**Can a Buddhist monk or a yogi be a Holy Spirit?** As far as I understand, they're masters in doing deep breathing and meditation.  For me, there are only a few monks/nuns who have mastered the technique above. Unfortunately, I cannot find any Christians, pastors, or priests who know anything about it, but normally they will respond by citing [*Sola Fide*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_fide) (faith alone) or with the advice to just pray everyday so eventually the skill will be awakened by itself. Not even psychologists, psychiatrists, or regular medical doctors know about it, or they only have very basic knowledge. A few high level monks I *did* find meet all 11 personal characteristics of the Holy Spirit listed in [this article](https://get.tithe.ly/blog/characteristics-of-the-holy-spirit) , placing a nice bow on this topic: 1. He’s referred to as a Person (John 6:63; 14:26; Rom. 8:11, 16, 26; 1 John 5:6). 1. He speaks (2 Sam. 23:2; Acts 1:16; 8:29; 10:19; 11:12; 13:2; 21:11; 28:25–26; 1 Tim. 4:1; Heb. 3:7–8; Rev. 2:7; 14:13; 22:17). 1. He witnesses (John 15:26). 1. He searches (1 Cor. 2:11). 1. He can be grieved (Isa. 63:10; Eph. 4:30). 1. He loves (Rom. 15:30). 1. He has a mind (Rom. 8:27). 1. He has intelligence (1 Cor. 2:10–11). 1. He can be tested (Acts 5:9). 1. He can be resisted (Acts 7:5). 1. He has a will (1 Cor. 2:11; 12:7–11). **Can I get their advice and learn their technique of deep breathing and meditation, providing I do them under the conditions below?** 1. The technique is not related to religion but rather to science or logic. 2. I am not required to worship any form of Idol or Gods (only the Mahayana version of Buddhism may have a theology of worship, but the original Shakyamuni, the founder of Buddhism, didn't mention anything about worshiping). 3. I am not being invited or forced into Buddhism.  **They also don't try to convert me, but instead**: 1. They praise and respect Christianity. 2. They wish me well in Christianity and allow me to share the Gospel in the Monastery. 3. They offer help whenever there is a need, such as co-operating in doing charity work. 4. Buddhism members are willing to join my cell group to learn about or even to one day (soon?) join Christianity. 5. Buddhism members are willing to cooperate in a mission filled with Sharing the Gospel activities when my church needs additional man-power.

Based on a comment from @AndrewThompson, >'the' Bible (any one you care to name) is no more evidence of anything than the BOM is. You might take the numerous discrepancies between versions of 'the' Bible as the proof of that statement. there is a belief out there that "versions" of the Bible apparently have "numerous discrepancies". I'd like to know what these are. What is the most egregious textual variant measured in terms of its impact on theology? P.S. If you are going to cite the game of "telephone" please be prepared to cite a specific example, demonstrably showing manuscript evidence. If there are so many "discrepancies" this should be an easy exercise. The Codex Vaticanus, the Codex Sinaiticus, and the Dead Sea Scrolls are all online. Additionally, there are several "[Critical Apparatuses"](http://www.ericlevy.com/Revel/Cosmogony/Guide%20to%20BHS%20Critical%20Aparatus.PDF) , the best are by [Bruce Metzger](http://www.amazon.com/Text-New-Testament-Transmission-Restoration/dp/0195072979) , that will catalog every known variation. These things can be checked, I'd just like a good example of something significant.

Listening to The World Over Live from April 8th 2021, Raymond Arroyo said that Xi Jianping was adding the "Ten Commandments of Xi" into the Bible. That might have been hyperbole, but does anyone know what kinds of modifications that the Chinese Catholic Church has modified the Bible? Do Chinese Catholics have access to vatican.va to see the Chinese Bible posted on their [resource library](http://www.vatican.va/chinese/bibbia.htm) ?

I've heard arguments by people like Richard Carrier that the author of the Epistle of James is *outside* the category of apostles, meaning that this James is *not* an apostle. And that the James in the Book of Acts and in the Epistle to the Galatians was not James the Just but James son of Zebedee. Can you respond to Richard Carrier's argument, which can be seen in [this video](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DodGgjkMsZw) ? The reason why I asked you this is because I'm a Christian struggling with my faith and I wanted to ask my brothers in Christ to help me.

So as far as I understand it, it is the case that if one prays, asks for forgiveness and repents and baptizes then according to most denominations and the Bible God forgives the sin one has committed. However what I can't quite wrap my head around is how to forgive oneself. Forgiving oneself in this context means (please use your own definition if mine isn't accurate enough): - Accepting that one has committed sin - Not beating oneself up/self criticism anymore because of the sin - No feelings of resentment or vengeance towards oneself - No destructive feeling of regret (still regretting but not the kind impeding with daily life or mental health) - No destructive guilt or shame (similar to regret: A little guilt/shame is not the problem, but to much of it risks mental health) While it might be easier to forgive single mistakes, it's a lot more difficult to handle character weaknesses or repeating sin. Is there any additional information about that? Summarized Question: - What does the Bible/the denominations say about **self forgiveness**? - How can one forgive oneself? - What steps can one do to forgive oneself? - Is the process to self-forgiveness fundamentally different for specific sins? - How can one forgive character weaknesses or repeating sin?

My question regards this passage: > **Acts 8:14-17 ESV** Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, **for he had not yet fallen on any of them**, **but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus**. Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit. My understanding of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is that it comes with believing in Jesus immediately like it says in Ephesians 1: > **Ephesians 1:13 ESV** In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, What's up with this case in Samaria? --- NOTE: I've looked at this question: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/26180/11471 and feel that it asks specifically about hand-laying, which I am not, so its answers don't quite answer mine. I'm just wondering why the believers didn't get the Holy Spirit even though they had become believers.

The first sin on earth was a **lie** perpetrated to Eve by the devil in the garden of Eden, where the devil lied to Eve by saying that >Ye shall not surely die, but shall become like the gods knowing good and evil Now scripture is authoritative on lying and condemns it because it's equates to bearing false witness against your neighbor. This is where my question comes in, when undercover police agents **lie** to the criminals they infiltrate in order to catch, do they sin? This is because even though they lie, they do something Biblically wrong for a long term good objective, to out a bad person behind bars.

During the Covid-19 pandemic, the sacrament of Catholic confirmation was temporarily changed, in some locations. The changes involved no touch what so ever, instead implements were used. This violates Code of Canon Law, even Pope Paul 6 forbid the use of implements. How were those confirmations during Covid *"really"* valid? There are priests who have contended it was not valid. Canon Law specifies human touch to administer the oil. The Bible specifies human touch. Also a document was released this year by the Vatican which specified the sacraments **must be done** according to Canon Law. Someone please make this make sense.

As we know, Judaism, Christianity and Islam are the main 3 monotheistic religions. Quran says: > Surely, those who believed in [God], and those who are Jews, and Christians, and Sabians, -whosoever believes in [God] and in the Last Day, and does good deeds - all such people will have their reward with their Lord, and there will be no reason for them to fear, nor shall they grieve. [*Surah Al-Baqarah* 62](https://quran.com/2/62?translations=18,84,85,21,22,95,101) By the way [Sabians](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabians) are also a from a monotheistic religion, John the Baptist was a prophet of them. From Islam point of view, if you believe God is one and do good deeds then you shouldn’t worry about your salvation. Is it like this also in Christianity, or is salvation exclusively for Christians?

Christians, when our brain goes into "fight or flight" mode are we held to the same accountability for our actions as when we are in our normal meditative state?

According to Acts 3:19-21: > 19 Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out, 20 that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, 21 whom heaven must receive until the time for restoring all the things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago.  I see repentance as requirement for Gods forgiveness, meaning the complete stop to any sin or sinful behaviors. Now this is easier said then done for addictions. Addictions have this characteristics: - Compulsiveness: An overwhelming urge to engage in the behavior or use the substance, often uncontrollable. - Tolerance: Increasing amounts of the substance or intensity of the behavior are required to achieve the same effect. - Withdrawal: Physical and psychological symptoms that occur when the addictive behavior or substance use is reduced or stopped. - Negative Impact: Continued engagement despite knowing it causes significant problems in personal, social, occupational, or health areas. - Loss of Control: Difficulty in limiting or stopping the addictive behavior or substance use. - Preoccupation: Persistent thoughts and focus on the substance or behavior, often at the expense of other activities and responsibilities. In Summary: Stopping an addiction is not easy and extremely difficult. So while it is easy to regret addictions and make genuine efforts to stop one, there isn't a method with guaranteed success. Addictive behaviors are often done consciously, meaning the case for active sin can be made. Assuming an addictions that is inherently sinful e.g. a sex-addiction(outside of marriage) or an addiction impeding with obedience like Gaming-addiction(no time to do what God says) or a self-destructive addiction like fentanyl: - Is the Assumption that repentance is required for forgiveness correct? - Is an addiction "forgivable"? Note that due to the nature of repeatableness, it means that shortly after the process of repenting and receiving forgiveness, a person sins again (Relapse). This potentially could undermine the effect Gods forgiveness could have. - Is mastering the addiction a requirement for salvation? (Lets exclude the edge-case of repenting and dying before the next chance to indulge in the addictive behavior arises) - Are there differences between denominations on this topic of forgiveness of addictions? What is their reasoning for one denomination being more or less strict on addictions?

It is well known that Jehovah's Witnesses exalt Jehovah as the only God. This is (correctly) supported by texts such as Deut 4:35, Isa 44:6, 45:5, 6 that declare Jehovah as the ONLY God; or besides me there is no God, etc. See also Deut 6:4. Because Jehovah is God Almighty, only He is worthy of worship (Ex 20:3, 34:14, Deut 8:19, 2 Kings 17:35-38, etc). However, JWs also say that Jesus is "a god" (John 1:1 NWT), and "my Lord and my God" (John 20:28), and "with us is God" (Matt 1:23 NWT), etc. Further, their NWT also says that Jesus is worthy of obeisance and worship (Matt 28:17, Luke 24:52, John 9:38, Heb 1:6, Phil 2:10, etc.) Does this mean that JWs actually worship two gods? That is, either Jesus is God or not. If Jesus is God and worthy of worship then they have two Gods. If Jesus is NOT worthy of worship then he is not a god and the Bible texts saying he is are wrong. So what is the JW position? This question is made the more interesting by JWs' claim that Jesus is an angel on the one hand; but on the other obeisance is forbidden to angels in Rev 19:10, 22:8, 9. Further, the distinction JWs make between obeisance and worship (which both translate the same word) is not made in the NT.

Can a divine being claim to have made a very heavy sacrifice when he uses his creative power and makes another vessel / being / substitute creature that he gives away or gives up to be tortured on his behalf? **Is it Him who is suffering or the being he created?** When humans sacrifice a cow / sheep / goat, place the knife on its throat and cut it, is it the animal or the owner that feels the pain?

Revelation 20:10 depicts hell in the following manner (NKJV, emphasis mine): > The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be **tormented day and night forever and ever**. Also, while it doesn't directly say the torment is eternal, Revelation 14:11 comes close as well (NKJV, emphasis mine): > And the smoke of their **torment** ascends **forever and ever**; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name. Aside from these two verses in Revelation, do any other Books of the Bible depict eternal torment, or is the symbolic Book of Revelation the only source for eternal torment? I'm not looking for verses that discuss eternal "punishment" (which is vaguer) or verses that speak of just "torment" without saying such is forever/eternal. Rather, I'm looking specifically for verses that depict torment/torture as being eternal/forever.

Many think the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints changed its name to the Community of Christ in order to distance its identity from the LDS church so they could be accepted into the World Council of Churches. For what reason did the RLDS change its name?

Most Mormons seem to be under the impression that the Community of Christ agreed to denounce the Book of Mormon as scripture in order to be accepted into the World Council of Churches. It's obvious that this isn't true, because the CofChrist names the Book of Mormon as accepted scripture in their Basic Beliefs . Did the Community of Christ denounce the Book of Mormon? If not, then why are the LDS under the impression that they did?

Depending on your tradition, the [Nicene Creed](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed) may or may not say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as from the Father: > (Greek) τὸ ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον - who from the Father proceeds
(Latin) qui ex Patre **Filioque** procedit - who from the Father **and the Son** proceeds This has been a point of contention between the Orthodox and Western churches, the latter category including both Catholics and Protestants, for at least a thousand years, contributing to the [Great Schism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East-West_Schism) . I have read about the history of "[filioque](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filioque) " but I have basically no idea what the theological difference is meant to be. I understand that there is some doubt about whether "ἐκπορευόμενον" means the same thing as "procedit", so both versions could be right (and apparently we all agree it would be wrong to insert "and the Son" into the Greek) but I don't see what either version of "proceeding" is meant to imply about the nature of the Trinity. If the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, or from the Father alone, what does that actually mean for our understanding of God?

During the fifth century, John Cassian claimed that the initial steps to salvation were in the power of each individual, unaided by grace. He reacted against Augustine’s view of the irresistible power of grace and predestination. Circa 414 Augustine of Hippo strongly affirmed the existence of original sin, the impossibility of a sinless life without Christ, and the necessity of Christ's grace. 1 Pelagius, a Romano-British theologian, was known for his emphasis on human choice in salvation and his denial of original sin. He believed in mankind’s good nature and individual responsibility for choosing asceticism, stressing the freedom of human will. 2 Pelagianism was a school of thought that taught that the human will was capable of spiritual good without the aid of God’s grace, and that sinless perfection was possible in this life. This was supported by Nestorius. Augustine and Jerome were chief critics of Pelagianism, and it was condemned by church councils in A.D. 418 and 431 (Council of Carthage). From Pilgrim Theology, pp.468 & 470, Michael Horton, Zondervan, 2011 Fast forward to 1610 when five articles of faith based on the teachings of Jacobus Arminius were published in protest against Calvin's doctrines relating to divine sovereignty, human inability, unconditional election (or predestination), particular redemption, irresistible grace, and the perseverance of the saints. The Synod of Dort was convened to examine the views of Arminius, and in 1620 a response was published, rejecting the Arminian position and presenting the Calvinistic position. Although the church was quick to denounce the ideas of Cassian and Pelagius (excommunicating the latter), have some of their ideas on free will and man's ability to accept the salvation offered by God, filtered down through the centuries to influence resistance to the Reformed view of the depraved nature of humanity and God's sovereign power in the matter of election and predestination unto salvation? Is there a theological link between the views of Cassian and Pelagius and Arminianism? Sources: 1 [New Advent: John Cassian](https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03404a.htm) 2[Wikipedia: Pelagius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagius)

> **Matthew 5:17-18 (KJV) ** > **17** Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. **18** For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. As I understand it, the Law of Moses is fulfilled in Christ. We don't make sacrifices anymore, and many other of the finer points in the Pentateuch are no longer preached. Yet, I still see people reference these books for doctrine (for example the 10 Commandments). How much of the Law of Moses still applies?

I struggle a little bit in understanding the Christian belief about the OT laws as a Muslim. One of the things that confuses me is that half of Christians say that deeds aren’t important; that salvation can only be through Jesus, believing he died on the cross for their sins. The other half believe that "works" are also essential. Which half is right? What do you think will be the fate / judgement of those Christians who preach to others that "works" isn’t important?