This is an honest question and I would just like to know why "Jesus". "God sent his Son as Redeemer and Savior. In his Son and through him, he invites men to become, in the Holy Spirit, his adopted children and thus heirs of his blessed life." (CCC-1) Weren't we always his children and heirs? It does not make sense that He had to send Jesus. This is what I found in the Gospel: Matthew 5:17 >Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. But why, it does not seem like a good enough reason to be crucified for. Luke 12:51 >Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division. Between good and evil, God knew already who is good and who is evil. Why did he need to send Jesus to divide? Matthew 10:34 >Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. Okay, this I get to come and punish the people physically on earth, but God can do that from anywhere and have done it before. Why send Jesus to do it? Mark 2:17 >Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners. All the prophets before him did the same thing, why send Jesus? Luke 5:32 >I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance. All the prophets before him did the same thing, why send Jesus? Mark 10:45 >For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. To give His life in exchange for ours, so we might be saved. This doesn't make sense because just believing in Jesus and repenting is the same as believing in God and repenting why introduce an extra step? Why make it more complicated and divide even people more? Luke 4:18-19 >The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor. This made the most sense to me, people at that time did not understand what God wanted. God sent Jesus to explain to the people that it's not just about following rules but cultivating a relationship and that everything that you do matters. You cannot say that you are a Christian but you value money or other things more than Me. You cannot say you are Christian but there are more important things in your life than God. He sends Jesus to make the people understand what is it to believe and to be Christian. He sent Him as an example. That is what I think, and I think this scripture relates to my own thoughts. Many of the previous prophets did the same, what I don't get is why sent Jesus to do this task if John or some of the other prophets could have done it also. Luke 19:10 >For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost. Same thoughts as Luke 4:18-19. John 3:17 >For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Same thoughts as Luke 4:18-19. John 6:38-40 >For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. I don't understand this. John 9:39 >Jesus said, “For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind.” Same thoughts as Luke 4:18-19. John 10:10 >The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly. Same thoughts as Luke 4:18-19. John 12:46 >I have come into the world as light, so that whoever believes in me may not remain in darkness. Same thoughts as Luke 4:18-19. John 18:37 >Then Pilate said to him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world—to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.” I don't understand.

A while back I read the book ***Remembrances of a Journey in Tartary, Tibet and China***. The book chronicles two French Catholic Missionaries in these regions during the years 1844, 1845, and 1846. In order to avoid too much reprisals from locals Father [Evariste Huc](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Évariste_Régis_Huc#Works) and Father Joseph Gabet darkened their skin and donned the robes traditionally worn by religious [Buddhists lamas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lama) of these regions and called themselves ***lamas of the western skies*** (meaning Europe). > When his Chinese was considered sufficient, he disguised himself for work on the mainland by growing out his hair, cutting it into the obligatory queue, wearing loose Chinese garments, and dyeing his skin to a yellower shade. He took a ship up the Pearl River to Guangzhou ("Canton") and oversaw a mission in the southern provinces for a time. He then traveled north to Beijing ("Peking"), where he improved his Mandarin. > > In Mongolia > > He then settled in the Valley of Black Waters or Heishui, 300 miles (480 km) north of Beijing and just within the borders of Mongolia. There, beyond the Great Wall of China, a large but scattered population of native Christians had taken refuge from the persecutions of the Jiaqing Emperor ("Kia-king") who had added Christianity to China's list of condemned superstitions and cults, threatening missionaries with execution and converts with enslavement to the Muslims of Xinjiang. Huc devoted himself to the study of the dialects and customs of the "Tartars," for whom he translated several religious texts. - [Évariste Régis Huc](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Évariste_Régis_Huc#Works) My question is as follows: **What are the unique ways Catholic Missionaries are employing in Mongolia nowadays to expand the Christian faith?** I am also leaving this question open to other Christian denominations in Mongolia, seeing that the Christian population of tthis country is extremely small.

In the Magnificat, Mary refers to God as *her* Savior. According to Roman Catholic doctrine, Mary was born sinless and remained sinless throughout her life. So, why does Mary refer to God as **her Savior** if she was sinless (and therefore would not have need of a Savior or even have one). > And Mary said: > > “My soul exalts the Lord, And my spirit has rejoiced in **God my > Savior**. For He has had regard for the humble state of His > bondslave; for behold, from this time on all generations will count me > blessed. For the Mighty One has done great things for me; and holy > is His name. And His mercy is upon generation after generation Toward > those who fear Him. He has done mighty deeds with His arm; He has > scattered those who were proud in the thoughts of their heart. He > has brought down rulers from their thrones, And has exalted those who > were humble. He has filled the hungry with good things; And sent away > the rich empty-handed. He has given help to Israel His servant, In > remembrance of His mercy, As He spoke to our fathers, To Abraham and > his descendants forever.” (Luke 1:46-55)

If Mary was born without original sin and remained sinless, even so Jesus was her savior, for she said, > “My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my > Savior..." (Luke 1:46-47) What do Catholics claim that Mary needed to be saved from? I imagine natural disasters, murderers, and Satan might be in the list, plus the grief of seeing her son executed. What does the church teach?

Those who believe in a pre-tribulation rapture often claim that it is clearly taught by the Scriptures, and the only possible interpretation for those who take the Bible at face value seriously. However, the arguments used to prove a pre-trib rapture are extremely complex and difficult for me to follow. Proponents generally acknowledge that no passage of Scripture teaches it plainly, but rather that it is an inference from a collage of different passages. Fair enough; I don't want to go into a full discussion of the arguments for/against here. Rather, I was struck while reading *Amillennialism and the Age to Come: A Premillennial Critique of the Two-Age Model* by Matt Waymeyer by this argument he presents rebutting a particular amillennialist argument regarding the meanings of "first" and "second" within Rev.20: > The third difficulty with this argument relates to the **perspicuity of Scripture.** Simply stated, it is difficult to imagine that any interpreter would ever have taken this approach...prior to its discovery in the second half of the 20th century. How could even the most diligent of Bible students be expected to reach this conclusion? Why would the apostle John use such obscure language, demanding such a convoluted interpretive process?...As Harold Hoehner observes, "The complexity of this view makes it suspect." > > (*Amillennialism and the Age to Come* page 221, emph. added) (*Note: this is not Waymeyer's argument against Amillennialism as a whole, nor any key part of it, but rather against a particular interpretation of the words "first" and "second" used in Rev. 20:5-6*.) Waymeyer is himself a dispensationalist and a believer in a pre-trib rapture. But I cannot see how his argument here does not apply equally to the pre-trib rapture. I am wondering how he might respond to his own argument: - It is difficult to imagine anyone taking this approach prior to its discovery in the 1800s. - How could even the most diligent of Bible students be expected to reach this conclusion? - Why would Jesus and the apostles use such obscure language, demanding such a convoluted interpretive process? - The complexity of this view makes it suspect. To be clear, **I am not asking about the correctness of the pre-trib rapture**. Rather, I am asking **how adherents reconcile this belief with the doctrine of perspicuity of Scripture**, when it is the conclusion of an extremely complex reasoning process, and there is little-to-no evidence that anyone took this view prior to modern times. ---- *Update in response to comments:* The comments have suggested two possible reconciliations: 1. The perspicuity of Scripture is false, or 2. The pre-trib rapture theory is not an important enough issue for perspicuity to be relevant (as perspicuity properly only applies to central doctrines). Both of these would resolve the issue, but I do not think many who believe in a pre-trib rapture would take either option. Waymeyer certainly would not, as he uses perspicuity as an argument against a minute detail in the whole amillennialist argument, demonstrating both that he believes in perspicuity of Scripture and that he thinks it may be applied to issues not of central importance.

At John 13:1-30 we see the narrative of the last Passover meal that Jesus partook with his disciples, in which Judas is identified as the one who would betray him : > .... After saying this Jesus was troubled in spirit, and declared, “Very truly, I tell you, one of you will betray me.” .... So while reclining next to Jesus, he (John ) asked him, “Lord, who is it?” . Jesus answered, “It is the one to whom I give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish.” So when he had dipped the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas son of Simon Iscariot. After he received the piece of bread, Satan entered into him. Jesus said to him, “Do quickly what you are going to do.” ... So, after receiving the piece of bread, he immediately went out. And it was night Now, the Gospel according John does not contain an explcit narration of the Institution of Holy Eucharist . Reading that with I Corinthians 11:25 which says that the supper had been ended as Jesus took the cup calling it the new covenant of His Blood, one is inclined to believe that Judas had left the venue even before the Eucharist was constituted. My question therefore, is: **Does the Catholic Church categorically teach that Judas Iscariot participated in the First Eucharist instituted by Jesus at the Last Supper?** If it does not, why do the images of Last Supper that we have, contain the picture of twelve Apostles?

Brigham Young taught in April 1852 (as recorded in contemporary journals) that “Adam is Michael or God ... and all the God that we have any thing to do with” (see Wilford Woodruff journal entry dated 1852‑04‑09). Later LDS leaders publicly denounced what they called the “Adam‑God theory” (e.g., Spencer W. Kimball, 1976; Bruce R. McConkie, 1980). In modern discussion, it is often claimed that Brigham Young learned this doctrine from Joseph Smith. Some historians also note that Brigham appears to have believed this attribution, whether or not the transmission can be demonstrated in surviving documents. Question: *What extant primary sources (sermons, diaries, minutes, letters, temple instruction notes, etc.) from Joseph Smith’s lifetime (before June 1844) explicitly teach or clearly imply that Adam is God the Father / the father of human spirits (“the God with whom we have to do”)?* If there are no surviving Joseph‑era documents that state this directly, what are the earliest post‑1844 primary sources that attribute this teaching to Joseph Smith, and what exactly do they say (with dates and provenance)? Please: - Cite primary sources with date and repository (JSP, diaries, archives, etc.). - Distinguish this claim from narrower teachings such as “Adam is Michael” or “Adam is the Ancient of Days,” which might not the same as directly saying Adam being God the Father. I do realize that the Encyclopaedia Judaica shows evidence otherwise and connects them as do other sources, but I'm looking for additional more direct LDS quotes. - Focus on documenting the historical record rather than arguing whether the doctrine is true.

I read [an article by Russell Moore in Christianity Today](https://www.christianitytoday.com/2026/01/christians-romans-13-ice-shooting-minneapolis/) explaining that Christians shouldn’t abuse Romans 13, particularly in the Minneapolis ICE shooting. When I read verses 1-7, specifically verse it seems to apply directly to this tragedy, specifically verses 3-4: >“For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.” Renee Good was engaged in criminal behavior as she blocked law enforcement with her vehicle, disobeyed official orders to get out of her vehicle, and ultimately hit law enforcement with her vehicle. I struggle to understand Russell Moore’s explanation that applying Romans 13 here is abuse. Romans 13 does not seem complicated, but he seems to over-complicate the text.

What is the history of Biblical interpretation for "not abolishing the law but to fulfill them" (Matt 5:17), accounting for the Jewish history of understanding the Law of Moses, and the issue of how they interpret and teach in the synagogue?

One of the many important areas of disagreement between Catholicism and Protestantism is how the two understand the intercession of the saints. Both groups agree that saints in heaven may pray to God on behalf of the Church on earth. However, Catholics believe that it is appropriate for Christians alive on earth now to ask the saints in heaven to pray for us, whereas Protestants do not think so. In defense of their view, Catholics often cite 2nd Maccabees 12:39-46, which reads in the *New American Bible:* > 39 On the following day, since the task had now become urgent, Judas and his companions went to gather up the bodies of the fallen and bury them with their kindred in their ancestral tombs. 40 But under the tunic of each of the dead they found amulets sacred to the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear. So it was clear to all that this was why these men had fallen. 41 They all therefore praised the ways of the Lord, the just judge who brings to light the things that are hidden. 42 Turning to supplication, they prayed that the sinful deed might be fully blotted out. The noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen. 43 He then took up a collection among all his soldiers, amounting to two thousand silver drachmas, which he sent to Jerusalem to provide for an expiatory sacrifice. In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection in mind; 44 for if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. 45 But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. 46 Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be absolved from their sin. I don't see what the connection is. I would think that people on earth praying for the deceased is the opposite of people on earth praying to saints in heaven. In the former case, it is *our* prayers which are meant to be helpful to *them*. In the latter, it is *their* prayers which are meant to help *us*. Furthermore, in the former case there is no communication between the living and the dead, quite unlike the idea of directing prayers towards people in heaven. (And that is a very important detail, as that is the point of divergence between Catholic and Protestant regarding the Intercession of the Saints.) The footnote in the 2012 *New American Bible* also makes no reference to prayers to the saints on these verses: > This is the earliest statement of the doctrine that prayers (v. 42) and sacrifices (v.43) for the dead are efficacious. Judas probably intended his purification offering to ward off punishment from the living. The author, however, uses the story to demonstrate belief in the resurrection of the just (7:9, 14, 23, 36), and in the possibility of expiation for the sins of otherwise good people who have died. This belief is similar to, but not quite the same as, the Catholic doctrine of purgatory. So basically, I do not see how the practice of praying *to* people in Heaven is similar to praying *on behalf of* people in Purgatory. **I would like some clarification on the purported connection between the two concepts.**

How did Job have a conversation with God before Christ was incarnated, and the coming of the Holy Spirit? What ***form*** did Job recognize as being God who was talking to him?

Benedict Ashley, O.P., *Spiritual Direction in the Dominican Tradition* p. 50 claims: >Naturally speaking, the human species is divided equally into male and female, so that every human can find a partner and form a marriage, and if there had been no fall into sin, naturally all persons would have married. Is this true? Would've everyone married if there were no Original Sin? It seems not, as isn't celibacy equally natural as being married? What did Catholic fathers or doctors of the Church have to say about this?

I have heard that the legal age of marriage was quite young in Jewish culture at the time of Christ. I believe young girls at the age of twelve could marry. However, I find it difficult to imagine Mary as young as thirteen years years old around the time of her giving birth, because of the maturity of her words that are found in the gospels. Is there any tradition that would place a more realistic age of Mary? Or is this just completely unknown even when guessing?

Heb 4:12: > For the **word of God** is **living** and effective and sharper than any double-edged sword, penetrating as far as the separation of soul and spirit, joints and marrow. **It is able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.** (CSB) > For the **word of God** is **quick**, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and **is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart**. (KJV) is quoted a lot by evangelicals in promoting devotional Bible study as though *the act of reading the Bible text in itself* produces the benefit that the Pastor of the book of Hebrews mentions in the verse, i.e. "judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart". But technically, isn't it true that it is **NOT** the text on paper that "judges" but **Jesus (God the Word)** speaking to us? Jesus is the one living, not the text. The theme of the sermon makes it clear what "word of God" refers to, *cf* Heb 1:1-2: > Long ago God spoke to our ancestors by the **prophets** at different times and in different ways. In these last days, **he has spoken to us by his Son**. God has appointed him heir of all things and **made the universe through him**. (CSB) > God, who at sundry times and in divers manners **spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets**, Hath in these last days **spoken unto us by his Son**, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; (KJV) which more precisely refers to the words God spoke by the OT prophets, culminating in His word by Jesus's body, life, action, and words. V. 2 alludes to the words through which God spoke creation into existence (Gen 1) that the Pastor implied as "through Jesus". It seems clear to me that proper exegesis should center the referent of "the word of God" in Heb 4:12 on Jesus who *indeed* is **living and present** preaching to us through the various ways alluded by Heb 1:1-2: - prophecy to OT fathers by the prophets - voice of our conscience (part of the created order), - the beauty & order of nature herself (testified in Job, Psalms, etc.) rather than ***ONLY*** through the words of the text of the Bible (though of course the Bible is the inscripturated word of God also). Furthermore, the more immediate context of Heb 4:12 is Heb 3:1-4:13 about the warning from the lesson learned at Kadesh Barnea's rebellion where they didn't heed the word of God delivered through Moses. Thus the warning of that passage is so that we heed Christ's words to our soul TODAY (*cf* frequent reference to Ps 95:7-8) now that God has spoken to us a lot more clearly by sending Jesus, His own incarnation, greater than the word He spoke to Moses. So why do Evangelicals, whenever they cite the verse in many sermons, Bible study guides, proof-text for apologetics, etc., regularly shift the referent of Heb 4:12 from Jesus to the text of the Bible itself, even broadening the scope to the NT text that has *yet* to be recognized as Scripture? ### 2 illustrations of the consequence of bad exegesis I think my concern for my evangelical brothers and sisters is important when considering **the two disturbing practices I notice** which seems directly to follow from this bad Evangelical exegesis: 1. In several evangelical churches I have attended, they imply that to obtain the benefit in Heb 4:12b, reading the Bible text in itself *is more efficacious* than other books (such as a good theology book, the Catechism, or a C.S. Lewis book), as though God works in a MORE SPECIAL MANNER in producing the benefit when the text read is the Bible but not other books. They seem fearful as though theology books can be more corrupting than the effect of uninformed straight reading of the Bible that has the risk of bad private interpretation if not checked by the church's interpretation mediated by the pastor's sermons. Some even eschew using a commentary, fearing that the commentator's interpretation obscures Scripture rather than making it brighter to the mind! To me this is not coherent. Doesn't the **agent** need to be someone LIVING rather than words on a page? But Evangelical careful readers (adopting the Berean discernment) certainly prioritize the teaching in Scripture to serve as a norm and a rule to judge whether a book elucidate or distorts the orthodox teachings of the Bible. Thus they pick and choose better parts of C.S. Lewis books and quote judiciously from writers such as Dallas Willard / A.W. Tozer. When a Christian reading those books became convicted of their sins and obtained more wisdom to know their hearts more clearly (thus obtaining the benefit of Heb 4:12b), can we *not* say it was Jesus speaking through those books? Can we *not* say it was Jesus speaking through a Biblical sermon prepared with lots of research including the use of commentaries, philosophy, and theology books? No one is going to mistake those books as "word of God", put them on the same level as the Bible, or attribute the author or the pastor as "Jesus speaking". By the way, I am in no way disputing the status of the text of the Bible as Scripture, nor am I excluding Scripture from the "word of God". Evangelical doctrines of - Verbal inspiration of Scripture - Infallibility of Scripture - *Sola Scriptura* as the norm for interpreting other sources such as tradition, council canons, patristic writings, church doctrines, post-NT prophecies, etc. - Protestant understanding of canon of "recognition" instead of Magisterium can be derived from other parts of the Bible instead of misusing this verse in support of the above, which in turn make the above doctrines stand on a less secure foundation. 1. The advice I got from several fundamentalist leaning evangelicals is that to evangelize you HAVE to look for an opportunity to cite a series of strategic Bible verses as though by the very act of reading them aloud to the non-Christian you're speaking to, the Holy Spirit can work BETTER in convicting him/her. One such sequence is this: 1. Romans 10:9 1. John 1:12 1. John 3:36 1. Rev 3:20 1. Rom 6:23 They say I am NOT supposed to let my own explanation to cloud over the reciting of those verses, even explanation of the CONTEXT of each verse! Nor is it necessary to let him/her talk about his/her current misunderstanding of the gospel or the difficulties he/she has with Christianity. **One should simply recite the verses to let them "work" in the hearer's heart unmediated by explanation**. I think I'm justified to say that this practice is adding a mystical element to the Bible text itself, as though the text has mystical power akin to incantation. So my question is: **Why do evangelicals tend to conflate "word of God" in Heb 4:12 with the "text of Scripture", thus with a meaning that ascribes animacy and agency to the words of the Bible text instead of to the Living God?**

**NOTE :** This question is aimed at narrowing down the probability, when did Mary committed an actual and personal sin, and what is the most likely nature of sin that She would commit? Protestant and Bible Alone Believers do not accept the Dogma on Immaculate Conception for lack of biblical support, so its only fair for Catholics, that we also, cannot accept the accusation that Mary is a sinner, for the same reason that it also lacking in biblical support. And so, its now the Protestant and Bible Alone Believers turn to prove their accusation and judgement that Mary is a sinner, by providing us biblical proof? Sin of pride, lust, envy, gluttony, sloth, etc. What is the most probable nature of sin that a lowly handmaid, a human being with profound humility, who is daily praying and embracing the Will of the Father, can fall into? Let's check on Mary's age. At age 1 to 3, is the age of innocence, therefore, Mary cannot commit sin here at this age. At age 3 to 13, Mary had spent her life in the Temple as a servant of God. Most likely, Satan cannot offer any of his temptations as he did to Jesus as money, fame and power will not entice the young Mary of this non-sense. https://www.mdrevelation.org/the-presentation-of-mary-in-the-temple/ At age 13, Angel Gabriel having faculties to see the soul of human being, saw Mary's soul as "full of grace", and telling us that in Mary's soul, the Lord presence can be seen. -Dominus tecum. Before conception, during conception and after giving birth it is unlikely that Mary can commit sin, as She was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit. And so, for all the Bible Alone Believers and wizards here at CSE, we only have one choices left. Mary is possible to commit sin, after giving birth to Jesus Christ. But what is the nature of sin, that a person who is docile to the voice of God, and had shown holiness and righteousness in her life,so, the simple and direct question is... What is the nature of sin that Mary would fall into after giving birth to Jesus Christ? **Can anyone tell us according to the bible, what is the nature of sin that Mary had fallen into, after giving birth to Jesus Christ?** Catholic, Protestant and Christian can answer this question, using only bible as the source and nothing else.

When does Christmas really end for Catholics? I know it starts different for most Eastern Orthodox, but for Latin Rite Catholics, like myself, I don't know when it actually is supposed to end. At the very least I know it's over by Ash Wednesday, but there there seem to be very real reasons to celebrate from 1. December 25 - January 1st (the octave of Christmas, ending with the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God) 2. December 25 - January 6th (the 12 days of Christmas, ending with the Epiphany) 3. December 25 - February 2nd (40 day celebration, ending with the Presentation) So, I guess the real question is who has the stamina to party Catholic style for 40 days, especially after the hubbub leading up to Christmas, but in a liturgical sense, when does the Christmas season end?

I know that there are a respectable number of denominations that hold to the idea that the scriptures aren’t innerant (free from error). But are there any that go as far as to teach that the scriptures aren’t inspired?

What are the oldest manuscripts of the Bible that contain either the Torah, Tanakh, Gospels, or New Testament? How far back do the Septuagint, Dead Sea scrolls, Codexis, or Masoretic parchments go?

Affable Geek's answer to What does it mean to interpret the Bible literally? mentioned the possibility of non-literalists interpreting the story of David and Goliath as a "tale that grew in the telling." This reminded me of something I read many years ago in a Bible commentary. It mentioned that several odd discrepancies exist in the details surrounding the story of David and Goliath, making it appear as if another story had been clumsily inserted into the middle of the text by some scribe. Unfortunately, the book was borrowed and I no longer have it, and I don't remember all the points that were made, but the one I remember clearly, because it was so blatant, was how David, once he volunteered to fight Goliath as Israel's champion, was introduced to King Saul as if for the first time, even though he had been serving in the King's court as a musician for quite some time prior to this. Of course a literalist must necessarily reject this idea that the story is full of later interpolations. How would one account for the apparent discrepancies in the story of David and Goliath, then?

Pelagianism is the point of view which suggests that human nature has not been affected by the Fall and that therefore every human being has the potential to achieve sinlessness by his/her own will. This view was condemned as heretical at the Council of Ephesus, though the main topic of the council was about the Nestorian controversy on the two natures of Christ and Pelagianism was not the main focus. The Council of Ephesus was rejected by the Church of the East (now represented only by the Assyrian Church of the East), which considers Nestorius a saint. Since the disagreement between the CotE and Ephesine Christianity was over Nestorianism, I am wondering if the Church of the East would agree with Ephesus's condemnation of Pelagianism?