The answer is found at Zechariah 12:10 where the Lord Himself is speaking. "And I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look upon Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him, like the bitter weeping over a first-born." The Lord in this verse identifies Himself as the one being pierced and slain. This has caused MUCH debate among Jewish scholars over the centuries even to the point of some changing the modern translations of the scriptures to obscure this fact. But that the issue itself was debated so long ago siting this scripture as written above is evidence that the scriptures as we have them are correct and there is valid reason to infer that YHWH himself is the one to be pierced. Now, my question is for Biblical Unitarians who deny the deity of Jesus Christ. What reason or reasons can you offer that dispute the plain meaning of Zechariah 12:10?

Does the Christian God experience any other emotion than the love of his creation and its creatures? If God experienced anger, for example, would that be a character flaw?

I'm looking for a Biblical response to this question. And it's not specific to bin Laden but I'm just using him as an example. I know Jesus said [love your enemies](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:43-48&version=NIV1984) . And [Paul even showed how this can be a form of revenge](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2012:20&version=NIV1984) . But I can't help but wonder if a Christian could at least be relieved or rejoice that the Bin Ladens and Hitlers of the world were killed.

Isaiah 6:1, "In the year of King Uzziah's death, I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, lofty and exalted with the train of His robe filling the temple." This is confirmed by the Apostle John at John 12:41, "These things Isaiah said, because he spoke of Him." At John 12 Jesus is addressing the Jews and John says at John 12:36, "These things Jesus spoke, and He departed and hid Himself from them." Vs37, But though He had performed so many signs before them, yet they were not believing Him; vs38, that the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spoke, "Lord, who has believed our report? And to has the arm of the Lord been revealed? vs39, For this cause they could not believe, for Isaiah said again, Vs40, "He has blinded their eyes, and He hardened their heart; Lest they see with their eyes, and perceive with their heart, and be converted, and I heal them." The verb Isaiah used for "saw" in Isaiah 6:1 is (ra'ah). In the qal, it refers to the act of seeing in the literal sense, to see with the eyes (as opposed to, for example "machazeh," which is the act or event of an ecstatic "vision.) In referring to this event, John uses the Greek word (eidon), also a verb referring to the act of seeing with the eyes in the natural sense. We know that God the Father is invisible, "whom no man hath seen, nor can see" (1 Timothy 6:16). He is transcendent and lives in unapproachable light (1 Timothy 6:16). But the Son is "the image of the invisible God" (Colossians 1:15). Thus the one whom Isaiah "saw" in the literal sense with his eyes is the one whom he explicitly identified as "YHWY", the same one whose glory he saw according to John at John 12:41. Jesus Himself makes this clear at John 12:45, "He who beholds Me beholds the One who sent Me."

> In the year of King Uzzah's death, I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, lofty and exalted with the train of His robe filling the temple. Vs2, Seraphim stood above Him and at vs3 one called out to another and said, "Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord of hosts, The whole earth is full of His glory. > > Vs5, "Then I said, "Woe is me, for I am ruined! Because I am a man of unclean lips, For my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts." The verb Isaiah used for "saw" in Isaiah 6:1 is (ra'ah). it refers to the act of seeing in the literal sense, to see with the eyes (as opposed to, for example, "machazeh", which is the act or event of an ecstatic "vision)" This event is backed up by the Apostle John at John 12:41. "These things Isaiah said, because he saw His glory, and he spoke of Him." John, in referring to this event uses the Greek word (eidon)--also a verb referring to the act of seeing with the eyes in the natural sense.

Is there a study that gathered accounts of healing under scientific scrutiny? **What is meant by healing?** Healing in this context means a person who had a medically documented sickness was healed in a Christian setting and was declared medically healthy within 48 hours. I like how Ken Graham put it: "The miraculous healing [...] need to be **spontaneous, instantaneous and complete healing**". I also think the criteria laid out at [The miracles of Lourdes](https://www.lourdes-france.org/en/the-miracles-of-lourdes/) also bring it to the point well. Quote: >1. The 1st criterion is that the disease is serious, with an unfavorable prognosis. >2. Secondly, the disease must be known and recorded by medicine. >3. Thirdly, this disease must be organic, lesional, that is to say, there must be objective, biological, radiological criteria, everything that currently exists in medicine; this means that even today we will not recognize cures of pathologies without precise objective criteria, such as psychological, psychiatric, functional, nervous diseases, etc.
*(this does not mean that these diseases cannot be cured, but according to the criteria of the Church, they will not be recognized as miracles in the current state of affairs).* >4. Fourthly, there must not have been any treatment to which the cure could be attributed.
*(I would be a bit more lenient and say, there should not be a treatment that can work faster than a few weeks)* >5. The 5th criterion concerns the timing of the cure itself: recovery must be sudden, instantaneous, immediate, and without convalescence. >6. Finally, after the cure, there are two additional criteria: it must not simply be a regression of symptoms but a return of all vital functions, and finally, it must not simply be a remission but a cure, i.e. lasting and definitive. **What is meant by scientific scrutiny?** With scientific scrutiny I mean the following: - confirmation bias is accounted for (meaning a trusted party beyond the Christian entity in question has gathered/verified the data or at least can verify the data) - other potential biases are accounted for - the methodology is transparent - the data is complete (but can be anonymized) meaning that every account can be verified by a third party. E.g. X-ray of a broken bone and X-ray of healed broken bone with dates. - Basically, if anyone reads the paper/data, it shouldn't be easy to refute. **Not a replicable experiment/trial** What I do not mean is a replicable experiment, because miracles can only happen when, where, and on who God decides to perform a miracle. Mark 8:11-12 also makes clear that God does not like to be demanded or manipulated into doing miracles: > 11 The Pharisees came and began to argue with him, seeking from him a sign from heaven to test him. 12 And he sighed deeply in his spirit and said, “Why does this generation seek a sign? Truly, I say to you, no sign will be given to this generation.” Also, more scientific reasons why trials don't work here are laid out in a study on the effect of prayer, [Prayer and healing: A medical and scientific perspective on randomized controlled trials](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2802370/) . In essence, the scientific method seeks to find a process/method and control all variables of influence. However, in the case of healing one variable is the whim of God that cannot be controlled. So why the approach I laid out? Well, I don't want to find a Christian method for healing, but want to prove that the phenomenon of healing in Christianity exists. **Why the previous Q&A here, might not answer the question** I've read the answers to this question: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/82583/are-there-or-have-there-been-christian-healing-ministries-that-have-documented-h but my problem is that the sources are somewhat old (I skimmed through and didn't see any account later than 1990.) and I cannot verify if those 70 cases of Lourdes were in fact healed. What I mean is that one cannot deduce from a name, name of ailment, date, and Diocese that healing has occurred. (Referencing the table Ken Graham provided [The Cures at Lourdes which have been recognised as miraculous by the Church ](http://www.miraclehunter.com/marian_apparitions/approved_apparitions/lourdes/downloads/lourdes_cures.pdf)) . What I need is not a name but proof of ailment and proof of the absence of ailment within a reasonable timeframe, proof that the healing occurred in a Christian setting (any denomination is fine), and a date for each. Let me be clear: I am not looking for single testimonies but a statistic that aggregated, verified testimonies, and made each testimony verifiable.

According to [Enchiridion Indulgentiarum](https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/tribunals/apost_penit/documents/rc_trib_appen_doc_20020826_enchiridion-indulgentiarum_lt.html) , a plenary indulgence can normally be granted only once per day (Normae de Indulgentiis No. 18 - § 1) unless the believer is at the point of death (§ 2). How is it determined when the next day starts for the purposes of gaining a new plenary indulgence? For example, if (this is an extreme example to illustrate my question) Bob gains a plenary indulgence at 11:59 PM on May 30, can he obtain another plenary indulgence at 12:01 AM on May 31 or does he have to wait until 11:59 PM on May 31 to get another? Similarly, if Bob gains a plenary indulgence at noon on May 30 and then takes a one hour flight westbound across the International Date Line to a place where it's already May 31, can he get another one immediately or does he have to wait 23 more hours? Yes, I know, one can gain unlimited partial indulgences a day and an otherwise plenary indulgence which fails to meet all the criteria for its reception drops down to a partial one, so Bob's efforts would not be completely wasted, but I'm curious if this is discussed anywhere. - Are days reckoned according to local law and custom (i.e. the civil time zone and calendar date)? This would mean, for example, that if the Ruritanian Parliament passes a law on January 1 at 7 AM making it immediately and legally January 2, Catholics in Ruritania can go out immediately and get another plenary indulgence even if they just got one an hour ago. - Do days begin and end at astronomical midnight at the location where a person is currently present, without regard to local custom, law, or time zone designation? - Are days reckoned per Old Testament practice as beginning at sunset rather than midnight, and one must wait until sunset to get another plenary indulgence, and it doesn't matter if sunset is one minute away or eleven hours and 59 minutes away? - Does the granting of a plenary indulgence have a strict cool-down period of 24 hours as measured by a stopwatch? If there is a more general (not explicitly tied to indulgences) teaching in Catholicism or Canon Law on the definition of "once per day" or "daily" that could reasonably be understood to apply to this situation, I would accept that as an answer. For some background to this question, there are a fairly large number of posts on our sister site Mi Yodea (and in Judaism in general) on the exact nature of the beginning, ending, and succession of days and how civil time zone changes, rapid long-distance travel, the International Date Line, and even travel into space affects time-bound commandments that must be observed on a specific date or day of the week. I'm curious as to whether Catholicism has anything similar.

If the [Bible story of the great flood](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_flood_narrative) is true, then unless the flood did not kill all human and animal life other than the occupants of the ark, is it Christian belief that all human cultures of the earth such as those in Mongolia, China, Southeast Asia, India, Pakistan and the West are also descendants of Noah and his sons? Making us *all* the chosen people of God? **How does the Christian faith reconcile this problem?** Or are we all descendants of the [Mitochondrial Eve](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve) as genetic science has determined?

Genesis 32:27-28 >**27** So He said to him, “What is your name?” He said, “Jacob.” **28** And He said, “Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel; for you have struggled with God and with men, and have prevailed.” Romans 9:20 >But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? God gives Jacob a new name, Israel. Israel becomes not just the name of the patriarch but of the nation of God's chosen people. The meaning of the name Israel can be translated as struggles with God. The “struggles with God” meaning of Israel can be contrasted with the meaning of Islam, “submission to the will of God.” A general question – **what is the significance of the name Israel? Does God allow us to struggle or merely submit?** More specifically, **how is God's encounter with Jacob in Genesis 32 addressed within the framework of monergism vs. synergism?** Even more specifically, **how do Genesis 32:28 and Romans 9:20 square with each other?** Is Paul's question only rhetorical, who are you to question God? Is not the answer within the name of Israel itself? God chose this people knowing full well they are stiff-necked. To present a crude analogy-- are we God's children or God's pets? For children, part of earning responsibility is the sum of our choices. Even with a dog, it might be docile or spirited. God appears to appreciate believers with a bit of spirit. Maybe it is by wrestling with God that our ultimate love, fear, and worship of God are most sincere.

> The first thing to note is that forgiveness of a sin is separate from punishment for the sin. Through sacramental confession we obtain forgiveness, but we aren't let off the hook as far as punishment goes. That's a quote from Catholic Online's article on indulgences . I've never heard forgiveness spoken about in this way. Even the site's tag wiki for forgiveness specifically includes release from punishment. I know this question is similar, but its answers don't cover a Catholic view. The only well-sourced answer explains a Lutheran stance. If God's forgiveness does not spare one from punishment, then what is it? Does this mean that the sacrament of confession alone does not spare you from punishment? Where does the Catholic Church get this distinction? Is there a biblical basis? Is it part of sacred tradition? Did a council decide it? --- On another note, I learned while researching for this question that anyone who has completed the three prerequisites for an indulgence may gain one by participating on Christianity.SE: > 20. Christian Doctrine. Partial indulgence to those who take part in teaching or learning Christian doctrine.

In [this answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/19372/31636) , it is mentioned that the times listed for various indulgences > corresponds *not* to that amount of time off Purgatory, *but* to a remission equivalent to what one would get from performing "old-school" penance for that duration. The poster quoted a specific example of such an indulgence: > An indulgence of three hundred days is granted to all the Faithful who read the Holy Gospels at least a quarter of an hour.... 13 December, 1898. LEO XIII. Doing the math, this results in the ratio of the effectiveness of this Bible reading indulgence over "old-school" penance being 28,800:1, a truly staggering gain. This makes me wonder what was really involved in old-style penance, which apparently was cosmically super-ineffective compared to 19th century indulgences. What was actually involved in this "old-school" or old-style penance? To be clear, I'm not asking for an analysis of penance or indulgence calculations or equivalencies, but in what a person doing "old-school" penance actually did. What a person does to obtain a modern Indulgence is pretty well defined - say this prayer 10 times, read the Bible for 15 minutes, wear this medallion for a month, pray at least 30 minutes at this shrine on Christmas, etc. Ken Graham's mention of "Some indulgences in the 'old days' carried the phrase as being equivalent of doing a 40 day fast of quarantine." is hinting at what I am asking. What would be involved in *doing* a fast of quarantine? I know you have to *fast*, but how strict is that and what specific rules must be followed (e.g. things one is permitted to do, things one is forbidden from doing, serious violations that invalidate the penance or reset it back to zero days)? Suppose (hypothetically) I went back in time to the days of "old-school" penance and went to confess to a priest, who advised me to do 40 days of penance. Being an ignorant 21st century time traveler, I ask him, "I've never done that, what is it I actually *do*?". Would any of the following be remotely close to what he would say? - Do I have to put on a sackcloth robe and go live in the woods for 40 days, surviving on leaves and mushrooms? - Do I get assigned a set of prayers to say or Bible verses to read for each of the 40 days, but otherwise go about my life normally? - Do I have to do self-flagellation each day for 40 days? - Do I go live at a designated Penance Center, which is kind of like a modern Retreat Center, but, y'know, harsher? - Do I just mope around feeling sorry for myself for 40 days and make sure to drink fewer than two alcoholic beverages a day, except on Tuesdays, when I can have three as long as I avoid red meat for the rest of the week? - Something completely different? Whether or not "old-school" penance is still done in modern Catholicism (e.g. can be assigned by a priest, has some sort of spiritual effect, etc.) is a completely separate question that someone could ask, but it's not this question.

Among the different eschatological schemes in Christian theology, I perceive that amillennialism and historical premillennialism do not differ in what they believe will happen before the second coming of Christ. (Or at least, they do not have to. I know that there exist some disagreements about futurist vs. preterist understandings of Matt. 24 or about the gathering of Israel in Rom. 11, but it does not seem to be the case that the interpretations of these passages separate premillennialist from amillennialist in general.) Postmillennialism and dispensational premillennialism on the other hand differ from one another and the aforementioned views in that they assert a different timeline of pre-Second Coming events, with postmillennialism looking forward to a millennium of the triumphant church and dispensationalism looking forward to a pre-tribulational rapture (and a very different understanding of that tribulation than would be found in other views). I am wondering what difference does the distinction between historical premillennialism and amillennialism make, practically speaking? Does it have any effect on how Christians will conduct themselves in the present age? I can see that, if we look forward to different events *prior* to Christ's return, this may affect the way we live our lives now, in order that we might be prepared to face those circumstances. However, I do not see how the difference between historical premillennialists and amillennialists who agree on those issues would lead to any different practice of the faith in the present time.

Given the scripture which says: > But what does it say? "The Word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart--that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved. for with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. For the Scriptures says, "Whoever believes in Him will not be disappointed. For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for THE SAME LORD is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call upon Him; for "Whoever will call upon the name of the Lord will be saved." > > Romans 10:8-13 and > to the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call upon the name of OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, their Lord and ours. > > 1 Corinthians 1:2, Since Jehovah's Witnesses explicitly teach that Jesus Christ is "a god" who was created, on what basis is he able to save billions of people by calling upon "a god"? How can you claim that you are saved by way of "a god"?

A friend who is studying theology asked me if it was rude of Jesus to call his own mother 'woman' when he was about to perform his first miracle at Cana of Galilee. *John 2:4* >“Woman, why do you involve me?” Jesus replied. “My hour has not yet come.” Why did Jesus call her 'woman' and not 'mother'?

Societies (churches, cities, nations) have guardian angels, but does every marriage or family have its own guardian angel? Marriages and families are societies, too. Has any Catholic angelologist (Father or Doctor of the Church or prominent Catholic theologian) discussed this?

Building upon my previous question https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/101680/61679 and the excellent [answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/101815/61679) by GratefulDisciple, I would like to delve deeper into how Reformed Protestants understand and respond to the concept of [Christian mysticism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mysticism) . This concept has a long Patristic and Medieval tradition present in both the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, and is also evident in more recent movements such as [Pentecostalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentecostalism) and the [Charismatic movement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charismatic_movement) . To keep the scope narrow, I would like this question to focus solely on **Christian mysticism** as traditionally understood by the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, leaving the discussion of the more recent Pentecostal and Charismatic movements to a [separate question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/101848/61679) . Do Reformed Protestants share an appreciation for the mystical aspects of Christian spirituality as traditionally understood by the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches?

Does the following verse imply that your salvation can be lost? It does not say, "... unless you've accepted Jesus" **1 Corinthians 6:9-10 NIV** > Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of > God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters > nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the > greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the > kingdom of God. I am specifically asking for an answer from a "keeping salvation" apologist.

I am a theistic skeptic, but if I have a theistic virtue I do not demand God's grace (whatever it is I expect or need from Him). Is this a virtue? Or Is this a vice?

Building upon my previous question https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/101680/61679 and the excellent [answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/101815/61679) by GratefulDisciple, I would like to delve deeper into how Reformed Protestants understand and respond to the concept of [Christian mysticism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mysticism) . This concept has a long Patristic and Medieval tradition present in both the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, and is also evident in more recent movements such as [Pentecostalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentecostalism) and the [Charismatic movement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charismatic_movement) . To keep the scope narrow, I would like this question to focus solely on **Pentecostalism and the Charismatic movement**, leaving the discussion of Christian mysticism as traditionally understood by the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches to a [separate question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/101844/61679) . In addition, I think in this context it is worth mentioning Daniel Castelo's insightful book, [Pentecostalism as a Christian Mystical Tradition](https://www.amazon.com/Pentecostalism-as-Christian-Mystical-Tradition/dp/0802869564) , which GratefulDisciple's answer also references. Castelo's book argues for reinterpreting Pentecostalism as a mystical tradition within the broader historical framework of Christian mysticism. The book's synopsis states: > *Informed reassessment of Pentecostalism as a mystical tradition of the* > *church universal* > > Pentecostalism, says Daniel Castelo, is commonly framed as > "evangelicalism with tongues" or dismissed as simply a revivalist > movement. In this book Castelo argues that Pentecostalism is actually > best understood as a Christian mystical tradition. > > Taking a theological approach to Pentecostalism, Castelo looks > particularly at the movement's methodology and epistemology as he > carefully distinguishes it from American evangelicalism. Castelo > displays the continuity between Pentecostalism and ancient church > tradition, creating a unified narrative of Pentecostalism and the > mystical tradition of Christianity throughout history and today. > Finally, he uses a test case to press the question of what the > interactions between mystical theology and dogmatics could look like. With all that said, what are the views of Reformed Protestants on Pentecostalism and the Charismatic movement?

Do any people in the Bible self identify as atheists? Or are they all theists, differing in *which* god they follow? Apparently at least some atheists existed, since David had heard of them: > The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” [Psalm 14:1](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+14:1&version=NIV1984) and [Psalm 53:1](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+53:1&version=NIV1984) .