There are many people who see Isaiah 49 as Messianc, mainly because it mentions the servant as being a light for the gentiles, Isaiah 49:6(ESV) > he says: “It is too light a thing that you should be my servant > to raise up the tribes of Jacob > and to bring back the preserved of Israel; I will make you as a light for the nations, > that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth.” But in the verse before it states that, the servant was formed from the womb. Isaiah 49:5(ESV) > And now the Lord says, > he who **formed** me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob back to him; > and that Israel might be gathered to him— for I am honored in the eyes of the Lord, > and my God has become my strength— This seems like it is being stated that the servant was formed in the sense of creation in the womb. So what is going on here?

The Pope Francis stated in 2014 >When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so Does this statement come into conflict with the belief that God is omnipotent? Is the Christian God not all powerful?

Psalm 139:1-12 are typically understood throughout traditional Christianity as referring, at least in part, to God's omnipresence as well as His omniscience and omnipotence: > To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. O LORD, thou hast searched me, and known me. Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising, thou understandest my thought afar off. Thou compassest my path and my lying down, and art acquainted with all my ways. For there is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O LORD, thou knowest it altogether. Thou hast beset me behind and before, and laid thine hand upon me. Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it. Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or **whither shall I flee from thy presence?** If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me. If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me. Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee. And this is echoed elsewhere in the Bible, for example Jeremiah 23:23-24: > Am I a God at hand, saith the LORD, and not a God afar off? Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LORD. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD. From the LDS "Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual , Chapter 3: God the Father" I have gleaned the following: - “**God is** the only supreme governor and independent being in whom all fullness and perfection dwell; who is omnipotent, **omnipresent**, and omniscient; without beginning of days or end of life; and that in him every good gift and every good principle dwell; and that he is the Father of lights; in him the principle of faith dwells independently, and he is the object in whom the faith of all other rational and accountable beings center for life and salvation” (Joseph Smith, comp., Lectures on Faith, 10). This statement from Joseph Smith, that God is omnipotent, seems to be in accord with traditional Christianity. However, other statements gleaned from this same manual appear to be in opposition. It seems as though there is an understanding of God as possessing flesh and bone and being separate and distinct from two others in the "Godhead" while being united in purpose, attribute, and power: - God is a holy, perfected personage with a body of flesh and bones (see Moses 6:57; 7:35; D&C 130:22; Matthew 5:48). - Each member of the Godhead is physically separate and distinct from the others (see D&C 130:22; Matthew 3:16–17; Acts 7:55–56). - The members of the Godhead are united in Their attributes, power, and purpose (see John 17:20–21; D&C 20:28; 35:2; 2 Nephi 31:21; 3 Nephi 11:27). This additional information about God appears to lead to the statement from Bruce McConkie that God is not omnipresent in person but only in power and influence (same source as above): - “Though each God in the Godhead is a personage, separate and distinct from each of the others, yet they are ‘one God’ … , meaning that they are united as one in the attributes of perfection. For instance, each has the fulness of truth, knowledge, charity, power, justice, judgment, mercy, and faith. Accordingly they all think, act, speak, and are alike in all things; and **yet they are three separate and distinct entities. Each occupies space and is and can be in but one place at one time**, but each has power and influence that is everywhere present” (McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 319). How does LDS define omnipresence and how does that definition reflect or redefine what appears in Psalm 139 as actual presence everywhere, specifically verse 7 where God's face (pânı̂ym/presence) is in view? __________________________________________________________________________________________________ There is this related question but in light of the statements of Smith and McConkie I am unsure that the given answers are applicable here.

The reason for my question is there seems to be a change from what the scripture states as to what God told Adam about the same tree. I couldn't find where God specifically told Adam that touching it would kill him. Perhaps I'm not looking in the right place. Depending on the answer, I may have a secondary observation/conjecture and associated question.

Most groups of Christian faiths consider their beliefs and associated ethics are above anything the world can understand. Nevertheless they will condescend from their lofty and glorious faith and submit to rules of conduct created by essentially heathens as far as they know. For example, to some extent the pagan rules might discourage a high level of preachiness or other appearances of rude intolerance, if it is a platform serving as a kind of public square where all ideas are allowed expression. There may be a presumption of equality in them, for the sake of making such a "public square" feasible, *even though* most participants don't see any equality in their faith with other faiths at all. To some extent the American Constitution is a historical example of establishing similar guidelines of legal behavior, allowing religious views with extremely opposing faiths to co-express a common religious freedom of speech. Inside the closed doors of each church, a level of an appearance of intolerance and preachiness is arguably an essential part of their actual belief system. This means presenting the faith in a different way actually misrepresents it to some degree. After all, how could someone present what they believe to be the "very words of God", without at some point thinking that an "authoritative declaration" is the most appropriate means of communicating? So we have a potential dilemma. What is the biblical basis of submitting to the rules of a pagan platform when depositing within the answers the Word of God, where the answer is essentially recorded as a mere opinion that can be voted up/down by pagans as well as Christians? *Note*: I am a contributor to such a platform and I do think there is a biblical basis for doing so. **My question is: what is the basis.** I have not on my own thought of an answer, so far I just assumed that there is one, but find the question personally interesting to raise.

I was reading some publications jw.org online library about the Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs pertaining to the end of the world, such as this article from which I quote below snippet: > 5 What yet unseen event will take place next? Paul stated: “Whenever > it is that they are saying: ‘Peace and security!’ then sudden > destruction is to be instantly upon them.” The first phase of this > “sudden destruction” is the attack against “Babylon the Great,” the > world empire of false religion, also known as “the harlot.” (Rev. > 17:5, 6, 15) That attack against all forms of false religion, > including Christendom, is the start of the “great tribulation.” (Matt. > 24:21; 2 Thess. 2:8) For many, this event will come as a surprise. > Why? Because up to that point, the harlot will confidently view > herself as “a queen” who will “never see mourning.” But she will > suddenly discover that she has miscalculated her chances of survival. > She will be wiped out rather quickly, as if “in one day.”—Rev. 18:7, > 8. > > 6 God’s Word identifies the harlot’s attacker as a “wild beast” with > “ten horns.” A study of the book of Revelation shows that the wild > beast refers to the United Nations (UN). “The ten horns” represent all > present political powers that support this “scarlet-colored wild > beast.”* (Rev. 17:3, 5, 11, 12) How devastating will the attack be? > The nations of the UN will plunder the harlot’s wealth, expose her > real character, devour her, and “completely burn her.” Her destruction > will be final. What I wanted to know is, is this some modern idea among Jehovah's Witnesses that United Nations will attack religion? Or since when have they believed that this is what those events in the book of Revelation refer to?

**Edit**: The question refers only to the literal millennium view! Some background of my question: I have watched videos by some exegetes, who claim Jesus will never go out of the Temple in Jerusalem during His reign of 1000 years, once He has defeated all His enemies at the beginning. Some of the exegetes even claim Jesus will be visible only in form of [Shekhinah](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shekhinah) in the Temple. So I am wondering if all this is true. I would really prefer if we’d be able to have a cup of coffee in a local café during a conversation with Jesus. The following Bible verse gives me some hope: Matthew 26:29 >I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom. Could we else infer from the Scriptures what it will be like in the 1000 years kingdom in terms of (personal) interaction with Jesus?

Catholic Exorcist Father [Vincent Lampert](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Lampert) , in an [interview](https://youtu.be/_9xcAl0gg7w?t=1109) on the PBD Podcast, explained: > Rather than being critical of someone else, I would tend to want to be more positive about what I believe exorcism is. Because we talked about skepticism, an exorcist is trained to be a skeptic. I should be the very last person in the room to believe that somebody is truly dealing with extraordinary demonic activity. **Every other possible explanation needs to be exhausted. And that's the approach the Catholic Church takes**. That's why even in the United States we have a protocol that we follow, and **step number one of the protocol is for the person to have a psychiatric evaluation**. **Step two is to have a physical examination**, **because the church wants experts in the mental health field and in the medical sciences to weigh in** on what is happening or what this person believes is happening in their life. Do Protestants follow a similar protocol? --- For additional context, see my previous question https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/101721/61679

Where did St. Catherine of Siena say "Nothing great is ever achieved without much enduring. "?

I'm not sure about the book's title also. Here is a link to where you can get a PDF (it's public domain), where it's referred to as "Dialog of Catherine of Siena", but I've seen several alternatives. I've looked on Google and in the introduction to the book itself but I'm just finding dates related to her life. I want to know when people were first exposed to "Dialog", and what kind of medium was used.

John 1 describes in some detail Jesus calling his first five disciples - Andrew, Simon, Philip, Nathanael and presumably John. John 2 1-2 says that Jesus' mother was at the wedding and Jesus was there with his disciples. So there were six followers of Jesus at the wedding (his mother and five disciples), and six jars filled with the new wine. The passage here forms a beautiful contrast with Jeremiah 13; 12-14 where people are also referred to as jars of wine. In the Jeremiah passage the people described were the prophets, priests and the kings who sat on David's throne, as well as all the people of Jerusalem. They were all sentenced to destruction. At the wedding at Cana one man, who was a prophet, priest and the king who would sit on David's throne, filled jars with a wine of blessing instead of destruction. It was as if the old wine of God's judgement a ran out at the wedding, and was replaced with the new wine of His blessing. I wonder if this, the first sign that Jesus did, set the pattern for the rest of Jesus' ministry - he filled the 12, then the 70, then the 3,000 at Pentecost. And these people, like the jars of new wine filled to the brim at the wedding, (John 2:7) went on to share the new wine they carried with others, spreading the gospel of the Kingdom far and wide. Incidentally the amount of wine Jesus created (approximately 150 gallons) was enough to give 3,000 people a good measure. Could it be that Jesus was looking all the way to Pentecost when he created the wine? This all makes sense to me, but I've not seen this referenced anywhere else, so I would be curious to know if other people have found anything in church history like this?

At Luke 4:16-17 we read: " When he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, he went to the synagogue on the sabbath day, as was his custom. He stood up to read, and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him...." I would like to know what the relevance of a synagogue in day-to-day life of an average Jew was; and whether Jesus had formally been given authority to preach in the synagogue. What does the Catholic tell us on the subject ?

Many people assume that if they read the Book of Mormon they will get a good idea of LDS beliefs. However, the Book of Mormon teaches one God, not plural gods as in Mormonism. It mentions heaven and hell, not three degrees of glory. There are no temple marriage or secret temple ceremonies. It does not teach baptism for the dead, pre-existence of man or eternal progression and other ordinances. If the Book of Mormon is a restoration and another Testament of Jesus Christ, why are not these teachings in the Book of Mormon? Afterall, Joseph Smith said, "The Book of Mormon is "the most correct of any book on earth." (History of the Church, 4:461.) For the sake of clarity I will add the following site which explains all about ordinances in detail. Please note that at the end there are references given by the writer of the article. There is not one reference of any of these ordinances taught in the BoM. https://rsc.byu.edu/salvation-christ-comparative-christian-views/role-ordinances-church-jesus-christ-latter-day-saints

This question addresses the epistemological challenges of determining whether someone is possessed by demons. Belief in demon possession has to contend with skepticism from those who view it as a myth lacking scientific evidence (see the sources cited in the appendix of [this question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/101703/61679)) . Even among believers in demonic possession, there is often an acknowledgment of the need to rule out alternative natural explanations such as mental illness or fraud. For example, see the article [*As a psychiatrist, I diagnose mental illness. Also, I help spot demonic possession*](https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/07/01/as-a-psychiatrist-i-diagnose-mental-illness-and-sometimes-demonic-possession/) by Richard Gallagher. However, the Bible does not mention any cases where a mental health professional was consulted to confirm that an allegedly possessed individual was not simply experiencing a mundane psychological disorder. Jesus and the Apostles were able to discern possession directly, presumably using [discernment of spirits](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discernment_of_spirits) , without the need for intermediaries to rule out false positives. What is the biblical basis for requiring a psychiatrist to examine an individual before declaring them demon-possessed?

As a Catholic, I'm often baffled by other Christians who base their faith purely off personal interpretation of the Bible as the be-all-end-all proof for everything under the sun (which is what I mean by Sola Scriptura). I understand the need to figure out what's going on in the bible and the need to live your life according to wisdom of the prophets and saints and especially heed the words of Jesus. But where did the idea come from that everyone can interpret the bible for themselves? Is this just a common Catholic prejudice or a misunderstanding?

Within American evangelicalism a debate has recently been reignited on economic policy, and I've been astonished at the number of people saying that some or all taxation should be considered to be theft. This recent debate got started with a blog post by Rick Phillips on the Alliance of Confessing Evangelical's Reformation21 site, entitled ["Socialism Is Evil"](http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2016/02/socialism-is-evil.php) : > So, biblically speaking, why is socialism evil? ... Because socialism is a system based on stealing. The whole point of socialism is for the government to seize control of private property, mainly involving the proceeds of peoples' work, in order to give it to others. (Note the compulsory aspect of socialism, which so differs from voluntary forms of communalism.) This activity is the very thing pronounced as evil by the 8th Commandment: "You shall not steal" (Ex. 20:15). ... While there is a legitimate basis for government taxation, the simple taking of one's possessions in order to give them to others is not one of them. Socialism is evil because it inherently involves stealing. R. C. Sproul Jr [has written](http://rcsprouljr.com/blog/the-non-volunteer-state/) : > Now, in my political circles, there are plenty of hot-headed young men that love to make the claim, have as their own particular banner, “Taxation is theft.” I’m not sure what I think about that, I do believe certainly, at the very least, that any taxation above and beyond what is needed to do the biblically and constitutionally limited functions of government is in fact theft, but even if you don’t believe that, you have to recognize at least this, that taxation is done by force. That’s why it’s called taxation. That’s its defining quality. It is the government taking wealth from its citizens. You can say it’s not theft if you want, but it has in common with theft that you don’t have a choice. When a man comes up to you with a gun in his hand and he says “Your money or your life”, he doesn’t mean “I’m going to give you a choice. You can keep your life or you can keep your money.” There is no choice where you get to keep your money. If he takes your life, do you know what he’s going to do next? He’s going to take your money. He also [reportedly wrote](http://theweeflea.com/2016/02/23/is-the-church-capitalist-is-the-american-church-too-compromised-with-the-culture/) : > I wonder if the author would affirm that any tax can be theft. His argument that Jesus said to pay our taxes, means that taxes can’t be theft is odd. I wonder if, because Jesus says we should give our shirt to someone who takes our coat that taking coats cannot be theft. And in [a comments section on theweeflea.com](http://theweeflea.com/2016/02/22/is-socialism-satanic-why-has-the-alliance-of-confessing-evangelicals-gone-all-political/#comments) , several other people agreed and put forwards arguments that taxation was theft: > Socialism is theft, as all taxation is theft. Yes, Christ told us to render to Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and because of that, I do… but that doesn’t negate the act of taxation being theft just like “if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also” doesn’t negate the first slap from being assault. If I saw someone getting punched in the face, especially if they are a non-Christian, I wouldn’t tell him “That’s not assault, as Christ told you to turn your other cheek as well.” No, it’s assault and all taxation is theft. How are we to react? Just like Christ told us. But it doesn’t absolve the aggressor (Caesar or an abuser) of their sin. [](http://theweeflea.com/2016/02/22/is-socialism-satanic-why-has-the-alliance-of-confessing-evangelicals-gone-all-political/#comment-7091) > > Are you seriously saying that taxation is not theft, simply because Christ told His followers to pay Caesar? What about our non-believing neighbors that abhor paying taxes? I understand that Christ’s words are binding on my soul, they compel me, but my non-Christian neighbor doesn’t feel that way. Is it theft for him? Who will stick up for him? [](http://theweeflea.com/2016/02/22/is-socialism-satanic-why-has-the-alliance-of-confessing-evangelicals-gone-all-political/#comment-7097) > > So are taxes theft? Absolutely. We submit to paying those taxes only because the consequences of not paying them are worse. This is no different than a highway bandit that positions himself at the beginning of a route and demands all passers-by pay a toll in exchange for “safe passage” along the road. Is the bandit a thief? Or a champion of wealth redistribution? You are splitting hairs. [](http://theweeflea.com/2016/02/22/is-socialism-satanic-why-has-the-alliance-of-confessing-evangelicals-gone-all-political/#comment-7101) As an outsider to the American situation, from a country which must seem extremely socialistic to those who hold views such as these (because of course *only* socialists could support universal health care), this taxation-is-theft idea seems like a political ideology its adherents have unquestioningly accepted, which they then confused with their theology, and have then desperately looked for any proof texts they can find to support their position. But is this the case? Or is there a longer theological history and background to this economic policy? Can this position be traced back to before the modern libertarian ideology arose?

I have often heard it said that believers need to be members of a local church in order to be ‘accountable’. I am assuming all believers understand that they should regularly fellowship with a local church. My question is not about that. My question is from the scripture in what sense might this accountability mean? I am not sure the word accountable is actually used in the New Testament except that the whole world is accountable to God by the Law but I take it to mean in certain situations some form of answerable agreement of conduct, or something along that line is implied by various bible verses which make people chose the word ‘accountable’ as though people were accountants making some kind of record or enforcement of some basic standard. What does it actually mean? What are its limits? What sense does the scripture support or limit such a concept?

I know the seraphim, cherubs, and thrones have 3 sets of wings: According to Isaiah 6:1-8, the Seraphim are described as fiery six-winged beings. From the angelology wiki page. But, I've been reading about Michaelmas and found a picture of Michael, the Archangel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michaelmas#/media/File:St_James '_church,_Grimsby_(23493027445).jpg" class="img-fluid rounded" style="max-width: 100%; height: auto; margin: 10px 0;" loading="lazy"> from , and the wikipedia article here I think, I see 6 wings on Raphael and 6 on Michael but as we all know Archangels only have 1 set of wings?

Fr. Carlos Martins ([profile](https://www.catholic.com/profile/fr-carlos-martins) , [personal YouTube channel](https://www.youtube.com/@Fr.CarlosMartins)) , author of [The Exorcist Files](https://www.amazon.com/-/dp/B0BS8ZN4B2) , has made the following declarations in a recent interview entitled *[Famous EXORCIST Reveals His Worst CASE](https://youtu.be/IF0YS30hr5o)* : > So in the room, when an exorcism is occurring, there might be different signs that you see, like I said, inanimate objects moving, sudden fluctuations in temperature, bizarre bodily contortions on the part of the victim, and so forth. So, but something that you need to know, that your viewers need to know, that these, that such things are only done to scare the exorcist and his team. So, if I were to bring you into a room--I'm just talking as a thought experiment--if you were to be present at an exorcism, if I were to invite you to come along and be as an intercessor, you walk in the room and all of a sudden you see a chair starting to float in the air by itself. So that might raise your blood pressure up a little bit, right? Okay. It might make you a little bit apprehensive, okay? So my immediate counsel to you, so how I would instruct you before even going into the room, is I would say never ever ever run. Because the Devil is a minor reality. And if you ... the devil is more afraid of you, as a baptized Christian, as a Son of God the Father, than you are of him. If you run, then you've bought into the lie that he's trying to create. Right. So now let's say I brought you into the room, that chair floated, you made it through that experience. Let's say on another exorcism I come in, I bring you in again, and you see a chair floating again. Would you be as scared as you would be the first time? No. What about the 22nd time you see a chair floating? Would you be as scared as the first time? No. Absolutely you're right. And after time 122 you would be even less. In fact, you might not even put down your cup of coffee [...] Fr. Carlos has also said in a [video](https://youtu.be/QdF9w4-1_BY) on his channel: > You know, people are fixed on the devil's power. They're fixed on what he can do. And they ask me what have you seen, have you seen levitation, have you been hit with objects flying through the air, and I'll say ... yeah, I've seen all of these things. But you know what? They're not the scary stuff. When you see a chair levitate for the 83rd time it gets old, but confronting the mind of the devil, the source of every perversion, every sin, every wickedness, every bad thing, that's scary. Despite testimonies from exorcists like Fr. Carlos Martins, many skeptics remain unconvinced, demanding substantial evidence such as actual footage of an exorcism or an exorcism conducted in a controlled setting with comprehensive measuring and recording devices. How do Christians who believe in exorcisms respond to skeptics demanding convincing evidence? --- **APPENDIX - Quotes from skeptical sources** > After initially advertising his “skeptical” approach to evaluating claims of possession, Gallagher commits the common error of confusing skepticism with cynicism. He states, “while the American Psychiatric Association has no official opinion on these affairs, the field (like society at large) is full of unpersuadable skeptics and occasionally doctrinaire materialists who are often oddly vitriolic in their opposition to all things spiritual.” Unwillingness to entertain a remarkable claim (cynicism) differs greatly from demanding evidence that is as remarkable as the claim (skepticism). A skeptical thinker could, in principle, be persuaded to consider the possibility of demonic possession if the data were overwhelming. **Nothing that Gallagher offers as evidence for demonic possession, however, approaches the realm of the extraordinary**. > > Source: [Superstition Masquerading as Science](https://skepticalinquirer.org/2017/02/superstition-masquerading-as-science/) , by Dean McKay, Rachel Ammirati, Scott O. Lilienfeld > NOTE FROM TED: **While demonic possession is a myth unsupported by any scientific evidence**, several claims in this talk around dissociative identity disorder and mental health are only representative of the speaker’s personal understanding. As the speaker states, please consult a mental health professional and do not look to this talk for medical advice. > > Source: the description under the video [The myth of demonic possession | Hassaan Tohid | TEDxUAlberta](https://youtu.be/ZbyoDl37mXk)

I know very little about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints other than that in general they reject traditional Christianity, and think only through their new teaching, can people understand the truth, whatever that is. What are the central departures that they take from the gospel message believed by Christians from Nicea up until their time in the early 1800s?