As discussed in https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/65991/christian-beliefs-around-blood-transfusions Jehovah's Witnesses refuse blood transfusions for reasons in scripture. I have trouble with the idea. What about the sanctity of life with scriptures such as: Deuteronomy 30:19 (ESV) >I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live How do Protestants (Church of England for example) counteract the Witnesses stance on Blood Transfusions?

For example: John 1:1 says, "In the beginning was the Word (Logos)..." Even though this is the 4th gospel (Matt, Mark, Luke, John), it identifies the Logos as existing before the creation of the world, before time began. Would it therefore be the first mention, not the first time logos is used in the New Testament; Matt. 5:37 "let your statement...."

Must a man first be a priest before being consecrated a bishop? In other words: Who exactly can receive episcopal consecration?

Do we know what was Esther's relationship to Mordecai, based on the Jewish and Christian tradition?

The more I study scripture the more I realise that all those proof texts for the deity of Christ can also be interpreted in another way that points more in the direction that Jesus is an Elohim but not YHWH. John's gospel for example makes it very clear that when Jews accused Jesus of making himself to be God, they actually refer to Elohim and not YHVH because he immediately quotes from psalm 82:6 where it says "“I said, ‘You are gods; you are all sons of the Most High.’". As we know, even Moses was called an Elohim and this word is also used to describe people in an exalted position like judges and princes. Since the Greek doesn't differentiate between the different expressions used for God it is often difficult to exactly know what this word is referring to which gives rise to different interpretations that equally can be justified to be true. To me it makes much more sense to see Jesus as an exalted person rather than him being the almighty God. This appears to me much more in harmony with the TeNaCh (Old Testament) which also uses the Hebrew word Elohim when in Isaiah it prophecies about the Messiah. My question however is, can someone who doesn't believe in the deity of Christ still be called a Christian, or does Christianity stipulate that you are only saved if you believe that Jesus is God Almighty?

Numerous skeptics assert that modern Bibles are the result of a succession of copies of copies of copies of copies, implying that across centuries of transcription, translation, and interpretation, or possibly due to motivations to promote certain narratives, the original text might have been altered, distorted, or even lost. This skepticism arises from concerns regarding the reliability and accuracy of ancient manuscripts, as well as the methodologies employed in their preservation and transmission over time. In the context of defending the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus, particularly focusing on the gospels, are there any renowned books that challenge this skepticism? Do they provide arguments for the faithful preservation of the four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) in our modern Bibles compared to the manuscripts originally penned by the gospel authors? --- **Note**. This question follows up on previous questions I have recently asked: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/101169/61679 https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/101109/61679

What is the basis for the belief that Ignatius of Antioch knew the Apostle John? This seems to be a traditional belief. For example, The Catholic Encyclopedia entry from 1910 says > "It is also believed, and with great probability, that, with his > friend Polycarp, he was among the auditors of the Apostle St. John." Yet it gives no explicit reason why it is believed with great probability. A Q & A answerer here says > "Ignatius of Antioch doesn't mention any personal connection to John > in his authentic letters. Irenaeus mentions that he met Polycarp, who > had known John and at least one other apostle, as he refers to > "apostles" in the plural being known to Polycarp (Against Heresies > 3.3). Ignatius did write letters to Polycarp and to the church at Smyrna. There are two letters of Ignatius to John preserved in Latin, > but these are universally recognized as forgeries dated to the middle > ages. **There's no reliable evidence to connect Ignatius directly with > any of the apostles. So, as you say, this is likely a case of > "tradition based on forgery."**" Is this correct - is the idea that Ignatius of Antioch knew the Apostle John based solely on forged letters?

**TLDR** Dispensational Premillennialism teaches that the resurrection of believers occurs at the Rapture, which seemingly conflicts with Jesus's promise to raise Christians on the "last day." John 6:40 For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. **Analysis** I really enjoyed learning about Dispensational Premillennialism from teachers like John MacArthur and RC Sproul. The literal approach to attempting prophesy really resonates with me. Most common objections to the framework have reasonable answers on sites like GotQuestions, but I can't really find any compelling answers that directly address Jesus' clear words that the resurrection of believers takes place on the last day. The Lord mentioned this promise several times. Even Martha reflects on Jesus' teaching: John 11:24 Martha replied, "I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day." Now, my understanding of the dispensational timeline is: (1) Church Age <= (we are here) (2) Resurrection of believers, both living and dead, at a time that no one can predict; aka Rapture (3) Tribulation lasting seven years (4) Second coming of Christ and Sheep/Goat Judgement (5) Literal 1,000 year reign of Christ on earth (6) Brief rebellion, led by Satan who is "loosed for a while"; Rebellion is summarily squashed. (7) Unbelievers resurrected into new bodies suitable for eternal punishment; They're thrown into their final destination, the Lake of Fire. (8) New heaven and new earth. Time ends, eternity begins. So it would seem then that the timeline indicates the resurrection of believers occurs at Step #2. Whereas, if we take Jesus at His word, and the resurrection of believers takes place on the last day (of time), it would take place just prior to Step #8. If we were talking about unbelievers, then the timeline holds true since they are indeed resurrected on the last day prior to being cast into the lake of fire. But clearly Jesus is talking about *believers* being raised on the last day. **So how might a Dispensational Premillennialist interpret the phrase "last day" in a way that is consistent with their timeline?** Thanks!

From my understanding of dispensationalism , at some point in the future, I believe either prior to or just after the rapture, the temple on Moriah will need to be rebuilt. However, presumably, the reason for rebuilding the temple would be to resume the temple sacrifices that were going on there until the Romans destroyed it. This motivation seems even more likely (to me), given the imagery of the Millennial Temple in Ezekiel 40-48 , where animal sacrifices are taking place. But, if, as Paul seems to be saying below that all Israel will be saved, then what would the motivation be to rebuild a temple, given "sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary" (Hebrews 10:1-18 ) ? Romans 11:25-26a > I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and > sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a > hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, > and in this way all Israel will be saved. How do adherents of dispensationalism explain this? Where is my confusion?

In Matthew 15 , we read: > [Jesus] called the people to him and said to them, "Hear and understand: it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person ... Are you also still without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth passes into the stomach and is expelled? But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person. But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile anyone." We see in Mark's account that "thus He declared all foods clean." Now, when we move to James and the church elders in Acts 15, we find them writing a letter in which, among other things, they impose food requirements on the Gentile churches: > For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell." Do these statements contradict, or can they be correlated? If they contradict, then who gave James and the elders the authority to overrule the teachings of Jesus?

The Restoration of All Things includes a restoration of *revelation*. Joseph Smith, as a dispensational head, had many revelations, including visions, theophanies, angelic visitations and, of course, revelations from the Holy Spirit. These things have continued unabated since his death in 1844, at least in the Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-day Saints (LDS). The entries in the RLDS/CofC D&C or the history of the RLDS are a bit less clear. The LDS church emphatically declares yes, they all continue. Wilford Woodruff (the principle source of church history from the time Joseph Smith organized the church until his death and to the days of Brigham Young, had a comprehensive vision having to do with the dead. After Woodruff's death, Lorenzo Snow had two impressive revelations — one in the Salt Lake Temple, when Jesus Christ appeared to him with instructions on how to proceed after President Woodruff's death. Then there were others including fairly recent appearances by former church authorities. There also are other church authorities who have had theophanies, but who haven't told the general church membership. These authorities haven't told the general church membership their stories because the incidents are none of their business and would only serve to titillate the sensitivities of those who would find them thrilling to listen to. (And there are those who would sneer at them in the retelling.) The brethren do not cast their pearls before swine. But as someone who has read the RLDS D&C, I've yet to read any “revelation” therein that indicates that they have actually experienced an honest-to-goodness revelation. Instead, they have a boatload of weasel words aimed at getting around the truth. But if anyone knows of any experience of any church president between the death of Joseph Smith and the present woman president-prophet, I'd love to hear about it. As it is, I don't see any reference to prophets in the revelatory sense on the CofC website.

The ***Keys of the Kingdom*** are keys of authority given first to the apostle Peter (Mattew 16:18) and the Twelve (Matthew 18:19). Then, as part of the ***Restoration of All Things*** (Acts 3:19-21) they were restored “for the last time.” Joseph Smith subsequently passed these keys to Brigham Young and the Twelve, who went to Utah. Smith said he would give the saints *“keys that would never rust,”* meaning they would endure forever. These keys are: If you *follow the majority of the Twelve* and the *records of the church*, you will NEVER be led astray. How can the RLDS/CofC claim to be the true church that was restored to the Earth on April 6, 1830 when it has neither the ***Keys of Authority*** nor the ***Records of the Church***? How can it thus claim legal legitimacy?

The existence of Holy Scripture not contained in the present-day Bible editions can hardly be debated against, since there are numerous references to Scriptures we do not have within the Scriptures that we do have. It is understood that this may be partly a question of what qualifies as canon , or of mistranslation, corruption or degradation of extant texts, but perhaps mostly of documents that *simply have not been found*, and might even no longer exist in physical form. Apocryphal documents quoted in canonical Scripture are an example of extant, partially translated and possibly corrupted texts that contain some truths corroborated in Scripture but on the whole might not read entirely like Scripture, although this question is not so much about Apocryphal writings as it is about content that could be clearly identified as Scriptural. It can be identified as such since it has been alluded to, referenced, or even directly quoted within Holy Scripture as being of a similar nature, written by the same prophets or those having the same calling, etc. Examples may include the Book of the Wars of the Lord referenced in Numbers 21:13–14, Paul's lost letters , the Book of Gad the Seer , the Book of Nathan the Prophet , the prophecy of Ahijah, the visions of Iddo the seer, and many more. Knowing what I know of the tremendous doctrinal and instructional value of the Pauline epistles, and the remarkable visions and prophecies of ancient prophets and seers, it would obviously be a great boon to any Christian library to have access to, or even further hints of what is contained in those lost books of Scripture. Having two or three more Pauline epistles could even radically improve general understanding of the teachings of Christianity, by triangulating the Doctrine of Jesus Christ more finely, specifying additional verifiable historic details, eliminating ambiguity through cross-referencing of existing texts, and so on. I believe there are reasons, attested within Scripture, why God does not give us all of His books at once--first and foremost of which is to try our faith. If historians an emperors could not pretend that the accounts of Jesus and His resurrection were merely fiction or accounts of some obscure extremist carpenter who died a tragic death due to his opposition against religious leaders, due to the overwhelming nature and number of additional highly public witnesses, we might suppose a greater proportion of the Earth's population would be converted. What is an overview of Christian denominations that (1) acknowledge the existence of lost Scripture, and (2) have some published prophetic statements or other doctrine about the missing books and passages of Scripture? Finally, (3) how are they doctrinally bound (if at all) to treat such Scripture?

In Luke 4:1-12, Jesus is getting tempted by the devil. Three times he responds with the Scriptures instead of rebuking the devil. Why doesn’t Jesus just say, “I rebuke you Satan!” At the first temptation?

The phrase "Word of God" or "Word of the Lord" and variants are commonly used (at least among evangelicals) to refer to the Bible - i.e. the written words of the prophets and apostles. I'm wondering what is the origin of this usage. These phrases appear frequently in the Bible itself, but never (as far as I'm aware) to unambiguously refer to the written Bible itself. For instance, throughout the prophets it is commonly written "the word of the Lord came to so and so," but this seems to refer to something prior to the actual writing down of the relevant books. In the NT we have for example the oft quoted Heb. 4:12 saying "The Word of God is living and active..." which is often taken as referring to the Scriptures, but this reading doesn't appear necessitated by the context unless we already take the phrase Word of God to mean this. In some cases, it unambiguously refers to something *not* the Bible, e.g. in John 1. To be clear, I am not asking about where the idea of divine inspiration of the Bible comes from. Rather, I am asking specifically about the origin of using the phrase "word of God" to refer to the Bible.

In Luke 15 , Jesus gives one parable of a man that lost 1/100 sheep, and rejoiced when that sheep was found. And another parable of a woman who lost 1/10 silver coins, and rejoices much when she finds her lost coin. In order for something to be "lost", it must be in one's possession at some point beforehand; and these parables confirm that in the sense of salvation. So, in regards to this, I have a two part question: Will all that are "lost" be saved? And in what sense were we previously in the Father's possession? Is there any scripture that talks about this? I know my 2nd question could mean those who had previously come to God, but have fallen away, and came to God *again*, but I think He is particularly talking about those who have not yet come to God. I think this could be clarified when Jesus says He came to seek that which was lost in relation to a Chief tax collector.

While I’m aware that the Catholic Church teaches that having sex after a vasectomy (or getting your tubes tied for women) is sinful because it is an act of contraception, I was wondering if the church taught that the act of vasectomy itself was sinful. Would a person who got one be sinning even if he never had sex for the rest of his life?

Based upon answers and comments to this question it appears that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that the Bible translations in use by all other Christian traditions have suffered some unspecified level of degradation (in accuracy) over time. Thus it was necessary for *an inspired translator, seer and revelator appointed by God to the task of recovering what was lost*. It is claimed that the Joseph Smith Translation (also called the Inspired Translation) corrects many of the errors in the degraded translations of the Bible. There is massive amounts of research (far too much to enumerate) in areas of biblical manuscript scholarship, textual criticism, etc. which stand in defense of the Scripture's accurate preservation and descent to us through time. A simple google search will turn up an almost unreadable volume of material demonstrating the near impossibility of Scriptural corruption such as this from the City Bible Forum . It seems characteristic of religions which proffer an alternative Scripture, such as Islam, to declare that the Bible is esteemed but only insofar as it's discrepancies are corrected by the alternative text. What is the scholarly evidence upon which Church of Jesus Christ bases its claim that the Bible has been degraded and that the truths it once contained need to be recovered?

I have noticed that during the Sanctus prayer at mass, there will be a few Catholics (typically those that I would identify as being more “trad”) make the sign of the cross when “Benedictus” is sung. Is this supposed to be done (like when the priest says “have mercy on us” after the confiteor), or why do people do it?

During confession, if I mention (in passing or in reference to) a sin I've committed in the distant past, the priest usually asks if I had confessed it before. If I say yes, he says it has been absolved and I don't have to confess it again. What is the difference between a general confession and a regular confession if past sins that have been absolved need not be confessed again?