Several sects place a high premium on personal spiritual experience and/or personal revelation as a means for discovering Truth. For example: angelic visitations, miracles, dreams, visions, LDS's "burning in the bosom". Others (likely *Sola Scriptura* believers in particular) would say that these experiences can be demonic in origin and are not trustworthy. In particular, they might argue that common beliefs of such sects are untrue and dangerous because they contradict Scripture (e.g. a Christian confronted by an alleged supernatural experience of a Muslim would likely assert said experience to be demonic in nature on the basis of Scripture contradicting the Qur'an). **What *Scripture passages* exist (if any) in support of the idea that "spiritual" experiences can be misleading?** Relatedly, which verses speak to the necessity of reading Scripture rather than relying entirely on spiritual experiences and/or private revelation?

I've been putting together an [answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/85857/50422) to my own question https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/85850/50422 . While doing this exercise, I realized that many of the conditional promises in the Bible depend very strongly on the individual's faith. The one that stresses this point most clearly is the promise of wisdom in James 1:5-8: **The promise of wisdom, to those who ask for it in faith.** > 5 If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him. 6 **But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind**. 7 **For that person must not suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord**; 8 **he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways**. [James 1:5-8, ESV] James couldn't have been more clear and emphatic: if you don't have faith, forget about receiving anything from God. Period. Unfortunately, this can be quite disheartening for someone who yearns to enjoy God's promises but lacks at the same time the faith that is necessary to actualize them in their own life. Fortunately, hope shouldn't be lost, since there are other promises that are specifically aimed to increase a person's faith. The one I want to bring the reader's attention to is the following: **The promise of faith, to those who pray and fast. And the promise of miracles, to those who have (enough) faith.** > 20 He said to them, “Because of your little faith. For truly, I say to you, if you have faith like a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move, and nothing will be impossible for you.” *21 **But this kind never comes out except by prayer and fasting*** [Matthew 17:20-21, ESV] I personally believe this promise is very powerful. It not only promises that a person can significantly boost their faith through prayer and fasting, but also that they might even possibly attain a miracle-working faith, a faith that can move God to do anything for them (within the boundaries of God's will, of course). And there is even more: with such a level of faith, all the other promises that have faith as a necessary condition should just unfold naturally, like a ripple effect. In other words, someone with this level of faith should be able to enjoy all of God's promises. **Question**: Do any Christian groups or denominations believe that miracle-working faith can be attained through prayer and fasting, thus enabling the believer to enjoy all of God's promises that have faith as a necessary condition?

We read in Matthew 4 how Jesus was tempted in the desert. First temptation goes like this: > The tempter came to him and said, “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.”. > Note the usage 'these stones'. Satan was not pointing to the dusty stones lying somewhere. Most likely, he picked a stone or two, dusted them and placed them in Jesus' hands before making the suggestion (Satan is traditionally believed to have extended the forbidden fruit to Eve in Eden). In the second and third temptations, we see Satan 'taking' Jesus to places. He was acting friendly with Jesus, and may have guided him with a hand on Jesus' shoulder, just as a person helps a friend climb a hill. At last Jesus says " Get away from me.." implying that Satan was in close proximity. The Gospels do not state in what form Satan tempted Jesus, and in what proximity he was. Are there any apocryphal writings or scholarly views available on the subject?

Was Jesus The Lamb of God or the High Priest (whom offers the lamb as a sacriffice)? John the baptist said " Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world" John 1:19 And in Hebrews 4:14 it is written "Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God".

What was Martin Luther's explanation of *Sola Scriptura* in his writings? And did he use *Sola Scripura* by name?

I saw this quote: “If you preach the gospel in all aspects with the exception of the issues which deal specifically with your time, you are not preaching the gospel at all.” — Martin Luther What was the original context? Was the original in Latin or German?

Entry **(860)** in the [Diary of St. Faustina](https://liturgicalyear.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/divine-mercy-in-my-soul.pdf) reads as follows: > There are times in life when the soul finds comfort only in profound prayer. Would that souls knew how to persevere in prayer at such times. This is very important. **What does St. Faustina mean here when she writes "profound prayer"?**

According to Jehovah's witnesses what evidences are there in the Bible that Jehovah is not Jesus Christ? What passages separate them, or declare them as different?

One poster ask me the above question. Does anyone have a scriptural answer? I have one and will post it soon.

In St Augustine's *Confessions* (Book X, Chapter 27) we read: > Late have I loved you, beauty so old and so new: late have I loved You. And see, You were within and I was in the external world and sought You there, and in my unlovely state I plunged into those lovely created things which You made. You were with me, and I was not with You. The lovely things kept me far from you, though if they did not have their existence in you, they had no existence at all. You called and cried out loud and shattered my deafness. You were radiant and resplendent, You put to flight my blindness. You were fragrant, and I drew in my breath and now pant after You. I tasted You, and I feel but hunger and thirst for You. You touched me, and I am set on fire to attain the peace which is Yours. > > Edition used: [Saint Augustine Confessions: A new translation by Henry Chadwick](https://www.amazon.com/dp/0199537828) (1991, Reissued as Oxford World's Classics Paperbacks in 1998). I know that some people can't read it without feeling like crying. This text doesn't move me at all. I just don't understand it. I have heard about the term "affective spirituality" and that St Augustine represented one version of it. Fr. John Hardon's [*Modern Catholic Dictionary* entry on "Affections"](https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=31692&randomterm=false) says: > A broad variety of human sentiments that are distinguished from strictly mental or cognitive experiences. Affections pertain to the will, desires, and feelings, i.e., the outgoing activities. In the spiritual life they are identified with those movements of the soul that reach out to God and with the invisible world of angels and saints. Affections are acts of the infused virtues of hope and charity. (Etym. Latin *affectus*, condition, situation; affectionate state or inclination; faculty of desire.) This definition mentions feelings, so perhaps this kind of spirituality has a lot to do with them. It could also mean that it focuses a lot more on feeling than on thinking, instead of giving them equal importance. **What is affective spirituality?**

I have read that according to Biblical references the age of earth is 6000 years. Even if you quote Young Earth Creationism, they too, will give a number no more than 10,000 years old. But in different belief systems like Hinduism, the age of the earth is comparable to that arrived to by contemporary scientific cosmology. Doesn't this imply that the Bible isn't perfect at all? **Can you compare various Biblical theories on the age of the earth?**

The Bible says that Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus because Jesus was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit. However, I have heard that Augustine may have suggested that the differences between the genealogies in Matthew's gospel and Luke's gospel led him to conclude that Joseph was adopted. [This question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/74530/different-genealogy-in-matthew-and-luke) is helpful in explaining why the two accounts differ, but I am specifically looking for a reference to Augustine that suggests Joseph was adopted.

The Society of the Faith charity (*Wikipedia* entry ) uses the following symbol. What is it?

Is Anselm of Canterbury venerated by the Eastern Orthodox Church, or is he accepted as a saint only by the Western churches? Similarly, is his Satisfaction Theory of atonement accepted at large within the EOC (if at all)? If not, which theory of atonement tends to bear prominence in her teaching/liturgy (such as the Ransom Theory, Moral Influence Theory, or the *Christus Victor* Theory)?

[Matthew 18:9, NIV](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2018:9&version=NIV) : > And if your eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell. Does this mean that people who are (or become) blind in this life will be blind in Heaven as well? The logical extension of this idea would be, if you're in a car accident, and your legs are lost, and you become blind... then you die from complications a day later, you'll be a blind paraplegic in Heaven. Is this a fair understanding of the verse?

Kinsella, *The Wife Desired* p. 77 claims: >It has been stated that money is the root of all evil. [1 Tim. 6:10 : "the desire of money is the root of all evils"; cf. *Summa Theologica* I-II q. 84 a. 1 ] Money represents the material possessions of this world, the things which militate against the spirit and the good in mankind. Because money and selfishness are boon companions and because there is selfishness or lack of love in all evil, the truth of the statement becomes clearer. > >Money is a consequence of original sin. We never should have had to bother with it except for Adam’s disloyalty and fall. We could almost say that money in itself is an evil. Yet, out of evil good often comes. [St. Augustine does say that "to use evil well is not a sin." ] Christ and Redemption was a good to come out of the evil of Adam’s sin. According to Catholic theologians, is money a consequence of Original Sin? This seems related to whether the Church-State distinction is a consequence of Original Sin: "The Augustinian tradition has in fact presented the state, having solely in mind the supernatural order, as a punishment for original sin." (Jaki, O.S.B., *New Trends in Ecclesiology* p. 18); *Integralism* ch. 5 thesis "(ii) The distinction in title to temporal and spiritual authority results from the Fall of man." Yet, even before the Fall, there still would have been a hierarchical temporal order; however, it would've been strictly patriarchal (fathers of families the only political leaders): thesis "(xvi) The need for non-patriarchal rule derives from the Fall of man." (*ibid.* , ch. 3). Thus, it seems money could have existed before the Fall, but it would've been restricted to direct commerce between families. On the other hand, why would money, trade, or private property even be needed before the Fall, if there were no scarce resources Garden of Eden?

I don't know what to look for as far as this. This is a strange Bible to me and I know nothing about bibles. A I said this is not right and had been altered some how for some reason. Can you give me any insight?

The BoM records locations, people and events in an account of what can only be recognized as what must have been the single largest, most powerful and most technologically advanced civilization in approximately 5,000 years of Mesoamerican history. NONE of these claims involve "faith" in any way. Every single claim regarding the existence of TRUE events (such as wars of annihilation, construction of great cities, etc.), real places (such as cities and rivers) and actual people (kings, priests, prophets, warriors, robbers, etc) is a HISTORICAL claim and is therefore automatically subject to the standards of normal HISTORICAL inquiry. These supposed REAL people who supposedly lived in ACTUAL places and allegedly recorded true events made religious claims that certainly require faith. However, unless this civilization and its inhabitants actually, really and truly existed, there is no reason to take their claims of divine revelations seriously. Where's the proof of entire civilizations that supposedly lasted 2,000 years such as the so-called "Nephites" civilizations that would without a doubt leave vast amounts of archaeological evidence behind? They would also invariably leave lots of other evidence behind as well as (linguistic, documentary, biological, cultural/anthropological , etc) If you are to believe the BoM, you must somehow bring yourself to believe that this is not true of the "Nephites" - that they alone can simply vanish without a single trace of their existence in history. This is not a matter of "faith" to begin with. The existence of civilizations is rightly a HISTORICAL matter, not a religious matter. The error of the so-called prophet Joseph Smith occurred when he attempted to tie his claims to the real world by basing his new religion on HISTORICAL claims. The simple fact remains that there exists no evidence in the real world that any of the historical claims in the BoM are actually true. So I ask, if Mormonism is to be taken seriously, show the HISTORICAL evidence of it's truthfulness? The fallacy here is known among reshtoriticians, and logicians as a "categorical error. Otherwise known as "comparing apples and oranges."

What does Jeremiah 1:11 mean with regards to almond branch? The Lord’s response about watching is not clear with regards to almond trees. > 11 And the word of the LORD came to me, saying, "Jeremiah, what do you > see?" And I said, "I see an almond branch." 12 Then the LORD said to > me, "You have seen well, for I am watching over my word to perform > it." - Jeremiah 1:11-12 ESV Most commentators like Matthew Henry would posit some trait of almonds tree. Calvin and at least one other would prefer a “watcher” with reference to the root of the word being Hebrew verb ; because the Lords response is of watching instead of tree traits. NIV > 11 The word of the Lord came to me: “What do you see, Jeremiah?” “I > see the branch of an almond tree,” I replied. 12 The Lord said to > me, “You have seen correctly, for I am watching b to see that my word > is fulfilled.” Douay-Rheims Bible > And the word of the Lord came to me, saying: What seest thou, > Jeremias? And I said: I see a rod watching. Young’s literal translation. > here is a word of Jehovah unto me, saying, 'What art thou seeing, > Jeremiah?' And I say, 'A rod of an almond tree I am seeing. The word is rendered "a rod of almond" by the Septuagint, the Arabic version, and Theodotion; and also by Piscator, Drusius, Grotius, and Blayney; and "the rod of the watcher" by Sym., Aq., and the Vulgate The latter is no doubt more suitable in a translation. > It should be, "I see the rod, "or the staff, "of a watcher." Let us > grant that the almond is intended; yet the tree may be called > watchful, according to what etymology requires, and also the sense of > the passage, as all must see. God then caused his servant to see > the staff of a watcher. ~Calvin

**Origination** Someone once quipped that ***Abraham was a Gentile before He was a Jew!*** By that it was a reference to the literature that Abraham lived with his ancestors in Ur of the Chaldees. That was his native land. (Genesis 11:31, 15:7, Nehemiah 9:7) Either because of economic necessity or looming military invasion by the Assyrians, the whole clan of Abraham's ancestors moved up north in the upper Fertile Crescent to Haran. This was in the land of the Hittites, and the city was an commercial center for caravans moving across the Tiger-Euphrates valleys. So it was said by one of the prophets, "Your mother was a Hittite." (Ezekiel 16:3-4) Then Abraham moved down the western part of the Fertile Crescent into the land of the many Canaanite tribes, and became a traveling nomad there. >Now the Lord had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land I will show you...and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed. (Genesis 12:1-3) Because of this origination, it would be proper to say that Abram (Abraham) was indeed a Gentile---according to the broad definition applied to non-Jews in the world. He was an *ethnic* as the Bible uses the term. And so there was no difference between the humanity of Abraham's family and any other people. **Promise to Man** It was to this man that God spoke the ***promise of the Seed***. And it was a ***promise that engulfed all of humanity***, not just one race. Of course, Abraham needed a place to live, but the book of Hebrews explained that the *real destination of living* was a ***spiritual city, whose builder and maker was God.*** >By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange land...for he looked for a city which has foundations whose builder and maker is God.
...They that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country. And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned.
But now they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly; wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for He has prepared for them a city. (Hebrews 11:9-17) **Since This is So** Since Abraham is of Gentile stock...since the promise of blessing was to the whole world...since the main goal is a "spiritual city" (spiritual realities)...would this not be sufficient reason, to not only interpret the Scriptures as a message for Equality of all Races, but be a basis to resolve the messy situation of Racism in the minds---and hearts---of people around the world? After all, is it not written: >For God so loved the world, that He gave... (John 3:16) >There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond or free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Jesus Christ. (Galatians 3:28-29) >For He is our peace who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of partition between us. (Ephesians 2:14) Could not the preaching and proclamation of the ancient promise to Abraham---without all the later Jewish legal trappings and rites and traditional customs---be a starting point, a rallying call, for racial reconciliation? For peace on earth and good will to men? All Gentiles (ethnics), Abraham and everyone else, are the same flesh and blood people...whom God loves. (Acts 17:26)