> 51 When Jesus died, the curtain in the Temple was torn into two > pieces. The tear started at the top and tore all the way to the > bottom. Also, the earth shook and rocks were broken. **52 The graves > opened, and many of God’s people who had died were raised from death. > 53 They came out of the graves. And after Jesus was raised from death, > they went into the holy city, and many people saw them.** -Matthew 27:51 Aside from Jesus healing people, this appears to me as the biggest supernatural event in the Gospel: ***Other people*** *rising from the dead*, out of graves! However, there is only 1 line given to this? Are there any more details about what happened here? Thanks!

Suppose X is a neutral, honest, open-minded truth seeker, and let's say Y is an apologist for Young Earth Creationism (YEC). If Y intends to persuade X of the truth of YEC, must Y first establish the validity of Biblical inerrancy? Let's explore two approaches Y might take to convince X: - **Approach 1**: - Y begins by presenting arguments to persuade X of the validity of Biblical inerrancy. - Then, assuming X accepts Biblical inerrancy, Y proceeds to argue that YEC offers the most reasonable and parsimonious interpretation of the Bible. - Thus, Y concludes that YEC is true. - **Approach 2**: Y can bypass the necessity of relying on Biblical inerrancy. Instead, YEC can be supported through alternative arguments and lines of evidence. Do proponents of YEC consider Approach 2 viable? If so, what are these separate arguments and lines of evidence supporting YEC? If not, does Approach 1 stand as the sole viable option, implying that Biblical inerrancy is indeed fundamental to YEC? In such a scenario, how might YEC advocates go about arguing for Biblical inerrancy to convince someone like X? --- Some of my previous questions this question builds upon: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/101106/61679 https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/101101/61679 https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/101067/61679 https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/101027/61679

In Genesis chapter two verse seven God created man from the dust and breathed the *breath of life* into his nostrils; >Genesis 2:7 KJV And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the ***breath of life***; and man became a living soul. The original words used in the Hebrew were: Breath: נְשָׁמָה >nshamah (nesh-aw-maw') n-f. >>1. a puff, i.e. wind, angry or vital breath, divine inspiration, intellect. or (concretely) an animal >KJV: blast, (that) breath(-eth), inspiration, soul, spirit. and life: חַי >chay (khah'-ee) adj. >>1. alive >>2. (hence) raw (flesh) >>3. fresh (plant, water, year), strong >>4. (as noun, especially in the feminine singular and masculine plural) life (or living thing), whether literally or figuratively >KJV: + age, alive, appetite, (wild) beast, company, congregation, life(-time), live(-ly), living (creature, thing), maintenance, + merry, multitude, + (be) old, quick, raw, running, springing, troop. Chay Is the same word used in 1Kings 17:17 which is just breath. Since נְשָׁמָה can also be interpreted as soul, could breath be a mistranslation in light of the second part of the verse "and man became a living soul". Or is there some other explanation for the breath of life, such as oxygen absorption, which has been prove to be the case of a fetus in the womb? Please make you answer as Biblical as possible. Thank you. If you want to down vote any of my questions or answers that is fine, but at least be courteous enough to tell me what is unacceptable about my question or answer. Otherwise I must assume you really don't have a reason and are just a mean person.

I had always thought the Entity of the Trinity that appears in the Old Testament was God the Father. However, upon re-reading several passages, I am beginning to think it might be Jesus Christ. The Referenced Verses, John 6:46 and John 14:6 - Which say 'Not that anyone has seen the father, except he who is from God (Jesus Christ)' and 'Nobody can come to the father except through me(Jesus Christ)' (ESV) From these Statements from Christ, I am inclined to believe the 'LORD' in the old testament was actually Jesus Christ, and not the Father - as I've always assumed. If Nobody has ever come to the Father, or seen the Father except through Christ - Moses must not have been interacting with the Father, Right? Please let me know what you think of this. Did the Old Testament ever make specific reference that God was God the Father? Thank you

According to some Watchtower literature, it is taught that Michael the Archangel is Jesus and that Jesus, after He ascended into heaven, resumed the name of Michael. > "**It proves Michael the archangel is no other than the only begotten > son of God, now Jesus Christ.** The very name Michael means who is like > God and indicates Jehovah God is without like or equal." (New Heavens > and New Earth pg.30-31). > > **Jesus is actually the incarnation of Michael the Arch angel and > resumed the name when he ascended into heaven (** ibid. pg.30 Your will > be done on earth pg.316 ) Do Jehovah's Witnesses still believe this, and, if so, what is the biblical basis from which these teachings are derived?

Right before his crucifixion, Jesus was made to carry his cross and to wear a crown of thorns. Why was he made to wear the crown of thorns?

When is money first mentioned in Holy Scriptures? And what is the Hebrew word for it? cf. my previous question: "Is money a consequence of Original Sin? "

We hear Jesus saying in Lk 4:18: > The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. We see a number of chosen persons in OT getting anointed for specific purposes, for instance, Aaron in Exodus and David in 1 Samuel. There was a prescribed procedure for the anointment. Now, the name Christ or Messiah literally means 'anointed'. But we do not see the Gospels mentioning his physical anointment, though his Baptism is narrated. **Was Jesus physically anointed by someone?** Are there any apocryphal writings or scholarly views available on the topic?

This is not just a church architecture question but also a theology question. I've noticed that the tabernacle where the consecrated hosts are stored is often located in the center of the older Catholic churches, behind the altar, so when you enter the church, it is a focal point. But in more contemporary churches, the tabernacle is somewhere else and instead when you enter the church you see chairs where the priests sit. I would like to understand why this change occurred. Was there a change in theology? The message the newer layout sends compared to the old is that the priest has displaced the tabernacle. Surely that can't be the intended effect?

Exodus 30:1 > You are also to make an altar of acacia wood for the burning of incense. Place the altar in front of the veil that is before the ark of the Testimony. Hebrews 9:2 > A tabernacle was prepared. In its first room were the lampstand, the table, and the consecrated bread. This was called the Holy Place. Why does the altar of incense for the Heavenly Sanctuary not appear to be located in the Holy Place by the writer of Hebrews? Is this of any significance considering the Lamb of God, who was without sin, had now become High Priest? We find a significant difference in explanation between the KJV and other versions here too. Other versions have interpreted the Golden Censer as being the Altar. This is not the case with the KJV (I think the KJV is the correct translation here). In any case, here is my theory: After Jesus' crucifixion, the incense (which normally flowed into the Most Holy Place from the Altar of Incense) was no longer needed to protect our High Priest from death of the glory of God on the mercy seat. Jesus had already redeemed us, he paid the price for sin, he can't die twice! Second, I follow the Trinitarian view that Jesus is God, he can't be killed by his own Glory! Therefore, the incense from the altar is no longer needed for the same purpose as in the Old testament sanctuary. Rev 8:3-4 makes an interesting observation: > And another angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne. And the smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God out of the angel's hand. At this point in time, even though he approaches the altar, the Angel in Revelation does not get his incense from the Altar. It is given to him (placed in His censer) and he then offers the prayers of the saints on the Altar! I feel that the key to all of this is Matthew 27:50-51 > Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; The heavenly sanctuary is an antitype of the earthly. The earthly temple veil was torn in two at Jesus death and I think this is significant in explaining Hebrews 9:2&3

The following passage is an excerpt from [*god is not Great*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_Is_Not_Great) by Christopher Hitchens: >Pre-Christian hells were highly unpleasant too, and called upon the same sadistic ingenuity for their invention. However, some of the early ones we know of —most notably the Hindu— were limited in time. A sinner, for example, might be sentenced to a given number of years in hell, where every day counted as 6,400 human years. If he slew a priest, the sentence thus adjusted would be 149,504,000,000 years. At this point, he was allowed nirvana, which seems to mean annihilation. It was left to Christians to find a hell ***from*** which there was no possible ***appeal***. (And the idea is easily plagiarized: I once heard Louis Farrakhan, leader of the heretical black-only “Nation of Islam,” as he drew a hideous roar from a mob in Madison Square Garden. Hurling spittle at the Jews, he yelled, “And don’t you forget — when it’s God who puts you in the ovens, it’s FOREVER!”). What does he mean by "appeal from hell"?

The Westminster Confession says the following: > [WCF 1.8](https://www.presbyterian.org.au/index.php/index-for-wcf/chapter-1-holy-scripture) : The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and **by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages**, are therefore authentical; Robert Estienne's [*Editio Regia*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editio_Regia) , the first edition of the Greek New Testament with a critical apparatus, had been published almost a century before the Westminster Assembly. By that time it would have been well known across Europe that there were substantial variants in Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. What did the Westminster divines (ie, theologians attending the assembly) mean by saying that the New Testament has been "kept pure" by God? Does this phrase express a rejection of the task of textual criticism? If so, what was the text that they considered to have been "kept pure", and what did they make of all the variants?

In [Luke 14:26](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2014%3A26&version=DRA) (Douay-Rheims) we read: > If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. In [Matthew 22:39](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt+22%3A39&version=DRA) (Douay-Rheims) we read: > And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. My understanding is that Jesus did not hate his parents. He did not live like he taught. I have never been told to hate my parents or myself by a spiritual director. They told me the opposite. In Matt 22:39 Jesus said that we should love our neighbours as thyself. But in Luke 14:26 Jesus says that you are supposed to hate yourself. This is confusing to me. I have been told that according to St. John Paul II's Catholic Philosophy, the opposite of love is not hate but use. **How does the Catholic Church reconcile both verses?**

I know that in Catholicism, Mary didn't have the original sin. If God had the power to do this, why didn't he do this with other people?

Those familiar with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint beliefs, may have heard of baptisms for the dead , maybe while going through a LDS temple open house (where baptism fonts are part of the tour) >Many people, however, have died without being baptized. Others were baptized without proper authority. Because God is merciful, He has prepared a way for all people to receive the blessings of baptism. By performing proxy baptisms on behalf of those who have died, Church members offer these blessings to deceased ancestors. Individuals can then choose to accept or reject the ordinances that have been performed on their behalf. This has led to some claims1 such as Hitler was "baptized", or from the referenced article >Mormons have performed proxy ordinances for most Jewish notables...along with hundreds of thousands of other Jews, ... have been proxy baptized and proclaimed as members of the LDS Church. Is this true? How does the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints explain such circumstances? Related questions: - Do Mormons have a doctrine of afterlife preaching and repentance? - Do Mormons secretly pray about you and then consider you included in their church? 1 https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/100807/did-joseph-smith-go-to-heaven-according-to-protestant-trinitarians?noredirect=1#comment287915_100807

I am struggling with my faith a lot and yesterday I was taking to my Atheist friend and when we were talking about the origin of the universe, he suggested that quantum cosmology could be the origin of the universe, is this true and does this mean that we no longer have a need for God?

I was thinking and have come up with a concept that I will call the "Rule of Majority". Assuming that one of the Abrahamic religions is true, then if we are imbued with the Holy Spirit, and that the aforementioned Spirit guides our actions, then the sect with the most followers must be true? For He is with us always (*cf.* Mat 28:20), and the Holy Spirit is a helper which helps to show us the right path (*cf.* John 14:26). And furthermore, I am aware of the Parable of the Narrow Path, but could this refer to the correct sect being a minority *globally*? Thus, my question is: What from scripture, tradition, or common sense can buffer or destroy the so-called "Rule of Majority"?

If the bible opposes the practice of magic does this mean its claims of "magic" are literally real (as opposed to metaphorically)? If so, is there scientific proof of the existence of "magic"? Is there an explanation of what "magic" is in the first place?

According to the [Mormon Doctrine](https://archive.org/details/MormonDoctrine1966/page/472/mode/2up) written by Bruce McConkie, >If it had not been for Joseph Smith and the restoration, there would be no salvation. There is no salvation outside The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But Paul says: "...Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved..." (Acts 16:31) Is it mutually exclusive? Could Joseph Smith have gone to heaven according to the NT, obviously extending to all members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints? Protestant tradition may used as the starting point of the answer, although biblical support would be much appreciated.

I recently spoke with a friend of mine and he was wondering if we are alive before conception. We know that there is life after death according to the Bible, but what does the Bible say about "life" before birth? All I could dig up was this: > **[Jeremiah 1:4-5](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah%201:4-5&version=ESV)** (ESV) > 4 Now the word of the Lord came to me, saying,

5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.” And this: > **[Psalm 139:15-16](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%20139:15-16&version=NIV1984)** (NIV1984) > 15 My frame was not hidden from you > when I was made in the secret place. > When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, > 16 your eyes saw my unformed body. > All the days ordained for me > were written in your book > before one of them came to be. Any insight? **Edit: It is clear that we do not have physical being before birth but is there something in the Bible that might prove or disprove the existence of our souls before conception?**