the three Persons one God? If Father = Son = Spirit, that would be Modalism, where the Father, Son, and Spirit are three names for the same one Entity. So, I want to assume that Father, Son, and Spirit are not simply three names for the same Entity, but that there are differences between them. The Creed also says that the three Persons differ. For example, the Father begat the Son. So, while the Father has a Son, the Son does not have a Son. Such differences exclude Modalism. The following suggest that the Son and Spirit are part of the Father: - Firstly. the Creed says they are one undivided substance. (“nor dividing the Substance"). It also says that the Father is the Source and Origin of the Son and the Spirit. The ‘undivided substance’, therefore, is the substance of the Father. With the Son begotten and the Spirit proceeding, that Substance remains undivided. This means that the Son and Spirit are part of the Father’s Substance; the Son is part of the Father. - Secondly, that is also what Athanasius taught: > - “In the Father we have the Son: this is a summary of Athanasius’ theology.” (Hanson, p. 426) > - “The Son is in the Father ontologically.” (Hanson, p. 428) > - “Athanasius’ increasing clarity in treating the Son as intrinsic to the Father’s being” (Ayres, p. 113) > - “Athanasius’ argument speaks not of two realities engaged in a common activity, but develops his most basic sense that the Son is > intrinsic to the Father’s being.” (Ayres, p. 114) (Read More ) If the Athanasian Creed is supposed to reflect Athanasius’ theology, which I suspect it does, it would be fair to conclude that the Son and Spirit are part of the Father. - Thirdly, Athanasius was the norm of Western pro-Nicene theology and that theology relied heavily on Tertullian, who also said that the Son is part of the Father. > “The Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and > portion of the whole.” (In Against Praxeas 9, Tertullian)

From my understanding, LDS teach that Aaron appeared to Joseph Smith and reestablished the Aaronic priesthood. >The two divisions of priesthood in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are the Aaronic and the Melchizedek. -source- The Aaronic priesthood was handed down by bloodline. >And thou shalt anoint Aaron and his sons, and consecrate them, that they may minister unto me in the priest's office. Exo 30:30 In addition, the book of Hebrews speaks of the necessity of the Aaronic priesthood as not needed any longer. Things changed. >If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. Heb 7:11-12 >In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. Heb 8:13 So, given the Aaronic priesthood was handed down generationally by bloodline and has ended (vanished), how do LDS explain their Aaronic priesthood?

Acts 8:14-17: >“Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. These two went down and prayed for them so that they would receive the Holy Spirit. (For the Spirit had not yet come upon any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Then Peter and John placed their hands on the Samaritans, and they received the Holy Spirit.” For someone who claims that baptism fills us with the Holy Spirit (baptismal regeneration), how is this reconciled with this verse, which seems to indicate that baptism did not do anything?

I have been told that I possess a very definitive view of faith in regards to baptism. So far as I believe faith in Jesus as personal Lord and Savior must be present at the time of baptism. Hence my adherence to the doctrine of credo baptism. I would just like to know how you would categorize this view? Is it Lutheran or Calvinistic? What part of Christian theology would comprise such a view? I have started to think critically of my views because for the first time in my life settling down and starting a family is a real possibility and I would like to know how to explain this to a potential mother of my children?

I just noticed that while we are told that the great commission applies to all believers in the sense that we are to share the gospel, we don't normally baptize those we help believe. Instead, we bring them to church to be baptized by our clergy. Is there any basis for this practice? Note: If your denomination allows your laity to baptize other people as a normative/regular thing, this question is likely not relevant to you. I would love to hear answers from denominations where clergy would normally administer the sacraments.

Luke 17:32, 33 >**32** Remember Lot's wife. **33** Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it. Do these two verses contradict with the idea of being taken out seven years before Jesus' second coming?

> When individuals or groups of people turn away from the principles of the gospel, they are in a state of apostasy. One example is the Great Apostasy, which occurred after the Savior established His Church. After the deaths of the Savior and His Apostles, men corrupted the principles of the gospel and made unauthorized changes in Church organization and priesthood ordinances. Because of this widespread apostasy, the Lord withdrew the authority of the priesthood from the earth. This apostasy lasted until Heavenly Father and His Beloved Son appeared to Joseph Smith in 1820 and initiated the Restoration of the fulness of the gospel. (["Apostasy"](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/apostasy?lang=eng)) But Hebrews says > Hebrews 2:17: Therefore, He/Jesus Christ had to be made like His brethren in all things, that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. > Hebrews 5:6: just as He says also in another passage, "Thou art a Priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek." > Hebrews 7:23-25: And the former priests, on the one hand, existed in greater numbers, because they were prevented by death from continuing. but He, on the other hand because He abides forever, holds His priesthood permanently. Hence, also, He is able to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. By His death and resurrection Jesus Christ secured the priesthood for sinners forever. His death provided a covering for sins. In view of this on what basis can the LDS Church say the priesthood authority was withdrawn from the earth?

I’m given to understand Jehovah’s Witnesses hold to something similar to libertarian free will, the belief that a person’s choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature and free from any predetermination by God. Since I don’t understand the position very well, perhaps a brief explanation of the view would be helpful to me, but primarily my question is concerned with what argument can be made from the Bible for the JW view.

I have learnt that some of the Jews linked to the early Jewish council stoned St. Stephen to death and Paul as a witness. But I have a bit of confusion that who ordered the decree of Stephan's death.

It seems to me that if God chooses not only those who will go to heaven, but those who will go to hell, a Calvinist would hold the position of Universalism, that being that all people will be saved. Why shouldn't they? If God is merciful and loving and decides the fate of every human, why would he send them to hell? Why doesn't he send them all to heaven since he makes that final decision?

Adam was not with Eve when she ate the fruit Satan offered her. He did not hear the conversation, otherwise, God in His response would have said that Adam listened to the serpent, but God said that he listened to his wife. Gen 3:17: > And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; This opinion is the basis for my understanding of this comparison. I do not wish to discuss this aspect of the situation. I state it here merely to illustrate my understanding of Genesis 3:6 and its translation, from which my question originates. Gen 3:6: > And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband **with her [?]** and he did eat. Just as Adam was not deceived, neither was Jesus deceived, Jesus did not sin. Adam was not deceived but partook to help Eve. 1 Tim 2:14: > And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Jesus partook of flesh and blood to help us. The Church is referred to as a Crown of thorns to Jesus in Prov 12:4, just as a wife is a crown to her husband: > A virtuous woman is a crown to her husband: but she that maketh ashamed is as rottenness in his bones. The Bride of Christ is Jesus's "Crown" as I complete the comparison from John 19:5: > Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns, and the purple robe. And Pilate saith unto them, Behold the man! John 3:16: > For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Another observation: What other situation could Paul have been referring to when he referred to the "husband" as the savior or the marriage? Ephesians 5:23 (KJV): > For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body This appears in all aspects to be accurate. Showing unnecessary deference to Eve/woman-kind by suggesting that Adam was "with her" at that time is merely an attempt to allude to a shared sense of guilt and does not justify distorting scripture, in my opinion. **Hence my question**: Did Adam join Eve in disobedience to save her?

From a Catholic perspective: Is there a shared culpability between Adam and Eve for original sin, or is only Adam or Eve ultimately responsible? Please, link answers from Catholic sources. (You can comment the question with non Catholic perspective, as it will be interesting, but it's not my main question)

I’m aware that modern scientific theories propose an ice bridge which allowed for travelers to reach the Americas and that this fact accounts for the existence of Native Americans (and South American tribes, etc.). However, it would seem to be problematic on YEC to propose a similar idea given that the ice bridge is dated much earlier than 6000 or 4200 years ago (4200 being when answers in genesis dates the Tower of Babel). So what is the explanation for the human population in America, especially at the scale which it was presumably at?

In Numbers 15:22-24, it talks about the community sinning unintentionally (v22) and the community not being aware of it (v24), how would the community know to give the specific burnt, grain, and drink offering? It's without their knowledge so unless there was a failure of something happening (Achan in Joshua 7), how would anyone know the community had sinned? I understand that a sin committed with or without knowledge of the law is still a sin but other than some outside event occurring or not occurring, how would anyone know? Also, since this is the community's sin, where does the offering come from? Does the community have a flock or herd of animals to choose from for their respective offerings? I assume if it's a personal offering, the animal comes from your flock or herd but that's just my assumption.

Europe underwent major economic upheavals during the creation of Protestantism (cf. E. Michael Jones, *Barren Metal* or *Goy Guide to World History* ). Is this one reason why Protestants upheld iconoclasm ? Was it a sense of necessity or utilitarianism (that having a minimally decorated church is better than having no church at all) that inspired or justified their iconoclasm ? In other words: Was there an economic reason for Protestants' iconoclasm ?