Follow up question to https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/101638/where-can-i-find-a-jehovahs-witnesses-version-of-a-hebrew-interlinear-old-testa

>“for whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything.” 1 John‬ ‭3:20‬ ‭ESV‬‬ Considering that God knows everything, that means he would know the future. How do open theists respond to this?

I've heard it stated that the founder of Jehovah's Witnesses, Charles Taze Russel, was a Freemason (33rd Degree) which may have been partially responsible for his interest in collaborating bible prophecy with the pyramids, as well as the symbolism he used in some of his books. There seems to be arguments both for and against this, both convincing. Is there any solid historical proof of as to whether or not this claim is true?

According to Baptist belief is it possible for a true believer in their ranks to become possessed by demons? If so what does the Baptist church do to help such a person? This closed question asked a broader version of this question

**Looking for sources of Mediaeval church architecture that shows and\or explains hard to find architectural church additions?** I can recall visiting some old Medieval churches while in France and one parish church in particular had a sort of exterior door that opened to an outdoor pulpit that could only be accessed from the interior of the church. It was explained to me that in times of old this was used by the ***"porter"*** or other church ecclesiastic to announce the weekly news and events after mass on Sundays and other major ecclesiastical celebrations. I would like to know the name of this particular addition to the church. I was told the name some years ago, but cannot recall it. Perhaps it was something along the lines of the Latin word: ***Praeconium***. This should not be confused with the ***Praeconium Pascale*** or **Easter Exsultet** which was proclaimed from the pulpit. If a source of this piece (type) of Medieval architecture has a name I would greatly appreciate it, even if it is in Latin only. This architectural design should not be confused with what was known as the ***ambo*** or the wooden pulpit was can still be easily be found in many churches today. > In Western Catholic Churches, the stand used for readings and homilies is formally called the ***ambo***. Despite its name, this structure usually more closely resembles a lectern than the ambon of the Eastern Catholic Churches. The readings are typically read from an ambo in the sanctuary, and depending on the arrangement of the church, the homily may be delivered from a raised pulpit where there is one. [Pulpit](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulpit) The pulpit of the Notre-Dame de Revel in Revel, Haute-Garonne, France. If one can find other unique styles of Church additions from the Middle Ages, I would be equally interested also. In case this is unobtainable, I would would consider accepting a well defined sources that had other information that is explicitly explaining hard to find historical church additions.

**Question:** What did St. Thomas Aquinas do for fun? We know that he was a brilliant mind who wrote many good works . However, even he himself says that games and having fun are good for one's soul (I am not sure these are exact words, but he said something in that style). There is this quote attributed to him > Now this relaxation of the mind from work consists on playful words or deeds. Therefore it becomes a wise and virtuous man to have recourse to such things at times. So, what was he doing to have fun, how did he play? If we do not have information, is there any educated guess? How did Dominicans, in general, have fun in those times?

Actually me and my girlfriend are in a relationship from 7 months. But the problem is we are from different religions. We can't lose eachother. As I know I worship the True God Jesus. According to the bible, Can i Ask God to Reveal Himself to her, Change her and save her so I can marry her? Can it be true??? Does the bible approve this kinda prayer?

As far as I know, the Christian Faith is that Jesus was the son of God and God's incarnation of Himself on earth. Jesus died and suffered on the cross to account for the sins of Man, who are God's Creation. Was this because God had Created Man with flaws and realised His punishment and judgement of man for those flaws was unjust and he should take the rap for them? Does God plan to make a perfect new world where He wouldn't be judging and punishing man, for man's flaws, as is, in this world we occupy ?

> Polytheism is the belief in, and often worship of, multiple deities or spirits, which are usually assembled into a pantheon of gods and goddesses, along with their own religious sects and rituals. Polytheism is a type of theism. Within theism, it contrasts with monotheism, the belief in a singular God who is, in most cases, transcendent. In religions that accept polytheism, the different gods and goddesses may be representations of forces of nature or ancestral principles; they can be viewed either as autonomous or as aspects or emanations of a creator deity or transcendental absolute principle (monistic theologies), which manifests immanently in nature (panentheistic and pantheistic theologies). Polytheists do not always worship all the gods equally; they can be in monolatrists or kathenotheists, specializing in the worship of one particular deity only or at certain times (respectively). The recognition of the existence of multiple gods and goddesses, however, does not necessarily equate to the worship of all the deities of one or more pantheons, as the believer can either worship them as a whole, or concentrate only on a specific group of deities, determined by various conditions such as the believer's occupation, tastes, personal experience, family tradition, etc. It is also possible to worship a single deity, considered supreme, without ruling out the existence of other gods. This religious position has been called henotheism, but some prefer to call it monolatry. Although the term "henotheism" is controversial, it is recognized by scholars that the worship of a single God accompanied by belief in other deities maintains the principle of polytheism. - Wikipedia In the following article, quoted in part, the claim that the LDS Church is polytheistic is denied: > Latter-day Saints are not polytheists in any reasonable sense of the term that does not also exclude most other Christians who deny the Modalist heresy - fairlatterdaysaints.org A distinction was attempted by Apostle Orson Pratt that, although there have been, are, and will be an unknown number of Gods as the process of begetting and deification continues there is only one God (principle of truth, light, and knowledge) and this God, often personified but who is no actual being, inhabits or may inhabit an unknown number of "temples" which are also referred to as Gods. The God of the Bible, the Heavenly Father, then, is one of these "temples" as is the Son now and someday so shall all who achieve or inherit Christ-likeness. Additionally, Heavenly Father once was a man such as Jesus was and became God the being (the temple housing God the principle) at some past point just as Jesus did. This opinion was opposed and ultimately excluded from official LDS teaching, primarily on the grounds that Pratt's conception of God/(s) having reached a condition of complete knowledge (omniscience proper) conflicted with then President Young's insistence that God/(s) knowledge eternally increases. Neither ever wavered from the doctrine that an unknowable number of Gods exist. The definitions appear widely variant however with Pratt's Gods having arrived at perfect knowledge and Young's Gods forever perfecting knowledge. One of the denials of polytheism appears to hinge upon acknowledging the existence of multiple Gods while at the same time only worshiping one of them. This seems to fall within the category of henotheism which, according to the Wikipedia article quoted above, does not fall outside the lines of polytheism. Monotheism claims that there is only one God anywhere (multiple universes or not); it speaks of ontological being rather than unity between beings. It allows for the existence of other beings who may claim to be God but does not allow for them to be true. The LDS claim to monotheism seems to appeal to the oneness of the various Gods while maintaining the insistence that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct beings. Of the unknowable number of Gods which exist (unknowable because they are outside of our universe and no revelation of them is given) there are at least 3 distinct beings who are each God. To Latter-day Saints, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are 3 distinct beings, and these members of the Godhead have perfect unity in purpose and plan. Our worship goes in one and only one direction. What do LDS adherents worship, the unity between the Gods or the distinct God's themselves? If it is 1 of 3 distinct God's who are but some of many, how then are they not polytheist? If it is the unity between the Gods, how then are they not pantheists (Pantheist belief does not recognize a distinct personal god, anthropomorphic or otherwise, but instead characterizes a broad range of doctrines differing in forms of relationships between reality and divinity.)? ___________________________________________________________________________ Note - A significant edit has been made to this question on the basis of comments and further research. I have endeavored to remove a quotation that appeared to be official LDS teaching but was not without obliterating the heart of the question itself. Apologies if some answers are invalidated by this action.

Courts have a variety of oaths that may invoke deity: - I do swear in the name of God that what I shall state shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth - I swear by Almighty God that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth - You do solemnly state that the testimony you may give in the case now pending before this court shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Some people outside of court may make an oath to another invoking God to show their sincerity. - As God is my witness - I swear to God that.... What does the bible teach about making/keeping oaths (especially those that invoke God/Jehovah/Almighty)? Related Questions: - [Swear to tell the truth 'so help me God'](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/3730/22319) - Why are Thighs important? Clarification: I'm not asking why someone may swear an oath (in court or not), just what does the bible say about swearing oaths that invoke God?

The monthly prayer intentions of Pope Francis are found, for example, [*here*](https://www.popesprayer.va/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/ENG-INTENZIONI-DI-PREGHIERA-DEL-SANTO-PADRE-2024-DEF-1.pdf) . QUESTION: Have the monthly prayer intentions of previous Popes been published somewhere, and if so, where may I find them? I am most interested in those of Ven. Pope Pius XII and his predecessors.

Claim: The phrase “call on/upon the name” seems to be a pointer to the true God, and if that phrase bears such significance throughout all of the Bible, then Jesus has to be God. From searching "call on/upon the name" throughout the Bible via biblegateway.com, all instances of the phrase in the Old Testament are found in twenty-four passages listed here . As part of this list, the following passages show how the phrase was used (from hereon, any emphasis in quoted Scripture is added): >"To Seth also a son was born, and he called his name Enosh. At that time people began to **call upon the name of the LORD**." (Gen 4:26) >"Oh *give thanks to the LORD*; **call upon his name**; *make known his deeds* among the peoples!" (1 Chr 16:8) >"Then I **called on the name of the LORD**: “O LORD, I *pray, deliver* my soul!”" (Ps 116:4) >"Correct me, O LORD, but in justice; not in your anger, lest you bring me to nothing. *Pour out your wrath on the nations that know you not, and* on the peoples that **call not on your name**, for they have devoured Jacob; they have devoured him and consumed him, and have laid waste his habitation." (Jer 10:24-25) >"“I **called on your name, O LORD**, from the depths of the pit; you heard my *plea*, ‘Do not close your ear to my *cry for help*!’" (Lam 3:55-56) >"And it shall come to pass that everyone who **calls on the name of the LORD** shall be *saved*" (Joel 2:32a) >"And I [the LORD] will put this third [of sheep] into the fire, and *refine them* as one refines silver, and *test them* as gold is tested. They will **call upon my name**, and I will answer them. I will say, ‘They are my people’; and they will say, ‘*The LORD is my God*.’”" (Zech 13:9) These seven passages represent the overall use of the phrase as a variety of actions given the writers’ intents and/or situation at hand. Nevertheless, all instances of the phrase in these passages and the rest of the twenty-four have one thing in common: their reference to the LORD, with the exception of one passage in which the phrase sometimes refers to Baal. This exception in regards to Baal, however, brings to light another meaning to "call on/upon the name," as is found in 1 Kings 18:24-28,36-39: > [Elijah said to the Israelites who have all wandered away from the LORD and to the prophets of Baal and of Asherah, "] 24 And you **call upon the name of your god**, and I will **call upon the name of the LORD**, and *the God who answers by fire, he is God*.” And all the people answered, “It is well spoken.” 25 Then Elijah said to the prophets of Baal, “Choose for yourselves one bull and prepare it first, for you are many, and **call upon the name of your god,** but put no fire to it.” 26 And they took the bull that was given them, and they prepared it and **called upon the name of Baal** *from morning until noon, saying, “O Baal, answer us!” But there was no voice, and no one answered.* And they limped around the altar that they had made. 27 And at noon Elijah mocked them, saying, “Cry aloud, for he is a god. Either he is musing, or he is relieving himself, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and must be awakened.” 28 And they cried aloud and cut themselves after their custom with swords and lances, until the blood gushed out upon them. 36 *And at the time of the offering of the oblation, Elijah the prophet came near and said, “O LORD*, God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, let it be known this day that you are God in Israel, and that I am your servant, and that I have done all these things at your word. 37 *Answer me, O LORD, answer me, that this people may know that you, O LORD, are God, and that you have turned their hearts back.” 38 Then the fire of the LORD fell and consumed the burnt offering and the wood and the stones and the dust, and licked up the water that was in the trench.* 39 And when all the people saw it, they fell on their faces and said, “*The LORD, he is God; the LORD, he is God.*” Here, we see both parties call upon the name of who they each believed in, and it is no surprise that calling on the name of Baal proves Baal to be a false god, while the LORD proves to everyone that He is God in response to the calling upon His name. From this pivotal moment on, the Israelites as a group return to believing in the proven God that is the LORD. This challenge to determine the real God from the fake, then, brings about a significant meaning to the phrase in question — an invocation specifically intended for the true God of all creation, an invocation that has been tried and proven to mean as such. Therefore, this passage agrees with the rest of the twenty-four passages in that "call on/upon the name" is a phrase exclusively pointing to the true God being the LORD throughout all of the Old Testament. (**NOTE**: after double checking the search, I found a second apparent exception to the phrase in Isaiah 44:5; added to the list above. The ESV translation of the passage reads, "This one will say, ‘I am the LORD’s,’ another will **call on the name** of Jacob, and another will write on his hand, ‘The LORD’s,’ and *name himself by the name* of Israel.”" Here, the phrase points to Jacob, but other translations vary in the section in question — "others will call themselves by the name of Jacob" (NIV), "another shall [/will] call himself by the name of Jacob" (JKV, NKJV, ASV, HCSB), "another will use the name of Jacob" (CSB), etc. — which can be seen here . With this, coupled with the remaining context in verse 5, one can understand the section to mean that the subject takes on the name Jacob as its own. Due to this and the varying word choice resulting from the process of translation, this exception can be ignored, and the claim made in the previous paragraph remains true.) If that is the case, then surely all instances of "call on the name" in the New Testament should point only to God, yet this doesn't appear to be so. All instances of "call on the name" can be found in six passages: Acts 2:21; Acts 22:14-16; Rom 10:13; Acts 9:13-17; Acts 9:20-22; 1 Cor 1:1-3. Of the six passages, the first three direct the phrase arguably to either God or Jesus, while the remaining three, either explicitly or by context and without challenge like that of 1 Kings 18, direct the phrase only to Jesus. Let's look at the remaining three passages: >"*But Ananias answered, “Lord,* I have heard from many about this man, how much evil he [Saul] has done to your saints at Jerusalem. And here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who **call on your name.**” But *the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name* before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel. For *I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name.*” So Ananias departed and entered the house. And laying his hands on him he said, “Brother Saul, *the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road by which you came has sent me* so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.”" (Acts 9:13-17) >"And immediately *he [Saul] proclaimed Jesus in the synagogues, saying, “He is the Son of God.”* And all who heard him were amazed and said, “Is not this the man who made havoc in Jerusalem of **those who called upon this name**? And has he not come here for this purpose, to bring them bound before the chief priests?” But Saul increased all the more in strength, and confounded the Jews who lived in Damascus by *proving that Jesus was the Christ.*" (Acts 9:20-22) >"Paul, called by the will of God to be an apostle of Christ Jesus, and our brother Sosthenes, To *the church of God* that is in Corinth, to *those sanctified in Christ Jesus*, called to be *saints* together with all those who in every place **call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,** both their Lord and ours: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." (1 Cor 1:1-3) If "call upon the name" points solely to God, then — given the presupposition that Jesus is not God — the disciple Ananias, the saints persecuted by Paul, eventually Paul himself and the saints to come should be heretics for calling on the name of Jesus, especially Paul who was thoroughly trained in the Law as a Pharisee by one honored-by-all Sanhedrin leader Gamaliel (Acts 5:34, 22:3; Phili 3:5 ). The phrase already meant a lot of things in the Old Testament, and if the phrase bore a significance as initially claimed and Paul knew that, then Paul is the greatest heretic for espousing in public and in New Testament writings, the very message he once persecuted, that God's people call on the name of Jesus and that doing so is tantamount to calling on the name of the LORD as defined in the Old Testament — a plea, an exaltation, a proclamation, an appeal to judge wrongdoers, a prayer, a cry in times of help and in times of testing, an act in alignment with worship, thanksgiving and the pursuit of salvation; all of which directed to the true God and Creator of the universe. If "call on/upon the name" is to maintain such meaning throughout the entirety of the Bible, then Jesus has to be God.

When Joseph Smith dragged his feet on building the Kirtland Temple, the Lord rebuked him saying,“Ye have sinned against me a very grievous sin in that ye have not considered the great commandment” in the “building of mine house.” (D&C 95:3) The Lord, in fulfillment of Acts 3:19-21, appeared in the temple to accept the temple. This was followed by the appearance of Elijah, who restored the keys of sealing of families and Moses, who restored the keys of the gathering of Israel, yet the RLDS/CofC don't see either as binding on the church. Apostle Orson Hyde was subsequently dispatched to the Holy Land to exercise the keys of the gathering of Judah, which began within two decades thereafter. Why, if the RLDS/CofC was going to ignore these important keys, did the church value the Kirtland Temple? It would be like valuing (as a relic) the cross Jesus was crucified on, while wholeheartedly rejecting the Atonement. It makes little sense. I've wondered about this for years.

In Luke 2, we get a narration of events surrounding the birth of Jesus. The angels announce the Nativity to the shepherds who are watching over the sheep in fields, mentioning the Town of David as the location and the time of the Nativity as ' today '( Lk 2:11) In Biblical times when the concept of 24-hours' day was not in vogue, day and night were separately counted (Mtt 12:40). The shepherds go to Bethlehem to see the Child (Lk 2:15 ) and return after spreading the news (Lk 2:17-2O) implying that they stayed put in Bethlehem much through the day. It is therefore, possible that Jesus was born in day- time, the news was disclosed to the shepherds after sundown, they set out to Bethlehem early next morning and retuned during the day. But then, Christmas is celebrated in Vigil Service between 24 th and 25 th December, implying that Jesus was born at midnight. The practice perhaps owes its origin more to tradition than to scriptural narratives. My question, therefore , is : Was Jesus actually born at midnight ? Inputs from scholars of any denomination are welcome.

I'm writing about Catholicism and from what I extracted of a conversation with a priest friend of mine, > When we ask a Saint for intercession, we need to know that person is alive in heaven. Before that person becomes a Saint, there's a process that requires something extraordinary to happen; when the person isn’t yet considered a Saint, we can have private devotion to them, ***as long as they were Catholics***, and ask for intercession; if something extraordinary happens it can serve to beatify / sanctify that person. This got me wondering... are there any non-Catholic saints?

Are there any known conflicts between the teachings of A.W. Tozer and those of Reformed Theology? My concern is sparked by his relation to the Christian "mystics", which sound potentially heretical. This question arose from finding numerous books related to the Holy Spirit written by Tozer when browsing Amazon. Note this question is NOT "Is A.W. Tozer a Christian?".

Did Ellen White say that the book of Hebrews was written by Paul? According to the Seventh-day Adventist Commentary, the book of Hebrews has many differences compared to Paul's other writings.

I was reading 12:3 and I started to wonder whether or not that blessing was for Palestinians too, as descendants of Abraham. Thank you.

From my understanding, women play a huge role in the LDS church, e.g. The Relief Society (which was established in 1842 and has about 6 million members). Even though they don't have the priesthood and as such don't serve as Bishops, Stake Presidents, etc., they still give talks and say prayers in Sacrament Meetings and are in charge of Primary, Young Women's, etc. But I don't understand why LDS women are not able to be Sunday School Presidents. They can be teachers, but not the presidents? What is the LDS doctrine behind that? Why must a Sunday School President be a priesthood holder if they are not overseeing priesthood ordinances? When anyone receives a calling in the LDS Church, they can receive inspiration for their stewards -- regardless of what their gender is, so I don't know why must a Sunday School President be a male, especially if priesthood activities are not involved. Is is mainly based on tradition? Or is their doctrine behind this?

I only heard this term a few days ago. Although I’ve had to go to various web-sites to try to find out about it, **I feel confusion growing and seek help from Reformed Protestants.** At first, I thought it was a more academic name for “Cultural Christianity” but apparently not – or is it? What gave rise to this phrase? Is there a specific year when it was written about, and was America the seed-bed for it (please don’t be offended at that question, all you Christian Americans on this site – it’s just that hundreds of ‘new’ religious movements all claiming to be Christian have sprung up there since the early 1800s to this very day.) ***So far, I gather that it teaches*** a god who created and watches over the earth and its people, wanting people to be nice to each other. But it is viewed as wrong to hold strong theological convictions (which are shunned and said to be harmful and judgemental, preventing equality amongst all religions, which seems to be its idea of a good thing). There is no repentance for sinning [which is an action of the will of the individual to go against God’s will], there is no idea of becoming a servant of Christ, or of devotion to prayer and Scripture reading. This leads to congregations where people do have a form of belief but do not have any understanding of their own religious traditions and what they are supposed to believe in order to be Christians. If they do understand their traditions, they simply don’t care to believe them and substitute whatever makes them feel good. ***Am I right with that brief summary?*** **The crucial matter for this analysis, though, is whether Moral Therapeutic Deism accords with orthodoxly Christian doctrine and practice.**