I am familiar with the references in Leviticus and Deuteronomy that legislated that the sacrifices were to occur only where the LORD had chosen to "put His name." He evidently had put His name with the ark of the covenant. Therefore, sacrifice could only occur at the tabernacle and then later at the temple in Jerusalem after the ark was moved there. However, what do you make of 1 Kings 18 & 19? >Then Elijah said to all the people, “Come near to me.” So all the people came near to him. And he repaired the altar of the LORD that was broken down. And Elijah took twelve stones, according to the number of the tribes of the sons of Jacob, to whom the word of the LORD had come, saying, “Israel shall be your name.” Then with the stones he built an altar in the name of the LORD; and he made a trench around the altar large enough to hold two seahs of seed (‭[I Kings‬ ‭18‬:‭30–32](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Kings+18%3A30-32&version=NKJV),‬ NKJV). Elijah repaired an altar to the LORD on Mount Carmel that was broken down. Then there is the 1 Kings 19 reference illustrating that altars (plural) *dedicated to the LORD* had been known of in the Northern Kingdom of Israel in Elijah's day and even prior to his time, albeit that they had been torn down at the time of Elijah's words. >So he said, “I have been very zealous for the LORD God of hosts; for the children of Israel have forsaken Your covenant, torn down Your altars, and killed Your prophets with the sword. I alone am left; and they seek to take my life” (‭[I Kings‬ ‭19‬:‭10](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Kings+19%3A10&version=NKJV),‬ NKJV). And again... >And he said, “I have been very zealous for the LORD God of hosts; because the children of Israel have forsaken Your covenant, torn down Your altars, and killed Your prophets with the sword. I alone am left; and they seek to take my life” (‭[I Kings‬ ‭19‬:‭14](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Kings+19%3A14&version=NKJV),‬ NKJV). What I would like comments on is if the sacrifices were supposed to take place wherever *the tabernacle* was located, prior to the temple in Jerusalem, then why had these altars to the LORD been built at various places? Elijah seems to comment on their being torn down as a bad thing. However, Hezekiah and others present the tearing down of these altars as a good thing, *even if the altar was not dedicated to an idol but to the LORD.* At first glance, it seems the theory that all sacrifices had to be at the tabernacle (before the temple being built) may not be entirely correct. One could say perhaps that 1 Kings 3:2 provides the answer: >Meanwhile the people sacrificed at the high places, because there was no house built for the name of the LORD until those days. And Solomon loved the LORD, walking in the statutes of his father David, except that he sacrificed and burned incense at the high places. Now the king went to Gibeon to sacrifice there, for that was the great high place: Solomon offered a thousand burnt offerings on that altar. At Gibeon the LORD appeared to Solomon in a dream by night; and God said, “Ask! What shall I give you?” ([‭I Kings‬ ‭3‬:‭2–5](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Kings+3%3A2-5&version=NKJV),‬ NKJV). But then, one may still be left with the difficulty of explaining why Elijah is lamenting that these altars were torn down, for the temple in Jerusalem was certainly built in his day! And then there is also the matter of the altar built by Reuben, Gad and the half tribe of Manasseh in Joshua 22. Those on the east side of the Jordan had to clarify that it was merely a replica of the altar before the tabernacle, and not a substitute altar for sacrifice and burnt offering. Had it been such it looks like a civil war was going to break out. Any thoughts or insights you could share on this perceived dilemma would be appreciated. Thanks!

I've identified several potential pathways for why someone may embrace Christianity: - Option 1: Influence of birthplace, culture, and upbringing, possibly resulting in a 'cultural Christian'. See related discussion: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/100901/61679 - Option 2: Conversion influenced by interpersonal relationships or community dynamics. This could involve being inspired by the faith of friends, family, or mentors, or finding belonging and conviction within a Christian community. - Option 3: Just choosing to believe. Right now. Just believe. That's it. - Option 4: Persuasion through intellectual engagement, often via philosophical reasoning found in natural theology and apologetics. - Option 5: Personal religious, spiritual, or mystical encounters—a direct and intimate experience with the divine. Option 1 often draws criticism from skeptics due to its reliance on factors such as parental and cultural influence, which are heavily tied to one's place of birth. This means that individuals tend to adopt the religion of their parents and the prevailing culture in their geographical area. For instance, Muslims predominantly reside in regions where Islam is prevalent, Buddhists in areas where Buddhism holds sway, and Christians in societies where Christianity is dominant. However, the mere circumstance of birthplace lacks persuasive power in determining the validity of a worldview. Hence, we can disregard this option. Option 2 shares similarities with Option 1, yet it might appear somewhat more appealing, particularly on a psychological level, due to the perceived advantages of belonging to a supportive community. However, skeptics can readily question this option, as we can find people joining all sorts of religions around the world for similar psychological and sociological reasons. Relying on a worldview solely because the associated community offers a sense of belonging and support lacks convincing force. Therefore, we can discount this option. Option 3 is known in philosophy as *[direct doxastic voluntarism](https://iep.utm.edu/doxastic-voluntarism/)* . It's a highly contested view and I'm personally extremely skeptical of its existence. Option 4 stands as a huge philosophical battleground, characterized by a vast array of debates, arguments, and counter-arguments, along with an abundance of literature exploring every major claim of the Christian faith, from the existence of God to the resurrection of Jesus. Notable examples include debates such as: - [Ehrman vs Craig: Evidence for Resurrection](https://youtu.be/MW5_nJYSKyk) - [Is belief in the Resurrection reasonable? Trent Horn Vs Matt Dillahunty Debate](https://youtu.be/7V6UNSvHVDM) - [Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? (William Lane Craig vs Richard Carrier)](https://youtu.be/akd6qzFYzX8) - [Is the Kalam Sound? Graham Oppy vs. Andrew Loke](https://youtu.be/a8NrTv-Durc) - [Can We "Prove" that God Exists? | Graham Oppy vs Ed Feser](https://youtu.be/XoVDutpB4Cw) - [Are There Any Good Arguments for God? Ed Feser vs Graham Oppy](https://youtu.be/m-80lQOlNOs) - [Does Math Point to God? William Lane Craig + Graham Oppy](https://youtu.be/8WE1y00bwCU) - [William Lane Craig and Sean Carroll | "God and Cosmology" | 2014 Greer Heard Forum](https://youtu.be/X0qKZqPy9T8) - [DEBATE: Theism vs Atheism | Jonathan McLatchie vs Alex O’Connor](https://youtu.be/rnIQFI1pYLM) - [Free Will, Souls, and the Problem of Evil | Richard Swinburne and Alex O'Connor](https://youtu.be/8Y3PtkyhOiU) - [Dave Farina vs. James Tour Debate (Are We Clueless About the Origin of Life?)](https://youtu.be/KvGdllx9pJU) - [REBUTTING atheist objections to the fine-tuning argument](https://youtu.be/bGbbWyd4l7Q) - [Why is God hidden? Cosmic Skeptic & Lukas Ruegger at Oxford University with Max Baker-Hytch](https://youtu.be/9nc0YT-WTnQ) - [Why I Am/Am Not a Christian, @CosmicSkeptic vs. @TheCounselofTrent // CCx22 Session 2](https://youtu.be/dFYrfKHSV2k) - etc. These discussions involve highly intelligent individuals representing various viewpoints. Some argue that evidence, reason, and arguments can prove the existence of God, while others disagree. Option 4 presents a double-edged sword. Some individuals may find certain philosophical arguments compelling, sufficient to ground their faith. Conversely, others may find arguments to the contrary more convincing. As an outsider, discerning which side holds the upper hand is challenging. The ongoing nature of these debates, spanning millennia, may suggest an epistemological stalemate where neither side manages to sway the other convincingly. This impasse might lead one to consider agnosticism as a more intellectually honest and humble stance ([Why Am I Agnostic?](https://youtu.be/YTsSW7UeZpY) by the *Majesty of Reason* YouTube Channel provides further insights). If we dismiss Options 1 and 2 due to their lack of persuasiveness, and Option 3 due to its profound philosophical controversies, we're left with Options 4 and 5. However, Option 4, despite being a fervent philosophical battleground, offers no clear path to resolution. Therefore, we'll also set it aside. This leaves us only with Option 5, which, in my humble opinion, appears to be the most promising avenue. After all, what better foundation for one's faith in God than a direct encounter with God? What better basis for faith in Christ than a personal encounter with Christ? The Apostle Paul's experience, vividly depicted in the ninth chapter of the Book of Acts, echoes this sentiment perfectly well. Which Christian theological perspectives would agree to a significant extent with this reasoning? Which Christian theological frameworks support anchoring one's faith in a direct encounter with God? --- **Clarifications on Option #5** The five options I have enumerated and described above have been criticized in the comments due to (purportedly) lacking "love". Quote: > What is completely absent from all of this is any trace of love whatsoever. We love him, because he first loved us. 1 John 4:19. Down-voted and voted to closure for lack of focus. The question has no heart. – NigelJ > The reason @NigelJ's comment is important is that all Christian religions embrace the idea of being touched by the love of Christ. If you're willing to include that in your option #5, then the question is trivial. You seemed to imply a "direct encounter with God," which would suggest standing face-to-face and talking to one another or (since you mention Paul) at least physically hearing a voice - which is a LOT different. Do you also include experiencing the Gifts of the Spirit (1 Cor 12)? In which case we're back to everybody agrees. BTW, having been a proselytizing missionary myself, options 1-4 make for a poor conversion (see Matt 13:3-8). My option #5 includes everything from standing in the presence of the Father, Jesus and/or the Holy Ghost to experiencing the Gifts of the Spirit to personal revelation - all of which, when combined with experience actually repenting and choosing to follow Christ, makes for a strong conversion. You don't seem to be interested in any of that as an option, however. – JBH If God pours out his love over a human being, and that human being experiences such supernatural love, that's a religious/spiritual/mystical experience by my lights. So experiencing God's love is definitely encapsulated by Option 5, and thus this specific critique is misplaced in my opinion. The same goes for experiencing the Gifts of the Spirit and receiving personal revelation, as suggested by @JBH. These are all examples of spiritual experiences. However, Cessationists would take issue with the suggestion that one can experience (certain) spiritual gifts today, thus challenging @JBH's assertion that "everybody agrees".

Jesus sent disciples to prepare a place so He could eat the Passover with them. (Luke 22:8). He did eat with them at this meal (Mark 14:18). I could not find any indication that after having blessed and broken the bread and, declaring that is was his body and distributing it to the disciples, Jesus Himself ate some of it. Since this was a repurposing of the Passover, which Jesus expressed eagerness to eat with them, it seems at least possible that He did partake. There is some more direct indication, however, that He did partake of the wine: > Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God. - Mark 14:25. My questions are for those who hold to the doctrine of transubstantiation: 1) Did Jesus partake of the elements of this first Lord's Supper and, if so, 2) Did He eat His own flesh and drink His own blood?

About an hour into Matt Fradd's [6 hour podcast with Jimmy Akin](https://open.spotify.com/episode/1Pccvj2dLzmowvqIamzm1a?si=b2bbefabd87f4666) , Jimmy says that Pope Benedict XVI wanted to move the sign of peace from its current placement in the Mass to another place. Where did he want to move it to and for what reason - did he want it to be optional or made required?

Dean John Burgon (1813-1888) says in his book 'Revisions Revised' that he had catalogued 96,000 references to the scriptures in the early church fathers (such as Jerome, Eusebius, Augustine etc) in order to collate them in regard to Textual Criticism. These 96,000 'Patristic Citations', as they are known, must be held somewhere but I could not find them at the British Library in London where I would have expected them to be documented. Where else would these be catalogued ?

In the final session of the April 7, 2024 General Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, President Russell M. Nelson discussed the recent acquisition of the Kirtland Temple1 from the Community of Christ2 and mentioned some of the prophecies that had been fulfilled either due to the construction of the Temple or in the Temple itself. I am seeking a comprehensive list of all the prophecies relating to or fulfilled in the Kirtland Temple as believed by members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. For each prophecy, please provide: * The Biblical reference to the original prophecy. * Either an LDS scriptural reference to the fulfillment of the prophecy or a link to a page on www.ChurchOfJesusChrist.org that explains the fulfillment. 1 *"The temple functioned as a center of the Kirtland Saints’ worship, hosting Sabbath, prayer, and fasting meetings. Church leaders and missionaries assembled for study in subjects including reading, writing, history, and geography. The last session of the Kirtland School of the Prophets (also called the School of the Elders) was held in the temple." For more information about the Kirtland Temple, see [Kirtland Temple](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/kirtland-temple?lang=eng)* 2 *If it seems surprising that the Community of Christ owned the Kirtland Temple, please note that the [Community of Christ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_of_Christ) was formerly known as The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The organization included early LDS membership who disagreed with Brigham Young's elevation to Prophet and remained east of the Mississippi river after many of the early church's membership left Nauvoo, IL for Salt Lake City, UT. It's not surprising that they had ownership of the property.*

Does the Catholic Church recognize Protestant baptism? What if one wants to convert to Catholicism, but can't get baptized, or they originally were part of a protestant church and were baptized and wish to convert. How exactly would that work?

Do most Roman Catholics still believe that Christ's physical body is present in the Eucharist, or do most Roman Catholics believe that it is Christ's spiritual presence in the Eucharist? It is difficult to believe that, if one took the bread during communion and physically analyzed it, that physically it would be anything other than bread. It seems that spiritual presence would be sufficient for a sacrament.

Let's say on some island in Oceania the locals one day found a King James version (or any other version in their own language) and believed into Christ, started having regular meetings, in which they would pray and practice Eucharist with bread and wine. Will the Eastern Orthodox Church acknowledge that kind of Eucharist as valid, that is, a true Eucharist?

For reference, I am not a Christian but I am interested in hearing theistic perspectives on this. The fine tuning argument essentially goes that the probability of constants in physics resulting in life is very low given all possible constants. On the other hand, the probability of these constants is high given that a designer existed and wanted to produce life. But probabilities depend on sample spaces. Who gets to define sample spaces? When we calculate the probability of life producing constants, we implicitly think that the sample space is all possible real numbers. Why? Secondly, what is the sample space when calculating the designer’s intentions and more importantly the sample space of events when calculating the designer’s existence? Why isn’t there a global sample space that includes all kinds of different universes with different constants but also god? Different answers to these give wildly different probabilities. The probability of a dice landing on 2 is 1/6. The probability of a unicorn magically making the dice land on 2 if it existed and wanted it to be this way is 1. But what is the probability of this unicorn existing and what would be the corresponding sample space? It seems as if answers to these questions are arbitrary. If the sample spaces cannot be justified, how is there any justification for any of the probabilities used in the fine tuning argument in the first place?

I was just reading a sermon by Charles Spurgeon and wondered what his view on the Lord's Supper was.

Is there any Christian denomination in which members of the congregation are given enough wine in the Eucharist/Communion that their blood alcohol concentration as measured by a breathalyzer would likely be nonzero? (I'm not counting the minister, so if a priest has to consume excess consecrated wine as I believe is required in Catholicism, that doesn't count for the purposes of this question.)

From the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, Jesus taught that both died but went to different destinations in the afterlife. Lazarus was comforted in Abraham's bossom which is paradise and the rich man received in Hades. These two destinations are temporary as the saints in paradise will later move to the new heaven and the new earth while those who wait in Hades will move from there to the lake of fire. I do believe that paradise is full of the saints from the old testament and the new testament such Moses, Elijah, Elisha and the rest. They also await the ultimate resurrection of every human being that has ever walked over the face of the earth on the last day. Are these destinations real or Jesus was symbolically speaking about what will happen after judgment where some people will be exalted to life and others sent to the lake of fire ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed says: > And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father > [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of > God,] Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being > of one substance with the Father; How are the Son and the Father different? In the Nicene Creed it seems that they are separate persons but sharing the same substance. Do Catholics believe that there is a substance out of which God is made? What is the "substance" being discussed here? We cannot say that Jesus is God in the sense of identity, because then Jesus is God and the Father is God so Jesus is the Father, which contradicts the doctrine.

From [Abiogenesis - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis) : > In biology, abiogenesis (from a-‘not’ + Greek bios ‘life’ + genesis 'origin') or **the origin of life is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds**. The prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event, but an evolutionary process of increasing complexity that involved the formation of a habitable planet, the prebiotic synthesis of organic molecules, molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes. Many proposals have been made for different stages of the process. The mainstream scientific understanding of abiogenesis postulates that life emerged naturally from non-living matter through chemical reactions that took place on a primitive Earth (or on another planet -- see [panspermia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Panspermia)) . Of course, this runs contrary to theistic views that place God as the designer and creator of life (e.g. see Genesis 1). According to Creationists, what are the strongest arguments against the feasibility of abiogenesis? Are there compelling reasons to reject the hypothesis that life could have emerged naturally from non-living matter without the purposeful intervention of an intelligent designer? ___ Relevant Biology Stack Exchange discussions: - [How hard would it be to create a protein "by chance"?](https://biology.stackexchange.com/q/85890) - [Experiments on abiogenesis in laboratories](https://biology.stackexchange.com/q/55225)

William Huntington (1745 – 1813) preached in London to many hundreds, sometimes thousands, in the latter part of his life. After his death a number of preachers followed in his footsteps, such as William Gadsby, John Kershaw, William Tiptaft and, notably, J C Philpot. The movement changed its name in order to separate from what was considered erroneous and in order to define what was seen to be true and the names ‘Strict Baptist’ then ‘Gospel Standard Strict Baptist’ were applied. Huntington, and those who followed, denied that the Christian was under law (whether ‘moral’ or ‘ceremonial’) and he advanced a variety of texts to support this : I am crucified with Christ, Galatians 2:20 ; Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believeth, Romans 10:4 ; ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ, Romans 7:4. Aside from these texts (which are not the subject of this question) Huntington also argued with regard to Old Testament believers - who lived before Moses' delivery of the law, and before the enunciating of the ten commandments to Israel at Sinai. If no law had yet been delivered, he argues, how then did these saints live ? Such as Abel, Enoch, Noah, Job, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph ? They are specifically said to be justified and accounted righteous in the sight of God, but how did they live, thereafter, without law to guide them ? In his book *Law and Grace Contrasted* Huntington says : >By faith Enoch had this testimony that he pleased God, Hebrews 11:5 ; but without faith it is impossible to please him, Hebrews 11:6. Then faith is a rule that God approves of, and is pleased with. If the ten commandments be the believer’s only rule of a righteous life, what then of Abel who obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts, Hebrews 11:4, an entire dispensation before the commandments were given ? > >Noah, who became heir of the righteousness of faith, Hebrews 11:7, was certainly without the legal rule of works, when he prepared an ark and condemned the world, by faith, without a law to guide him. > >Abraham, the friend of God and the father of the faithful and heir of the world must also walk uncertainly [if only law could truly guide him (edit)]. I think it is important to notice that Mr Huntington is not arguing about justification by faith (and how it is achieved), he is arguing regarding a sanctified life, thereafter. This argument, regarding saints who died before the law was laid down, is that which engages me and I would be interested to know what Protestants have made of it. I am aware that some Protestants have not accepted what Mr Huntington preached and indeed many have called him, inaccurately, an ‘Antinomian’. But what do they make of this argument regarding Old Testament saints ?

How is was this verse understood by the early reformers, such as Luther or Calvin? > Romans 5:20-21 NIV > > The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase.

Death was introduced after the original sin (Adam was immortal until the fall), some people even think that Our Lady didn't die but just was assumpted in her sleep. If Christ didn't have the original sin, then how did He die?

When I was in Utah, I found myself consciously avoiding the term "Mormon," in favor of "LDS." While I understand the term "LDS" means "Latter Day Saint," what I don't know is either the provenance or connotation of the term 'Mormon.' So, first off, why and how did the term "Mormon" come denote members of the Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints, and secondly, is it at all offensive to use the term?

I'm intrigued by whether Christians holding such beliefs exist and how they rationalize their stance. Is it coherent to affirm that God still performs miracles while denying the ongoing bestowal of miraculous gifts? More specifically, I'm curious about: - Their understanding of what constitutes a miracle (as opposed to a mundane or natural event). - Their distinction between miraculous and non-miraculous gifts. - Their reasoning behind believing in the continuation of miracles. - Their reasoning behind believing in the cessation of miraculous gifts. - Whether they justify their position using exegesis only, an analysis of historical/empirical data, or a mixture of both.