The Jehovah's Witnesses teach the Son of God was the first and direct creation of Jehovah God: > Jesus Christ is shown to be “the firstborn of all creation” as well as “the firstborn from the dead”​—not merely most distinguished in relation to those created or those resurrected but the first one actually created and the first raised from the dead to endless life. (Col 1:15, 18; Re 1:5; 3:14) ([Firstborn, Firstling, jw.org](https://www.jw.org/en/library/books/Insight-on-the-Scriptures/Firstborn-Firstling/#p11)) The Bible says at Genesis 1:26 that Adam was the first man created by God. There are approximately 4,000 years from Adam to Jesus Christ be born. There are about 60 years from Jesus' resurrection to when the Apostle Paul wrote Colossians 1:15, "And He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation." So here's my question: What is the Biblical basis for the teaching that Jesus Christ is Jehovah God's first direct creation, even before Adam?

The Book of Mormon speaks of an influential person in Jerusalem named Laban who was the keeper of the record of the Jews, and had power to command at least 50 men (see 1 Nephi 3:31 ). > "Laban hath the record of the Jews and also a genealogy of my > forefathers, and they are engraven upon plates of brass." (1 Nephi 3:1-27 ) We know Laban was a man of some degree of power and influence in Jerusalem, that he had servants, and a treasury, and kept the genealogy of the Jews in his treasury, but it apparently wasn't beneath him to go out and get black-out drunk in the streets (see 1 Nephi 4:7-8 ). Who was Laban? What position did he hold in Jewish society?

I've recently read the Jefferson Bible and I am actively considering making it my primary Bible. Are there any current ministries that use this bible, and/or are there any active ministries that use this as their primary bible?

Trying to come up with a list of essentials to center a gospel message on. I've seen the "Roman road of salvation" used before, but I am wondering if there are any specific summaries in the Bible I can use to create my own approach. **Edit\}** _(in response to input given thus far)_ **Thank you** for **all** your answers, suggestions, and comments. I **wish** there was the possibility to favorite more than one answer as i found a number of them extremely helpful and instructive. I will check back occasionally to see what other information might be shared in answering my question.

An English version of the relevant part of the Scripture is this: > "16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and > bond, to receive a **mark** in their right hand, or in their foreheads: > > 17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or > the name of the beast, or the number of his name." As far I know, it is a relative well cited part of the scripture today. The important question is, what is the word used for **mark** in the original, Greek text, and what did it mean? I think, we all can imagine, what it could mean. For example, if I use a pen to draw a circle on my hand, that will be a mark. But there was no pen at the time, and writing durable marks to human skin was not trivial at the time. I believe, this might be the reason, why is it interpreted as like a tattoo today. Because tattoo was known (and was forbidden since the early Old Testament era). But that is our current interpretation. What is the word used for "mark" in the original, Greek text, and exactly what did it mean, considering the culture and technological customs of the era?

Some Christians have expressed doubt about a literal 24 hour day, before the sun and moon were created in: >Genesis 1:16 KJV And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. Advocates of the gap theory have based much of their argument on verses 1 and 2 of Genesis, because there was no light. Gen 1:1 and 2 >In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. In Genesis 1:3 God created light: >Genesis 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. However: the light was not separated from the darkness (and even I have a hard time imagining that even though I do not question it). Then in verse 4 Go does separate the light from the darkness. >Genesis 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. In verse 5 God designates day and night, and calls the combination of the two the first day. > Genesis 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. Do any Denominations believe that up until verses 4 and 5 there was an indefinite period which had no specific number of hours, or days, or years by our concept of time?

Are there any Christian creationist books that has evidence to prove all transitory fossils to be fake or hoax? Like archaepthor fraud, piltdown man hoax , there are many frauds done to prove evolution. My question is that are there any book recommendations to prove all fossil (of intermediate species) are fraud or creationist book with real evidence that human coexisted with dinosaurs (not just finding evidence of dinosaurs in random mythology or cave paintings of dinosaurs but evidence above this) ? ***[Note : It would be good if author of book is of recognised biologist like Stephen C Meyer]***

Struggling with this question regarding Jesus as a messiah given Jewish prophecy. With regards to formatting of this post, I recently had a stroke and so have to use speech to text; I mean no disrespect. I should also add that I'm asking a sincere question not trying to be inflammatory and definitely not trying to be disrespectful of anyone's beliefs. I struggle with accepting Jesus as the messiah given Jewish prophecy/law. So for example: Isaiah 53 speaks of the Messiah coming as a suffering servant, One who is led as a lamb to the slaughter and who takes our sorrows, infirmities, and punishment on Himself. In this particular case for example no one can fulfill my obligations under Jewish law; facetious as it may sound no one can honor the commandments on my behalf or eat kosher on my behalf these are my obligations so I do not understand the Christian belief that through Jesus I am saved. He cannot my sins and my responsibilities for atonement onto himself per Jewish law. Second, the Talmud as well as historical documents recognize two messiahs: one messiah being the son of Joseph and two Davidic messiahs. From my reading of the historic documents Jesus clearly meets the criteria of the messiah son of Joseph while does not necessarily meet by Jewish standards the criteria of the Davidic messiah. Why can we not accept Jesus as the messiah ben joseph? Third, I don't understand how the current Christian practice doesn't violate the Jewish prohibition against idolatry or the 1st commandment. Fourth, is it not sufficient for me to consider Jesus a rabbi? Thank you in advance for your help and insight.

Right now, I'm reading *When Heaven Invades Earth* by Bill Johnson. I just came across this sentence: "If I am filled with anxiety in any given situation, it becomes hard for me to release peace--because *I can only give what I have.*" (Emphasis mine.) The phrase by itself is a good and noteworthy one, but the reason I'm posting this question is that I've heard this phrase used before, spoken by Mike Cavanaugh. Both Bill Johnson and Mike Cavanaugh have done many great things by following the Lord, both are senior pastors, and both have used this phrase. This suggests to me that there's an earlier source that both have read and drawn from. Hence, I ask: does this earlier source exist, and if so, what is it? --- I kept reading and I came across "As glorious as the gift of tongues is, it is an entrance point to a lifestyle of power.", which is another thing Mike Cavanaugh said. The answer to this question may very well be a negative in that Mike may have drawn from this book, not an earlier source. If this is the case, an answer should show this.

According to Pentecostal doctrines, can a widower marry a divorced person without committing a mortal sin? Does it make a difference if that person was the victim of marital infidelity? If there are significant differences between Pentecostal denominations, please give an overview of their different stances.

According to mainstream christianity, an angel is a spirit creation that exists to serve God which is often portrayed in pop-culture looking something like this: Could someone please give the Mormon definition of *exactly* what an angel is?

An associate wrote an open letter (email) of condolence to a friend who'd lost a child. The letter stated that that deceased was now an angel in heaven with wings. What is the ultimate source of this belief?

I know that God had a plan for Adam and Eve provided they resisted the temptation from the serpent. God knew the consequences of both sides of the choice he presented them with . Since God didn't intend for them to sin as this came directly from a being that naturally opposes God, what was God's plan for Adam and Eve on the event that they remained faithful and didn't conspire to eat the forbidden fruit? Was continual access to the tree of life a consequence of obedience since it was revoked when they disobeyed? Was it God's plan for them to live forever ? If this is so , then would the world have run out of space from the procreation of eternal beings? **Update:** The word of God says that He has good plans for us, plans of prosperity and not plans of destruction. *Jeremiah 29:11* >For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the LORD, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future. This means that God had good plans for Adam and Eve, his plan was not to see them fall so harm would come to them but had a plan of prosperity where they would prevail against the serpent but had to let them make a choice.

According to Catholic Tradition, can God the Father and Jesus disagree? Or are they incapable of disagreement?

> And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" that is, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" > > Some of those who stood there, when they heard that, said, "This Man is calling for Elijah!" (Matthew 27:46-47, NKJV) According to a number of sites, including Wikipedia , the saying "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani" (or in Mark's version "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani") was originally Aramaic: > אלהי אלהי למא שבקתני. > > Courtesy of Wikipedia However, according to some other sites it is Hebrew. Regardless of which is right, I don't think it can be denied that the Jews mistook what he said. I used to take this to mean that he was speaking in a language they did not understand. However, as far as I know and have learned from our good friend Google, Jews at that time spoke both Hebrew and Aramaic (plus some Greek, and perhaps Latin). How, then, did the Jews mistake his meaning?

I understand that God created humans and hid His presence from them; humans cannot see God but can indirectly interact with Him through whispers, visions and dreams. Is there any significance as to why God hid His dwelling and His hosts from man? Scripture talks about a veil that is set to cover the spiritual world from the physical world and that when Jesus returns this veil will be lifted and nothing will be hidden from man. Why did God place this veil? Paul talked about a veil that covers the human heart that leads it away from the knowledge of Jesus Christ *2 Corinthians 3:14-16* >Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away." This could also mean that there is a veil that separates the physical world from the spiritual world and angels can go through it, why did God fix it?

Before Pentecost, as recorded in Acts 1:12-26, the 11 apostles cast lot between 2 men > ... who have been with [them] the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among [them] beginning from John's baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection. (Acts 1:21-22) and Matthias was chosen. One interpretation for Rev 4:4 about the identity of the 24 elders is that twelve will be the 12 OT patriarchs while the other twelve will be the 12 apostles. Will Matthias be the 12th one in either of the 2 scenes in Revelation (Rev 4:4 and Rev 21:14), or will Paul be the 12th one since Jesus *himself* (rather than humans by lots, despite that they are acting as apostles) seems to commission him as "apostle" (Acts 9:15)? Or was Paul's "title" only an "instrument" (*skeuos*), despite that Paul called himself "apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God" (1 Cor 1:1, *apostolos*)? It seems the interpretation is [a matter of opinion](https://www.gotquestions.org/Matthias-Judas-Paul.html) , and a [previous question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/7507/who-was-the-12th-apostle-matthias-or-paul) was closed for that reason. So instead, I'm asking this historical question: **were there a major church father or a reformer who *explicitly named Paul* as one of the 24 elders in Rev 4:4 and/or one of the 12 apostles of the Lamb in Rev 21:14?** This also requires the 24 / the 12 to be interpreted literally rather than symbolically. Please provide a quote.

Close to 2,000 years elapsed after the ascension of Jesus Christ and the death of His Apostles until Joseph Smith had his first vision in 1820. In that vision Smith was told by two personages (presumably God the Father and the Son) that he must join none of the current churches because they were all corrupt. Apparently, men corrupted the principles of the gospel and made unauthorized changes in Church organization and priesthood ordinances. This is explained in detail here: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/apostasy?lang=eng It should be noted that in the Bible God anticipated this would happen and there are strong warnings for those who apostatized. 1 John 2:19, "They went out from us but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, in order that it might be shown that they all are not of us." There is also the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares that Jesus spoke of at Matthew 13:24-30. And what the Apostle Paul said at 2 Corinthians 13:5, "Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith, examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you--unless you fail the test?" Eventually apostates will be made known by their fruit, Matthew 7:16-20. So again, why did it take so long for God to do something about apostasy when He "supposedly" appeared to Joseph Smith in 1820? In view of this fact even before the resurrection of Jesus, He and His Apostles warned us that this would happen and how to recognize apostasy.

“’Subordinationism’, it is true was pre-Nicene orthodoxy” [Henry Bettenson, The Early Christian Fathers p. 239.]. RPC Hanson (The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, p. xix.) even wrote: > “With the exception of Athanasius virtually every theologian, East and > West, accepted some form of subordinationism **at least up to the year** > **355.**” If Hanson is right, then the delegates at Nicaea, who accepted the Nicene Creed, must have read that creed as consistent with their subordinationist views. The creed starts with the words: > “We believe in one God, the Father Almighty ... And in one Lord Jesus > Christ.” This seems to exclude the Son as that “one God” and as “Almighty.” But the creed goes on to describe the Son as: > "God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God … homoousion with > the Father" This seems to describe the Son as equal with the Father and would be inconsistent with Hanson’s statement that the delegates at Nicaea were subordinationists. For that reason, I ask: What evidence is there that the original framers of the 325 Nicene Creed intended it to be read in subordinationist ways?

>Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. [Matthew 28:16 KJV] The eleven had a specific appointment and at that appointment they were instructed : >And Jesus came and spake unto them [Matthew 28:18 KJV] Jesus spake unto *them*, that is to say, to the eleven. >And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. [Matthew 28:18 KJ] Because all power in heaven and in earth has been given to Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, therefore he says to the eleven : >Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: [Matthew 28:19 KJV] These words were uttered to the eleven and later another was called, specifically and particularly, by Jesus Christ's audible words, namely Saul of Tarsus, thereafter called Paul. To him was also given like commandment 'he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel'. Thereafter a ministry became evident, such as John Mark, Silvanus, Epaphras, Timothy and Titus. Not of the eleven but marked out as a ministry sent to the whole church (not to any specific location) and to propagate the gospel throughout the known world. Paul writes three epistles to this ongoing, next-generation ministry, instructing them in doctrine and in church government. These men, and only these men, may appoint elders. Here is a definite structure dependent upon the calling, directly, of Jesus Christ. Without that calling, generation by generation, there will be none to 'teach and baptise' among the nations. One cannot self-appoint oneself to the vocation or to the task. I can see no evidence here for a 'Great Commission' uttered to the entire church as though the congregations themselves had a 'commandment' as such from the risen and all-powerful Christ. Quite the opposite, the content of the epistles conveys a godly humility, household-centred Christianity and a very local influence among the parochial populace. To say 'the Great Commission' is to the entire body of the congregations, to my mind belittles the Ministry - that of teaching and preaching (to the assemblies and also to the whole earth) as a definite vocation to singularly called persons. Where did this idea come from of a 'Great Commission' which is generic to the entire body of Christ ? I cannot find such words in my bible. I am asking this question specifically of Trinitarian Protestants as it seems to me that the concept has generated from within that part of Christendom. ---------------------------------- The other matter which complicates this issue is what J N Darby called 'the notion of a clergyman ; sin against the Holy Spirit' that is to say the denial of a ministry sent to the entire church and the notion that each local assembly should have its own, private, appointed, salaried clergyman. But I shall ask another question on that second complication. ----------------------------------------- EDIT AFTER COMMENTS : I suggest that there are two aspects. One's local life, home life, church life; and there is the gospel being preached to all creation which is beyond the abilities or capacities of common believers and is the province of the especially called. Both are true. Both are immediate. Both are essential. Neither should be neglected. And one should not diminish the other.