There is a question on here about the importance of fasting. But this is different because I want to know what denominations don't believe in fasting and why they think that its not important. I personally have great faith in fasting and in the power of fasting such as found in Mark and Matt, when the 12 have tried to cast out a devil but failed. > Mark 9:28-29, 28, (end of verse)...Why could not we cast him out? >29, And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting. > >Matt 17:21 Howbeit this kind goes not out but by prayer and fasting. Which is a clear example of where the disciples could not do something unless they fasted and prayed for the power to do it first. Edit: Changed as per the comments.

On p. 230 of Fr. F. W. Faber's [*The Precious Blood*](https://ia802601.us.archive.org/21/items/a5807812fabe00uoft/a5807812fabe00uoft.pdf) , we find the words: >In the days of Antichrist, when two-thirds even of the faithful shall fall away from the Church. Now, "a revolt" is spoken about in [2 Thess. 2:3](https://www.drbo.org/chapter/60002.htm) , which, I surmise, is what Fr. Faber is referring to. Can someone shed some light as to where the "two-thirds" figure may have come from? Can it be biblically inferred?

I remember once saw a Youtube video of some Christian priest mentioned about a specific difference between Christianity and other religions, namely in all other religions the messengers or founders had won battle with Satan, but only Jesus Christ as God transformed human flesh died and crucified for Satan (or by Satan, I cannot clearly recall), thus Satan would always fight back. I'm not entirely clear about the implication of such narrated difference. Is there any well known conclusion or school of thought of Christianity discussed this topic in depth?

1 Kings 2:28-29 (NIV) says: > 28 When the news reached Joab, who had conspired with Adonijah though not with Absalom, he fled to the tent of the LORD and took hold of the horns of the altar. 29 King Solomon was told that Joab had fled to the tent of the LORD and was beside the altar. Then Solomon ordered Benaiah son of Jehoiada, “Go, strike him down!” How did Joab know he could do this? Is there a place in the Old Testament where it says a person could flee to the Temple, grab hold of the horns on the alter, and find safety?

The idea of “**gaining a testimony**” is a key aspect of Latter-day Saint teachings, suggesting a special kind of revelatory spiritual experience serving to establish the truth of specific doctrines. Consequently, this experience is meant to possess remarkable epistemological significance. > **A testimony is a spiritual witness given by the Holy Ghost**. We can **gain a testimony** that we are children of our Heavenly Father, and that he loves us. We can **gain a testimony** that Jesus Christ is our Savior, and because of Him, our sins can be forgiven. We can **gain a testimony** that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is Jesus Christ’s restored church on the earth today. **By the power of the Holy Ghost, we can know the truthfulness of these things**. We can share our testimonies with others. > >(Source: [I Know This Church is True](https://www.livingscriptures.com/fhe-lesson-i-know-this-church-is-true-3/)) > **How Can I Gain a Testimony?** > > The most important truth you can learn is that the gospel of Jesus > Christ is true. This knowledge is called a testimony. You can have a > testimony, but it takes work. [...] > > - Read and study the scriptures. > - Obey Heavenly Father’s commandments. > - Attend sacrament meeting and Primary. > - Pray in faith to Heavenly Father **for a testimony** that the gospel of Jesus Christ is true. **You will know it is true “by the power of the** > **Holy Ghost”** (Moro. 10:5). > >(Source: [How Can I Gain a Testimony?](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/friend/2005/11/how-can-i-gain-a-testimony?lang=eng)) > [...] Earlier that month, one of my friends who had also been investigating The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints **received revelation that the Church was true**. I’m not going to lie, I was incredibly happy for him, but a part of me was slightly jealous when I found out. I had been reading the Book of Mormon and praying diligently almost all summer, asking God if this church was true. I was ready to join, ready to convert, ready to take it all in…. **once Christ gave me a sign**. **I had not received my green light yet**, so I sat on the edge of believing and wanting to be a part of this church without committing to a baptism. **I had to know that Christ wanted it for me**. **Without some sort of sign or answer from Him, I was not willing to become a member**. > > (Source: [The Effort to Gain a Testimony](https://ldsblogs.com/43275/the-effort-to-gain-a-testimony)) > This is the true, solid evidence of religious faith. Millions upon millions of Latter-Day Saints attest to the power of this principle: when you go to God in prayer, asking if this thing that purports to be from Him is true, *he does answer*. **It is a distinctive and unmistakable experience, and once you have received a confirmation of the truth from God, any earthly evidence pales by comparison. People can make mistakes, but the witness of the Holy Ghost is powerful and absolute**. > > (Source: [According to Latter-day Saints, should every honest, rational, and well-informed individual be able to reach the conclusion that Mormonism is true?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/99550/61679)) Does the notion of "**gaining a testimony**", perhaps worded in different terms, exist universally across Christianity? Is this something important for all (or at least most) Christian denominations or just for Latter-day Saints?

What is the Biblical basis for eternity lacking change? i.e, that God is immutable and views all time simultaneously. Boethius defines eternity as "simultaneously full and perfect possession of interminable life" What parts of the Bible support this understanding?

I have noticed this word ‘concupiscence’ a lot while studying Catholic Theology. It seems to significantly change what ‘Original Sin’ means, making a Catholic meaning of ‘Original Sin’ very different from the Protestant meaning. It appears to be a key word because the Catholic Church actually condemned the Protestant view during the reformation as being heretical. A lot of it seems to boil down to the word ‘concupiscence’. I have not encountered the word a lot in Protestant theology but it is coming up left, right and center, as I study Catholic Theology. **Why is the word ‘concupiscence’ so important in understanding the difference between a Catholic view and a Protestant view of ‘Original Sin’?**

How can Christianity make sense without a literal Adam and Eve? I have heard many Christians (particularly Catholics) try and be conciliatory with modern science by claiming that Adam and Eve were not real people and that Genesis was something along the lines of an allegory. But how does this make sense from a theological perspective? Wasn’t the entire point of Christ’s atonement to redeem humanity from their fall from grace, which is indeed the fault of humanity precisely because of Adam and Eve? How can the theologically “progressive” Christian explain the origin of sin, humanity’s state of sin, and the purpose of Christ’s atonement without resorting to Adam and Eve?

Recently a lesbian couple who are both priestesses in the Church of England received the first formal ***blessing of a same-sex partnership in a C of E service.*** Upon reading this, I thought to myself, at least the Catholic Church has resisted the pressure to bless same-sex partnerships. Apparently that is no longer the case. [Catholic priests can now bless same-sex couples](https://apnews.com/article/vatican-lgbtq-pope-bfa5b71fa79055626e362936e739d1d8) >19 December 2023: ROME (AP) — Pope Francis formally approved letting Catholic priests bless same-sex couples, the Vatican announced Monday, a radical shift in policy that aimed at making the church more inclusive while maintaining its strict ban on gay marriage. >But while the Vatican statement was heralded by some as a step toward breaking down discrimination in the Catholic Church, some LGBTQ+ advocates warned it underscored the church’s idea that gay couples remain inferior to heterosexual partnerships. >The document from the Vatican’s doctrine office elaborates on a letter Francis sent to two conservative cardinals that was published in October. In that preliminary response, Francis suggested such blessings could be offered under some circumstances if the blessings weren’t confused with the ritual of marriage. Up until this point I thought the Catholic Church viewed homosexuality as “intrinsically disordered” i.e., that such a union is not as God structured creation. Perhaps I am mistaken? I have no desire to be contentious (although this is a contentious issue for many Christians) but I really want to know ***the official Roman Catholic position on the blessing of same-sex partnerships.*** and where does the Roman Catholic Church go from here? P.S. I asked this question on same-sex marriage in October 2020: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/79466/what-is-the-official-catholic-position-on-same-sex-marriage-and-same-sex-civil-p P.P.S. I was unable to find a tag about same-sex partnerships so I have created one.

I've never seen a Mormon establish doctrine on the Book of Mormon, only arguing that the Book of Mormon is "another testament of Jesus Christ." So, since Mormons believe that is the case, surely they base some doctrine on the book of Mormon. So what important doctrines do Mormons believe are taught in the book of Mormon that we couldn't find in the Bible already?

On the 7th electronic page of [*The Precious Blood*](https://ia802601.us.archive.org/21/items/a5807812fabe00uoft/a5807812fabe00uoft.pdf) , is found: I found no copyright date in this book but Internet Archive estimates it to have been published between 1860 and 1890. I have noticed that many books such as this one published in the nineteenth century either do not contain an *Imprimatur* or indicate something to the effect (as is the case here): "an Approbation" by a competent ecclesiastical authority---in this instance, the Archbishop of Baltimore (Baltimore being the place where this book was published.) QUESTION: Would an "Approbation" of this sort constitute what today we refer to as an "Imprimatur"? I ask this, for I have seen the term *imprimatur* used in the late 1800s---but never, as far as I can recall---as late as the early 1800s? As an aside (not officially part of the above question, might anyone know what "Republished from the Adbance Sheets" means; and, is "Adbance" perhaps, a typo?) Thank you.

In the book *[Are you Really that Stupid? Observations of a Skeptical Believer](http://amzn.to/1KARD6p)* , author Joshua Christian makes the claim that the Nicene Creed was accepted under less than ideal (from a theological standpoint) circumstances, involving political maneuvering, blackmail, threats as well as actual instances of violence, in an effort by Constantine to forge a "unified" church, and thus a unified empire. > [Constantine] now began to pressure all bishops to sign. Arians refusing to sign were exiled. > ... > The pressure from the emperor was so great and his reactions so feared that attendees justified their signatures thusly; Apuleius wrote "I pass over in silence... those sublime and Platonic doctrines understood by very few of the pious, and absolutely unknown to every one of the profane." "the soul is nothing worse for a little ink." > Abu Al-Hassan Al-Nadwi reported that **out of the 2030 attendees, only 318 readily accepted the creed.** Only after returning home did other attendees ... summon the courage to express to Constantine in writing how much they regretted having put their signatures to the Nicene formula, "We committed an impious act, O Prince ... by subscribing to blasphemy from fear of you." (Emphasis mine) To what extent is this an accurate account of the Council of Nicaea?

In his essay "*The Syllabus*" (which refers to the *Syllabus of Errors* attributable to Pope Bl. Pius IX.), St. John Henry Newman writes: The above is taken from pg. 105 of [*Newman's Letter to the Duke of Norfolk*](https://ia904704.us.archive.org/10/items/a678635200newmuoft/a678635200newmuoft.pdf) QUESTION: What does the line in Greek translates into, and which Greek Tragedy is St. John Newman alluding to? Here's the OCR of the Greek text (in Unicode UTF-8): οὔπωε τὰν Διὸς ἁρμονίαν θνατῶν παρεξίασι βουλαί.

I have attached an image. This week I traveled to Meteora, Greece to visit the Great Monastery. I found a text there quoting famous Greek persons from ancient times (BC/BCE) writing about a messiah with Christian attributes. I searched for sources for these quotes but could not find any. Are these quotes real? Are there sources? If these are real, why did the Greek New Testament never quote them?

The below two (of numerous) passages are understood by most to be the Holy Spirit coming to guide us after Jesus ascends. John 16:7 >Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I **go away,** for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you. John 16:12-13 >**12** I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. **13** When the **Spirit of truth comes,** he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 1) Has the Holy Spirit come yet & where is the evidence? 2) Why did Jesus need to leave before the Holy Spirit comes, noting that the Holy Spirit was here since the beginning and throughout?

Contemplating the idea of saints existing outside the recognized boundaries of the Latter-day Saint church, Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Saints immediately came to mind. Notably, the Eastern Orthodox Church has had its fair share of modern saints with remarkable testimonies that include virtues, but also miracles and gifts of the Spirit. Examples include [Porphyrios of Kafsokalyvia](https://www.amazon.com/dp/9606890236) and [Saint Paisios of Mount Athos](https://www.amazon.com/dp/9608976456) . The Catholic Church also has an [extensive list](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronological_list_of_saints_and_blesseds_in_the_20th_century) of recently recognized saints. I wonder, does the LDS church acknowledge the existence of (some of) such saints as actual saints?

After Jesus died on the cross at Calvary, many of the saints who were dead rose from the dead and appeared To many in Jerusalem. Since a resurrection involving a huge number of people such as this has never happened since the beginning, the unrighteous dead up to this point were not called back to life. *Mathew 27:52-53* >and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many. The book of Revelation speaks of a paired form of resurrection where the righteous dead are brought to life first and then the unrighteous dead second. Why didn't this happen in the resurrection that happened when he died on the cross?

I have two questions actually for Latter-day Saints: - If a person is rational, honestly interested in the truth, and well-informed (by studying as much of the available evidence as humanly possible), should that person be able to reach the conclusion that Mormonism is true? - If so, how do Latter-day Saints explain the fact that many individuals, Christians from other denominations included, fail to reach that conclusion?

**No –** > Luke 4:12 ... **Do not** put the Lord your God to the **test**. **Yes –** > Judges 6:39 “Allow me **one more test** with the fleece, but this time > make the fleece dry and let the ground be covered with dew.” **No -** > Matthew 12:39 A wicked and **adulterous generation asks for** a miraculous > **sign**! **Yes -** > 2 Kings 20:8 Meanwhile, Hezekiah had said to Isaiah, "**What sign** will > the LORD give **to prove** that he will heal me and that I will go to the > Temple of the LORD three days from now?" **No –** > Deuteronomy 6:16 You shall **not test** the LORD your God, as you tested > him in Massah. **Yes –** > Genesis 15:8 But Abram said, "O Sovereign LORD, **how can I know** that I > will gain possession of it?

I think many people assume that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of their sexual immortality, and this may at least be part of the reason. However, I recently read Ezekiel and in Ezekiel 16:49-50 > **49** Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. **50** They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. It seems that Ezekiel is turning the traditional interpretation on its head, although there is certainly room for argument in the phrase "did detestable things before me". Is there any kind of doctrinal consensus or majority view on why exactly Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed?