Charles Taze Russel, the founder of the 19th century Bible Students movement that eventually become the Jehovah's Witnesses, taught extensively that the [Great Pyramid of Giza had esoteric meaning relevant to Christians and even that the Pyramid had been built under divine influence](https://archive.org/details/TheDivinePlanOfTheAgesAndTheGreatPyramid) . The Jehovah's Witnesses [no longer teach this, but do admit that the Great Pyramid may have been built using astrological lore that Christians should not have anything to do with](https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1956362) . There has been some speculation that the Great Pyramid and/or the Pyramids in general were built by Joseph as grain silos, but [this idea doesn't seem to be official teaching in any church](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/44965/31636) . Are there any Christian groups today, in the 21st century, that have specific teachings on the relevance of the Great Pyramid to Christians or believers in the Christian Bible? By specific teachings, I'm not referring to the belief that it exists (it obviously does), but that it has some esoteric or other special meaning that is not found in modern-day academic Egyptology. This would include, for example, teachings on any of the following: 1) That the Great Pyramid was built on divine command or by intervention of God or other creatures of God mentioned in the Bible such as angels or the Nephilim. 2) That the Great Pyramid was, or is, a temple to God (i.e. as opposed to a pagan deity or deified pagan ruler). 3) That the Great Pyramid had some specific relevance to the Old Testament Antediluvians, Patriarchs, or Israelites (e.g. that it was built by Adam, Seth, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Joseph, or some other Biblical figure for some specific purpose that just happens to have not been made crystal clear in the extant Biblical texts). 4) That the Great Pyramid contains hidden messages for Christians. 5) That the Great Pyramid has some other specific relevance to ancient and/or modern believers beyond simply being a cool ancient building. Discussion: *To be clear*, I'm not asking for links to texts on 19th century or later Pyramidology or other forms of what is considered today to be fringe archaeology. Those are easy to find. Obviously, many Pyramidologists are and have been Christians, but I'm asking about churches that have formal teachings in the way that the Bible Students did, not about what individual Christians believe or believed. While I have read some of the works of Ron Wyatt, a famous fringe archaeologist and Seventh-Day Adventist who claimed to have made many fantastic discoveries in the Middle East, neither his findings nor his conclusions seem to have been accepted by any church, even his own. To make an analogy, there may well be a Christian artist out there who painted Methuselah as a ginger, but that doesn't mean that any Christian church, sect, community, order, or other type of group officially teaches that Methuselah was ginger or that his being ginger had any specific spiritual or doctrinal effect. The reason *why* a particular church would have teachings on this would be interesting, but would not directly affect whether a teaching counts. The teaching could be based on any combination of Biblical exegesis, archaeology, ancient traditions or claims of ancient tradition, modern-day prophesy by or direct revelation to leaders (for churches that believe in such), or extra-Biblical or apocryphal texts. Obviously science-fiction or fantasy stories that include mystical or fantastical teachings on the Pyramid or Egyptian pyramids in general, such as the Stargate franchise, are *right out*. Those are interesting stories but are not religion, even though they often reference religion or include religious content.

In the same way that certain denominations promote (and in some cases, require) their adherents to remain celibate and/or non-married, are there any that promote making themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of God like Jesus talked about in Matthew 19? Jesus brought up the practice as if it was *somewhat* common. > **Matthew 19:9-12 ESV** And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.” The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, **and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven**. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.” I've heard of individual men that have done this, but never a group.

Compare the wording of the NWT and the NKJV at Colossians 1:15-17 NKJV says >15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or [a]principalities or [b]powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. NWT says > 15  He is the image of the invisible God,the firstborn of all creation;16  because by means of him **all other** things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible,whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All **other things** have been created through him and for him. 17  Also, he is before **all other** things,and by means of him **all other** things were made to exist, How do Jehovah’s Witnesses explain the usage of the word “other” in these verses? And what support for bringing this word into the text is there among Greek language aficionados?

> The ***Journal of Parapsychology*** is a biannual peer-reviewed academic journal covering research on psi phenomena, including telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition, and psychokinesis, as well as human consciousness in general and anomalous experiences. > > It was established in April 1937 by Joseph Banks Rhine (Duke University). It is published by the Rhine Research Center and the current editor-in-chief is Sally Ann Drucker (Rhine Research Center). The journal is abstracted and indexed in PsycINFO. It publishes research reports, theoretical discussions, book reviews, and correspondence, as well as the abstracts of papers presented at the Parapsychological Association's annual meeting. > > According to *Anomalistic Psychology* authored by Chris French, et al, it is "widely recognized as the highest quality journal within the field." > > Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Parapsychology See also: [Eight Decades of Psi Research: Highlights in the *Journal of Parapsychology*](https://parapsych.org/uploaded_files/pdfs/00/00/00/00/90/03_alvarado_highlights.pdf) So it appears that parapsychology is considered relevant enough as a field of investigation to warrant its own peer-reviewed reputable journals. Do Christians acknowledge parapsychology as a legitimate field of investigation, and if so, how does parapsychology fit in a Christian worldview? --- For those who might be interested in philosophical perspectives on parapsychology, see [Is parapsychology a science? - Philosophy Stack Exchange](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/114014/66156)

> Hence it comes that, if there are as many risks on one side as on the > other, the course is to play even; and then the certainty of the stake > is equal to the uncertainty of the gain, so far is it from the fact > that there is an infinite distance between them. And so our > proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in > a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the > infinite to gain. This is demonstrable; and if men are capable of any > truths, this is one. "I confess it, I admit it. But still is there no > means of seeing the faces of the cards?"—Yes, Scripture and the rest, > &c.—"Yes, but I have my hands tied and my mouth closed; I am forced to > wager, and am not free. I am not released, **and am so made that I** > **cannot believe**. **What then would you have me do?**" > > ### [The Heart Has Its Reasons] > > True. **But at least learn your inability to believe, since reason** > **brings you to this, and you cannot believe**. **Endeavor then to > convince yourself, not by increase of proofs of God, but by the > abatement of your passions. You would like to attain faith, and do not > know the way; you would like to cure yourself of unbelief, and ask the > remedy for it. Learn of those who have been bound like you, and who > now stake all their possessions. These are people who know the way > which you would follow, and who are cured of an ill of which you would > be cured. Follow the way by which they began; by acting as if they > believe, taking the holy water, having masses said, &c. Even this will > naturally make you believe, and deaden your acuteness**.—"But this is > what I am afraid of"—And why? What have you to lose? > > But to show you that this leads you there, it is this which will > lessen the passions, which are your stumbling—blocks. > > **The heart has its reasons which reason does not know**. We feel it in a > thousand things. I say that the heart naturally loves the Universal > Being, and also itself naturally, according as it gives itself to > them; and it hardens itself against one or the other at its will. You > have rejected the one, and kept the other. Is it by reason that you > love yourself? > > **It is the heart which experiences God, and not the reason. This, then,** > **is faith; God felt by the heart, not by reason.** > > Source: https://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/introbook2.1/x4404.html It seems to me that Blaise Pascal is suggesting that one can "fake it till you make it"—that by acting as if one believes that God exists, genuine belief will eventually follow, thus "curing" unbelief. And this cure will actually take the form of one somehow experiencing God in one's heart (whatever Pascal exactly meant by that), as opposed to a logical/rational conclusion being grasped by reason. Hence the well-known *"The heart has its reasons which reason does not know"*. Is my understanding of Pascal more or less correct? If so, what is the Biblical basis for his approach? --- NOTE. I asked a similar question on Philosophy Stack Exchange: [Is Blaise Pascal's approach to "curing unbelief" in the proposition that God exists philosophically sound?](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/113993/66156)

In [1 Corinthians 8:5–6](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+corinthians+8%3A5&version=ESV) , we read: > 5 For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”— 6 yet for us there is one God (ESV) I'm having a hard time with in one breath we see "one God" and then the former "many gods and many lords." What is an overview of how should we understand "many gods and many lords" here?

Wotcher! Luther is perhaps the most prolific German thinker. Kant, Hegel, Marx… their corpus pales in the face of Luther. Also, unlike Luther, they weren't concerned with the canon-texts of Western Christianity as received. Nehemiah seems a problematic and deeply engaging "half-book" to me. The crux of the first exile and the second temple. The crux of empire versus refoundation of the Temple. Nehemiah's complex relationship with the state, and his inability to enter the temple. The significance of the text emphasised by name lists. It seems like a link between Kings/Chronicles and second temple texts. As someone without faith, who has only the text, when I read Nehemiah I **know** that my reading is deficient from lack of study and context. But I also assume that major critics of the text have said something awesome. And Luther is just such an expansive critic who was deeply dedicated to the value of the text. What does Luther himself in his works expound in exegesis of Nehemiah, or, if he does not conduct an exegesis, where does Nehemiah fit in within Luther's side comments? Luther is a major reader whose impressions of a central text I find critically interesting. And sadly, given my lack of scholarly training, I can't conduct an adequate search myself.

It’s possible that I may be proposing a false trichotomy, but when considering belief in God, I identify at least three distinct possibilities: - **Belief as a Choice**: Belief in God might be a decision of the will, subject to one’s volitional control. This perspective makes sense if libertarian free will exists, allowing individuals to freely choose whether they believe in God. In philosophy, this view is known as [Doxastic Voluntarism](https://iep.utm.edu/doxastic-voluntarism/) . - **Belief as a Gift**: Alternatively, belief in God could be viewed not as an arbitrary choice but as a consequence of receiving the gift of faith, presumably from God. Here, God, rather than human will, is the source of faith. - **Belief as a Result of Reason and Evidence**: Another possibility is that belief in God is neither an arbitrary choice nor an arbitrary gift but a natural result of sound reasoning applied to available evidence. Thus, a person who honestly examines the evidence and uses reason should naturally conclude that God exists. It seems to me that fields like [natural theology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_theology) and [Christian apologetics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_apologetics) are premised upon this assumption. It's possible that I may be overlooking additional possibilities and that the three options I've outlined might not be mutually exclusive. Moreover, I might be conflating *belief* with *faith*, and I welcome any corrections on this point if that’s the case. With all that said, **what is an overview of Christian perspectives on how belief in God arises?** Specifically, I'm interested in the following subquestions: - **Choice of the Will**: Are there specific theological traditions or denominations that view belief in God as a volitional choice? - **Gift from God**: Are there theological perspectives or denominations that consider belief in God a gift from God? - **Result of Reason and Evidence**: Are there groups that see belief in God as a result of reasoned analysis of evidence? - **Other Views**: Are there other theological views on how belief in God comes about that do not fit neatly into the three options I’ve suggested? --- **Clarifications** > I think it's better if the Q clarifies the *cognitive content* of "belief in God" that you're asking about. Even demons believe in the existence and the power of God and they shudder (James 2:19). But then you don't seem to ask about "faith" which demons don't have. Or is "belief in God" in the OP simply refers to the existence of the first mover? The first chapters of *Mere Christianity* talk about moving carefully step by step from mere existence, to awareness of God in the conscience, to dread of what this God might do, to theism (but no relationship), and finally to Christian theism. I like this comment. It emphasizes the distinction between *belief* as mere *intellectual assent*, which the demons possess, and *saving faith*, leading to *relationship with God*, which the demons do not possess. I would very much appreciate answers that split the analysis into these two aspects. > This misses the most common case. Most people grow up believing what they do because that's what their family (and others in their society) believe. It would be crazy not to. This is a good point, although I think this case can be reinterpreted as and reduced to a more primitive version of belief based on "reason + evidence", even if the reasoning process is arguably fallacious or flawed. The potential fallacies involved in this reasoning process might include [*argument ad populum*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum) , [*argument from authority*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority) , and [*appeal to tradition*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition) , whereas the evidence might take the form of "my parents told me so", "my culture told me so", "my tradition told me so", and so on. One example is how children develop a belief in [Santa Claus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Claus) , because their parents told them so and they regard their parents to be reliable authorities conveyors of truth. Please don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that all beliefs based on tradition or authorities are necessarily comparable to belief in Santa Claus or fallacious (e.g. if all medical institutions and laboratories around the world agreed that certain vaccine is safe and effective against certain virus, I wouldn't necessarily consider trusting their expert judgement to be fallacious). Believing something because X said so is not necessarily a bad reason if X is, for instance, an [expert witness](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert_witness) or a [credible witness](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/credible_witness) .

There is significant debate about the nature of Theophilus in Luke's writings. Some say that the name is a symbolic term applied to all believers. This is because Theophilus (*Θεόφιλος*), can be translated to "lover of God," "friend of God," and even "God's beloved." This idea was made popular by the early church father Origen. This generic use of Theophilus is often compared to the tendency for early gentile Christians to be seen as "God-fearers." Though this thought can be dismissed as Luke employs the words *φοβούμενοι* (Acts 13:26) and *σεβομένων* (Acts 13:43) to refer to such individuals who fear God. Others posit that Theophilus was the given name of an actual person. This is because scholars, like Craig Keener, state that it would be unlikely to dedicate the text to an individual and leave out their real name. Though I agree that Theophilus was an actual person, I remain unconvinced that *Θεόφιλος* was his given name. The name *Θεόφιλος* is well documented from the 3rd century onward, but *Θεόφιλος* does not seem to appear often before hand. I admit that I cannot find a source to verify this information but all who speak about the use of "Theophilus" as a common name signify its relevance from the 3rd century onward. This presents some doubt in my mind as to "Theophilus" being the given name of Luke's recipient. (I welcome any and all suggestions concerning this perspective). Additionally, the argument can made that Theophilus was of high status and even a government official. Consider that Luke uses the honorific "Most excellent" when addressing Theophilus in his gospel account. This word, *κράτιστος*, is used in only three other places in the New Testament. All appearances of the word are found in Luke's writings, (Luke 1:3; Acts 23:26, 24:3, 26:25). The three appearances in Acts see *κράτιστος* attached to a figure of high status and governmental authority. Therefore, it would be reasonable to conclude that Theophilus is at least of high status, if not also a government official. If Theophilus was a government official it would have made sense to be more discrete in matters by using a pseudonym. Though it should be noted that this interpretation demands that a potential shift in relationship between Luke and Theophilus to have occurred due to Luke using *ὦ* as a term of endearment that precedes the name of Theophilus in Acts 1:1. After researching Luke’s writings compiled for Theophilus, I am compelled to believe that Theophilus is neither a generic term to address all believers nor the recipient’s given name. Instead, I am convinced that it is a pseudonym adopted by an individual who occupies an important governmental office. Are there any robust or concrete examples of people taking on pseudonyms when associating themselves with the early church? Please point me to sources if you have them. (Since this is a tertiary issue, I will not be offended if you disagree with my conclusion. I am willing to be wrong on the identity of Theophilus).

Given that my [previous question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/101966/61679) was not well-received, I will try again with a different one. To the best of my knowledge, Christians believe in a supernatural realm where God resides, along with angels, cherubim, demons, and other spiritual entities. However, this supernatural realm is hidden from our five senses, which may explain why so many people are more inclined to believe in [naturalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)) . By the way, many such individuals can be found on Philosophy Stack Exchange (I say this from personal experience). For instance, the [argument from divine hiddenness](https://iep.utm.edu/divine-hiddenness-argument-against-gods-existence/) has been gaining popularity in philosophy for good reason since its publication (by the way, *Truth Unites* has published a [response](https://youtu.be/_d-6UhOS0FE) to this argument). We perceive the natural world every day with our physical senses, but the supernatural seems to be concealed. Nonetheless, Christians believe that the supernatural can manifest and has indeed manifested in the past, at least under special circumstances. The resurrection of Jesus is arguably the most notable example of a supernatural manifestation in the natural that has been recorded. However, it is unclear to me if there are other ways for the supernatural realm to interact with the natural world, beyond the resurrection of Jesus (which already happened about 2000 years ago), and whether human beings have any ability to initiate or facilitate such interactions **today**. **What is an overview of Christian beliefs on how humans can interact with the supernatural?** What practices, techniques, or methods are available to facilitate such interactions **TODAY**? --- **Clarifications** > What exactly do you mean by interact? The Bible says that the universe is not only created but upheld by the word of his power. At a very basic level the fact that you exist and continue to exist is an interaction between the supernatural and you. The natural realm operates under regular laws that can be studied through scientific methods, involving observation and experimentation. In contrast, the supernatural realm lies beyond these regular laws and eludes direct scientific investigation, lacking physical principles that can describe it comprehensively (though fields like parapsychology, as seen in the [Journal of Parapsychology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Parapsychology) , may potentially challenge this notion). Despite its inscrutability to mainstream science, Christians assert that the supernatural realm can exert causal influence on the natural world, producing under certain circumstances perceivable effects, such as miraculous events (e.g., the resurrection of Jesus), spiritual experiences, and so on. **This causal influence of the supernatural over the natural (and vice versa) is what I would call "interaction."** However, if one posits that "everything is supernatural," the distinction between natural and supernatural becomes moot. If that's your view, then perhaps it would be more helpful and practical to distinguish between "usual" and "unusual" instead. The "usual" is studied by science and explained with regular laws (e.g., the laws of Physics), whereas everything else, like resurrections, would be considered unusual occurrences.

According to the [*New Catholic Encyclopedia*](https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/saint-jure-jean-baptiste) : > [Fr. Jean Baptiste] Saint–Jure had immediate success as a writer and exercised a profound influence upon the Christian piety of 17th-century France. His book on the life of the Baron of Renty went through seven editions by 1654, three years after its initial publication. His other published works include a treatise on the knowledge and love of Jesus (1634); meditations on the important truths of the faith, and on the purgative, illuminative, and unitive ways to perfection (1637); a treatise on the means for the main actions of the Christian life (1644); considerations on the crucified Savior (1643); a treatise in two volumes on the spiritual life (1646); meditations on the principal mysteries of Christ's life, also in two volumes (1653); a consideration of Christ's instructions to men (1649); a treatise on faith, hope, and charity (1646); and a treatise on the vows of religious life and the qualities necessary for living the community life of a religious (1658). In particular, I have been searching for all volumes (there are at least two) of Saint-Jure's "The Knowledge and Love of Our Lord Jesus Christ." (in English *preferably*.) So far, all I have been able to find is [*Volume II*](https://archive.org/details/atreatiseonkno02sainuoft) which was published in English in 1875. I would like to locate Volume I, which I am hoping contains Saint-Jure's treatise on the Divine Will and our need to surrender to It. More specifically, it is this treatise which appears in TAN's [*Trustful Surrender to Divine Providence*](https://tanbooks.com/products/books/trustful-surrender-to-divine-providence-the-secret-of-peace-and-happiness/) along with some excerpts on the subject by St. Claude de la Columbiere. As I said before, I don't know if there are additional volumes available in English, but if there are, I would very much like to have online access to them. It seems that Saint-Jure's "The Knowledge and Love of Our Lord Jesus Christ" was continually at the fingertips of St. John Vianney (the Cure of Ars). QUESTION: Where may I find an online (preferably English, but French OK) version of Volume I (and any others that may exist after Volume II) of Fr. Jean Baptiste Saint-Jure's *The Knowledge and Love of Our Lord Jesus Christ?* Internet Archive (or something like it) would be best for my purposes, as I would like to re-typeset at least some parts in English; and so, I am looking for online access to original (19th century or no later than 1929) publications of the volumes in PDF form. Thank you.

I'm trying to understand the ethical use of insults and inflammatory language. How can I know when I ought to be offensive and when I ought to avoid it? There seems to be a tension within the Bible on this. For example, consider Jesus's words in Matt.5:22 > Whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council, and whoever says, 'you fool!' will be liable to the hell of fire. There are other passages which, in isolation, would seem to prohibit all use of insulting or offensive language: > In your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect. (1 Peter 3:15) > Whoever belittles his neighbor lacks sense, > but a man of understanding remains silent. (Proverbs 11:12) > A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger. (Proverbs 15:1) > Be angry and do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger... Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear. (Galatians 4:26&29) > With [the tongue] we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse people who are made in the likeness of God. From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers, these things ought not to be so. (James 3:9-10) At the same time, we also read in the Bible many instances of Jesus and the apostles using insults: (From Jesus:) > You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. (John 8:25) > You Pharisees cleanse the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. You fools! (Luke 11:39-40; in this whole paragraph Jesus is not very polite) > You brood of vipers! How can you speak good, when you are evil? (Matt.12:34) (From others:) > "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?" (Luke 3:7) > O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? (Gal. 3:1) > I wish those who trouble you would emasculate themselves! (Gal.5:12) > I have written something to the church, but Diotrephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge our authority. (3 John 10) > These [false teachers] are hidden reefs at your love feasts, as they feast with you without fear, shepherds feeding themselves; waterless clouds, swept along by winds; fruitless trees in late autumn, twice dead, uprooted; wild waves of the sea, casting up the foam of their own shame; wandering stars, for whom the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved forever...These are grumblers, malcontents, following their own sinful desires; they are loud-mouthed boasters showing favoritism to gain advantage. (Jude 12-13,16) I could go on with many more examples but I think these suffice to prove the point that Jesus and the apostles *did* use insults and harsh words at times. I am wondering if anyone can point me to some good resources dealing with this tension. **Are there any works by respectable Christian authors dealing with the issue of the proper use of insults and/or offensive language?** I am coming from a Reformed perspective, but if anyone can recommend resources from other denominations as well, I would certainly take a look! To be clear about what I am asking, I'm not simply asking for a resolution of the apparent tension, but also for a practical set of principles to know when it is right to offend people. ---- Update: Since some have taken issue with my use of the word "insult", I ought to explain why I think it's the right word here. Jesus knowingly used language that was offensive to his listeners, and not just mildly so. If you want to call it a "rebuke" instead of an "insult" that's OK, but it doesn't change the underlying question I have, which is basically to what extent should I try to avoid offending people, and on the flipside, and when should I knowingly be impolite, as Jesus undeniably was on some occasions.

We know a couple of things from the account in Genesis: 1. There are two trees, the tree that grants eternal life, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. 2. Adam and Eve were apparently mortal before eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good an evil: > the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” (Genesis 3:22) So according to Genesis, it doesn't seem that the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil caused human mortality. The existence of a tree that confers eternal life isn't proof that there was mortality, but it seems pretty pointless to have such a tree unless there is mortality. Then we have the punishments that we levied. None of them were death (the promised punishment). But the reward promised by the serpent actually arrives. Why did God tell Adam and Eve that the consequences of eating the fruit were different than the actual consequences that occurred? In Christianity, Christ is the sacrifice that atones for this original sin. Does the question of whether God was being honest when describing the tree and the consequences of eating its fruit matter? I'm curious about the general, historical view of this issue in Christianity.

NPR has been reporting on this topic in the past few days1 and from my understanding this won't necessarily affect local congregations. Southern Baptist Convention website states : >Jesus Christ is the head of the local church—we are not. Each church is responsible before God for the policies it sets and decisions it makes. or Article XIV >Such organizations have no authority over one another or over the churches. They are voluntary and advisory bodies designed to elicit, combine, and direct the energies of our people in the most effective manner. **My question is**: Will this have any other side effects/impacts besides changing the constitution and having fewer congregations part of the convention? Will this affect SBC relationship with Woman’s Missionary Union ? The SBC FAQ also states >The Convention recognizes the biblical language concerning the office of pastor. The BF&M statement says, “While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the **office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture**.” The passages that assign the office of pastor to men do not negate the essential equality of men and women before God, but rather focus on the assignment of roles. making the whole topic is slightly confusing, i.e. is this vote to make this policy more official as part of the constitution and will there be fewer side effects then predicted? Related: - What is the biblical justification for permitting female pastors? - In a congregationalist church, who is in charge and what does this imply for women in authoritative roles? 1 See [this article](https://www.npr.org/2024/06/11/nx-s1-4996537/southern-baptist-convention-will-decide-whether-to-expel-churches-with-women-pastors) (6/11/24), [this article](https://www.npr.org/2024/06/12/nx-s1-5002004/southern-baptist-convention-set-to-vote-on-whether-to-ban-female-pastors) (6/12/24), [this article](https://www.npr.org/2024/06/04/nx-s1-4992298/southern-baptists-are-meeting-in-indianapolis-and-they-have-a-full-agenda) (6/4/24)

Trinitarians assert that Jesus is the Eternal Word of God. From John 1 they assert personified pronouns in order to claim this chapter supports this idea. This assertion of ambiguous Greek pronouns can be discussed and debated at length. However, in the context of this question, let us assume Jesus is actually the personified Eternal Word of God. Furthermore, let us assume every theoretical detail of the Trinity. I often ask Trinitarians why God(Jesus) has a God(the Father) and the response is that the human _part_ of Jesus _has a_ God, but the divine _part_ of him _does not_ have a God because he is God. The common Trinitarian belief is that Jesus began to have a God when he took on flesh. He currently still has his flesh (now glorified) and is still a man. This Jesus then, is now and forever fully man and _not only_ fully God Almighty as he was eternally with the Father. This God-man _has_ a God now and forever who he will serve into eternity as high priest. The Risen Son is not a high priest to himself. Heb 2 >16 For indeed he does not give aid to angels, but he does give aid to the seed of Abraham. 17 Therefore, in all things ***he had to be made like his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful High Priest*** in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. 18 For in that he himself has suffered, being tempted, he is able to aid those who are tempted. Heb 7:20 > And it was not without an oath! Others became priests without any > oath, 21 but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him: > > “The LORD(YHWH) has sworn > and will not change his mind: > ***‘You are a priest forever.’***” Heb 8 >1 Now this is the main point of the things we are saying: We have such a High Priest, who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, 2 a **Minister** of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle which the Lord erected, and not man. > >3 For every high priest is **appointed to offer** both gifts and sacrifices. Therefore it is necessary that this One also have something to offer. 4 For if he were on earth, he would not be a priest, since there are priests who offer the gifts according to the law; 5 who serve the copy and shadow of the heavenly things, as Moses was divinely instructed when he was about to make the tabernacle. For He said, “See that you make all things according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.” 6 But now he has obtained a more excellent **ministry**, inasmuch as he is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises. Jesus was glorified and exalted beyond the angels... beyond every creature to ever exist. But this Eternal person, the *Logos*, seems to have been diminished in stature to that of a servant/minister of God (high priest) instead of his former status as fully God Almighty. **My questions**: 1. How do Trinitarians understand this change in stature and place of the *Logos* within the Kingdom of God? 2. How do Trinitarians make a case that his stature was not diminished, when formally he was not subordinate to anyone?

It has been asserted that the author of the Chinese alphabet could very well been knowledgeable of the accounts in Genesis 1-11--those that occurred prior to the division of peoples and languages at Babel. It is stated that many Chinese characters intrinsically reflect the peculiarities of the Genesis account. What is the nature of these characters? What is the evidence that would suggest that the author of the Chinese script was, in fact, familiar with the Genesis account? [See this as an example](https://answersingenesis.org/genesis/chinese-characters-and-genesis/)

Deuteronomy 10:17, "For the Lord your God is the God of gods and the Lord of lords, the great the mighty, and the awesome God who does not show partiality, nor take a bribe." Please reconcile Deuteronomy 10:17 with Revelation 17:14, "These will rage war against the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, BECAUSE He is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those who are with Him are the called and chosen and faithful." Who is the singular Lord of lords in heaven in this verse? Is it possible that the "SINGULAR" Lord of lords encapsulates both of them?

Articles of Faith/Articles of Religion are brief statements of belief of a particular denomination. Growing up as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints I only ever heard this in context of the LDS 13 Articles of Faith published in 1842. While attending a musical event (at a Baptist church?) I skimmed through a book and found that they had Articles of Faith too. Having never heard another Christian bring up Articles of Faith in conversation, I've since then looked up a variety of articles, here are a few: - 22 Articles of Religion: Wesleyan Church (1844)1 - 28 Articles of Faith: Bible Fellowship Church (founded 1858) - 25 Articles of Religion: Methodist Church (1784)2 The earliest Article of Religion I believe is Thirty-nine Articles: The Church of England (1571) Do any Christian denominations have more than 39 defined Articles of Religion? Do any have fewer than 13? 1 History of the Wesleyan Church 2 Britannica: Twenty-five Articles of Religion

One gets to read in [National Catholic Register](https://www.ncregister.com/blog/is-the-legend-true-did-jesus-write-a-letter-to-king-abgar) , the text of a letter alleged to have been written by Jesus in response to the letter from King Abgar of Edessa requesting the Lord to heal him : > Blessed are you who have believed although you have not seen me. For it is written concerning me that those who have seen me will not believe in me, and that those who have not seen me will themselves believe and shall be saved. But regarding what you wrote me, to come to you, I must fulfill all things for which I was sent, and, after thus fulfilling them, be taken up to Him who sent me. And when I have been taken up, I shall send you one of my disciples to heal your suffering and to give life to you and those with you.”. I wish to know if the Catholic Church has made any formal study on the said correspondence reported to have been made between King Abgar and Jesus ?

**Premise #1: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that sex is for procreation** Peter Turner has an excellent [answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/5316/was-onan-really-struck-dead-by-god-for-masturbating) to the question on Onan. In it, he suggests that Onan really was misusing sex, and that angers God. When I also consider priestly celibacy and the general nature of Roman teaching on contraception, masturbation, and other regulations around sex, it seems like the Roman church really wants to suggest that the beauty of sex is when it furthers the end of "being fruitful and multiply"ing. I'm probably not doing it justice, but it seems like procreation is the point of sex. Now, my question then, could be *mis*-read as antagonstic, but its not. I really do want to understand how these go together. Here's my conundrum - **Premise #2: The canonical *Song of Solomon* celebrates the passion of sex** The Song of Solomon clearly celebrates a sexual relationship between a man and a woman who dearly love each other. I know that some have historically tried to say that the Song of Solomon is Christ's love for his church, but I can't buy that with verses like these: >SOS 5:3 I have taken off my robe— must I put it on again? I have washed my feet— must I soil them again? 4 My beloved thrust his hand through the latch-opening; my heart began to pound for him. 5 I arose to open for my beloved, and my hands dripped with myrrh, my fingers with flowing myrrh, on the handles of the bolt. I find it very hard to read that and not think that is physical. (We're all grownups here, right?) The book goes on to warn us not to "arouse or awaken love, until it so desires, because love is as strong as death." (Its a common refrain). Clearly here the focus is on that passion. But, that passion is seemingly celebrated, and not necessarily because of the kids that result. It may be dangerous, like fire, but the two lovers aren't saying its a bad thing at all. **Question: How do these fit together?** So, the question in all sincerity is this - How do Romans read the Song of Solomon? How is it reconciled with the seeming Papal preference for purely procreative reproduction? Or, am I misreading Catholics here - maybe they're not nearly as stuffy as people make them out to be? The [Puritans were no prudes either](http://www.challies.com/quotes/the-puritans-and-sex) , and it would be nice to understand if a Roman could endorse "the joy of (marital) sex."