Many Christians believe that the writing of the Bible was inspired by God, and that its content is (essentially) correct. I would like to understand on what this belief is based. Obviously it cannot be based on the Bible itself, this would be circular reasoning. What I could imagine: - through prayer or your personal connection with God you came to this conclusion. - there is someone (living, or from the past) that told you this and fully trust that person. - Maybe something else?

The Gospel of John states Pilate ordered the phrase, “Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews” to be written in full and hung above Jesus’ cross in 3 languages (reference John 19:19-20): * Aramaic/Hebrew - the language of religion * Latin - the language of imperial law * Greek - the language of universal culture Here’s where it gets interesting. The Hebrew translation is written, “Yeshua H’Natzeret V’Melech H’Yehudim.” Can you figure out the significance? When arranged vertically, the first letter of each word forms YHVH. This is written as “יהוה” in Hebrew. May not mean much to you or me, but a Jewish Rabbi or theologian would recognize this immediately as the sacred Tetragrammaton, the unpronounceable name of Yahweh, the name that only the Hebrew high priest could pronounce once a year in the secrecy of the temple. Read from right to left, the letters are Yod-Hey-Vav-Hey. It is commonly understood as a form of the Hebrew root "to be" or “to become,” often interpreted as "I AM THAT I AM” (Exodus 3:14). Why is this significant? It is interesting Pilate chose those specific words to be inscribed above Jesus’ cross. For instance, why didn't Pilate order, "Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of the Blessed One?" After all, that is what Jesus claimed in front of the chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin and considered blasphemy (reference Mark 14: 53-65). Did the chief priests notice the significance of YHVH? Why did they beg Pilate to change it but he refused. It begs the question, were Pilate's words inspired by coincidence or divine providence to reveal God's sacred name on the cross? The sign above Jesus’ cross may have been intended as a mockery to the condemned Jesus, but IMO God used it as proclamation. Above the cross of Jesus was written His identity, His origin and His kingship — in the languages of religion, empire, and philosophy — for all the world to see. I find that fascinating and masterful. How bout you?

Indeed, Paul wrote of the "mystery" of a man and a woman symbolizing Christ and the Church. But he also maintained that the marriage relationship was to be holy. (Hebrews 13:4) And the mention of the "Bride" in Revelation 19:7 and 21:2 depicts a more modest picture. However some have avowed that the racy, quite suggestive melo-drama / opera of ***the Song of Solomon*** is a picture of Christ and the Church! But what we are told of Solomon's life, he was quite addicted to sensual relationships: a thousand wives! And concubines! How could he be considered an authority--even inspired authority--on connubial relationships? ***What hermeneutical reasoning guides these theologians, and justifies this Christian interpretation: Christ and the Church?*** Note: many Protestant Evangelical denominations pride themselves in their "Historical-grammatical-literal" approach to interpreting the Scriptures. If this book were taken that way, it surely would have to be rated PG-13 or even R-rated ("modesty" is not its main suit). Some theologians admit that it depicts is an erotic poem of sensual love...and even shameless lasciviousness. But for theologians (and mature audiences), it was and still is today by some, considered to be a book that should be taken "allegorically" of Christ and the Church. What justifies this symbolism approach?

In Matthew 24:2, Mark 13:2 and Luke 21:6, Jesus seems to indicate that in the coming temple destruction, "not one stone will be left upon another". And, indeed, this seems to be the case from the current ruins. However, I have come across several commentaries that state that because the temple was burned, the gold that was on the walls, melted and ran between the stones, as well as into them. The Roman solders then took stone from stone in a effort to retrieve the gold, thus giving literal fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy. Having encountered this explanation several times in the course of my studies, I wanted to find the source for this story, but, as of this date, am unable to do so. I don't find anything in Josephus relating to that gold-seeking activity. Does anyone know of a source document or documents that can authenticate this story?

What what day did Yeshua ride on the donkey according to the Bible not today’s calendar? What day did Yeshua die in the cross for my sins, according to Bible not today’s calendar?

1. **God is four-in-one.** 2. **The Body of Christ is four-in-one.** The Father, The Son, The Spirit and You. There is no participation in God's essence/Godhead, only in His energies/economy by believers. Are these **two statements** orthodox, heterodox, or heresy? #### Possible Biblical Basis: John 14:20 (NIV): > On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. John 14:23 (NIV): > Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. John 17:21 (NIV): > that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 1 Corinthians 6:19 (NIV): > Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; Ephesians 3:17 (NIV): > so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, Ephesians 4:4-6 (NIV): > 4There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. #### Arguments For: - https://conversantfaith.com/2025/06/12/four-in-one-witness-lee-and-trinitarian-ecclesiology/ : > "Witness Lee’s claim that the Body of Christ is “a four-in-one organic entity” belongs within this broad and venerable stream: a distinctive, but not discordant, contribution to the tradition of Trinitarian ecclesiology." - https://www.equip.org/articles/addressing-the-open-letters-concerns-on-the-nature-of-humanity-part-3-of-a-reassessment-of-the-local-church-movement-of-watchman-nee-and-witness-lee/ : > "On first blush a skeptic might legitimately ask, “How could believers not partake in the Godhead if they partake in God’s life and nature?” The answer, however, becomes clear when Lee is read in his own context and allowed to define his own terms. When Lee refers to the “processed God,” he is clearly speaking about the economic Trinity. It is this Trinity that becomes in a sense “four-in-one.” There is no change in the essential or ontological Trinity (what Lee is here calling the Godhead) with the deification of believers any more than there was a change in the ontological Trinity with the incarnation of Christ. According to the LC, in the outworking of God’s economy or plan of salvation, there is a process that includes progressive steps in which God the Father is embodied in the Son in incarnation, Christ is realized as the Spirit in resurrection, and ultimately the Triune God is expressed in the glorified church; but in His essential nature or Godhead, the Lord remains forever unchanged." #### Arguments Against: - https://normangeisler.com/a-response-to-cri-local-church/ : > "To illustrate the absurdity of the LC position, one final citation from Witness Lee is necessary. He wrote: “Because the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are all one with the Body of Christ, we may say that the Triune God is now the ‘four-in-one’ God. These four are the Father, the Son, the Spirit, and the Body. The Three of the Divine Trinity cannot be confused or separated, and the four-in-one also cannot be separated or confused.” (Lee , A Deeper Study, 203-204). No amount of hermeneutical gyrations can untangle this theological absurdity. Clearly, Lee does not hold the orthodox view of the Trinity which allows no creature or creatures to be one with the members of the Trinity in the same sense that the Body of Christ (the Church) is one with God. Defending such a view is both senseless and useless." - https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/scotty-smith/trinity-no-4th-member/ : > "You are the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End, and everything in between. Hallelujah, many times over. As our God, you are Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—perfect Trinity. And you’re not looking to turn a Trio into a Quartet. We matter, but only you are the point." #### Witness Lee Quotations: - The Central Line of the Divine Revelation - Message 9: >"According to Ephesians 4:4-6, the Father, the Son, the Spirit, and the Body are all one. This is the oneness of the Body. It is altogether proper to say that the Father, the Son, the Spirit, and the Body are four-in-one. The Triune God is three, yet He now has a fourth part, a counterpart. However, only the first three are worthy of our worship. The Triune God and His counterpart are now four-in-one." - The Central Line of the Divine Revelation - Message 11: >"The Body of Christ, the church, is four-in-one: the Father, the Son, the Spirit, and the Body. However, only the first three are worthy of our worship; the fourth, the Body, should not be deified as an object of worship." - A Deeper Study of the Divine Dispensing - Chapter 15: >"The Triune God and the church are four-in-one. Because the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are all one with the Body of Christ, we may say that the Triune God is now the “four-in-one God.” These four are the Father, the Son, the Spirit, and the Body. The three of the Divine Trinity cannot be confused or separated, and the four-in-one also cannot be separated or confused."

(Welcome God Bless You) I am very sorry for such a long question, and attempting a solution in the question. Please bear with me, first a selection of the oldest creeds before the formal/official Filioque clause: [Links to Earliest Pre- Old Roman Symbol “Proto-Creeds” https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2/creeds2.iii.i.i.html https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2/creeds2.iii.i.ii.html https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2/creeds2.iii.i.iii.html ] ---------------------------------- Old Roman Symbol / Old Roman Creed - Composed in the early 2nd century? I believe in God the Father almighty; and in Christ Jesus His only Son, our Lord, Who was born from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, Who under Pontius Pilate was crucified and buried, on the third day rose again from the dead, ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, whence he will come to judge the living and the dead; and in the Holy Spirit, the holy Church, the remission of sins, the resurrection of the flesh, [life everlasting]. Source: https://www.logos.com/grow/the-apostles-creed-its-history-and-origins/?msockid=18dbc452ca76677c0084d13bcb516636 ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Creed of Aquileia – Date 307-309 AD? Credo in Deo Patre omnipotenti invisibili et impassibili (I believe in God the Father Almighty, invisible and impassible) Et in Jesu Christo, unico Filio ejus, Domino nostro (And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord) Qui natus est de Spiritu Sancto ex Maria Virgine (Who was born from the Holy Ghost, of the Virgin Mary) Crucifixus sub Pontio Pilato, et sepultus (Was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and buried) Descendit ad inferna; tertia die resurrexit a mortuis (He descended to hell; on the third day he rose again from the dead) Ascendit in cœlos; sedet ad dexteram Patris; (He ascended to the heavens; he sits at the right hand of the Father) Inde venturus est judicare vivos et mortuos; (Thence he is to come to judge the quick and the dead) Et in Spiritu Sancto (And in the Holy Ghost) Sanctam Ecclesiam (The Holy Church) Remissionem peccatorum (The remission of sins) Hujus carnis resurrectionem (The resurrection of this flesh) Source: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2711.htm -------------------------------------------------- Eusebius’ Caesarean Creed pre- 325AD: Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα θεόν πατέρα παντοκράτορα, We believe in one God the Father Almighty, τὸν τῶν ἀπάντων ὁρατῶν τε καὶ ἀοράτων ποιητήν· Maker of all things visible and invisible; Καὶ εἰς ἕνα κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, And in one Lord Jesus Christ, τὸν τοῦ θεοῦ λόγον, the Word of God, 30 θεὸν ἐκ θεοῦ, God of God, φῶς ἐκ φωτὸς, Light of Light, ζωὴν ἐκ ζωῆς, Life of Life, υἱὸν μονογενῆ, the only-begotten Son, πρωτότοκον πάσης κτίσεως, the first-born of every creature, πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ πατρὸς γεγεννημένον, begotten of God the Father before all ages, δἰ οὗ καὶ ἐγένετο τὰ πάντα· by whom also all things were made; τὸν διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν σαρκωθέντα καὶ ἐν ἀνθρώποις πολιτευσάμενον, who for our salvation was made flesh and made his home among men; καὶ παθόντα, and suffered; καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ, and rose on the third day; καὶ ἀνελθόντα πρὸς τὸν πατέρα, and ascended to the Father; καὶ ἥξοντα πάλιν ἐν δόξῃ κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς. and will come again in glory, to judge the quick and the dead. [Πιστεύομεν] καὶ εἰς ἕν πνεῦμα ἅγιον. 31 [We believe] also in one Holy Ghost.32 Τούτων ἕκαστον εἶναι καὶ ὑπάρχειν πιστεύοντες, πατέρα ἀληθῶς πατέρα καὶ υἱὸν ἀληθῶς υἱὸν καὶ πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἀληθῶς πνεῦμα ἅγιον, καθὼς καὶ ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν ἀποστέλλων εἰς τὸ κήρυγμα τοὺς ἑαυτοῦ μαθητὰς εἶπε· πορευθέντες μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἀγίου πνεύματος. We believe that each of these is and exists, the Father truly Father, and the Son truly Son, and the Holy Ghost truly Holy Ghost; even as our Lord, when sending forth his disciples to preach, said: 'Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.' Source: https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.iii.i.x.html ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ First council of Nicaea 325 AD We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten from the Father, only-begotten, that is, from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, through Whom all things came into being, things in heaven and things on earth, Who because of us men and because of our salvation came down, and became incarnate and became man, and suffered, and rose again on the third day, and ascended to the heavens, and will come to judge the living and dead, And in the Holy Spirit. But as for those who say, There was when He was not, and, Before being born He was not, and that He came into existence out of nothing, or who assert that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or substance, or created, or is subject to alteration or change - these the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes. Source: https://earlychurchtexts.com/public/creed_of_nicaea_325.htm Thank you so much for bearing with me, now for the split between Catholic and Orthodox; So The dominant Eastern expression is: “The Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son” This is found in: Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, not in the preceding old creeds I gave by sources; a rejection of the filioque? (Tertullian?), Augustine, (later more formulated in Aquinas’s Summa), have a type of filioque, also not found in the preceding old creeds I gave by sources ---------------------------------------------- Perhaps a bias of me – I will give key biblical support for a filioque development: “When the Helper comes… the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father…” — Gospel of John 15:26 Central to Aquinas’ teaching on procession of the Holy Spirit. John 15:26 – Spirit “comes from the Father” but also receives from the Son. John 20:22 Jesus breathes the Spirit upon disciples, illustrating the Spirit’s relational reception from the Son. Galatians 4:6, Romans 8:9, Philippians 1:19 – References to the Spirit as “Spirit of the Son” underscore Tertullian’s relational view. The Spirit of the Son “God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts… — Epistle to the Galatians 4:6 The Spirit of Christ “Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.” — Epistle to the Romans 8:9 From Pauline texts “Spirit of the Son” (Galatians 4:6) or interchangeably as the “Spirit of Christ” (Romans 8:9; Philippians 1:19). -------------------------------------- Perhaps another bias of mine – Fathers early filioque development: [Would Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus if they read the following disagreed?] Tertullian Ontological Status of the Spirit The Spirit is distinct, yet fully divine; Tertullian rejected any notion of created or inferior status. The Spirit receives divinity from the Father via the Son, sharing fully in co-eternal glory Ambrose of Milan (4th century) In De Spiritu Sancto: The Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son” In De Trinitate (c. 400–420), Augustine writes: “The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son” ----------------------------------- An additional supplement Maximus the Confessor attempted reconciliation – I'm not sure about the Holy Catholic Churches stand on this. Maximus the Confessor introduces a two-level ontology of procession, Creation-Deification: First level: Causal Level (Ontological Origin) Greek term: (αἰτία / aitia) Ultimate origin God, the Logos, and the eternal logoi Property: personal, hypostatic Only the Father is cause Relationship: Source of all; Logos and logoi originate here Second level: Mediation / Manifestation, being and purpose only by participating in the first-level Logos Mutual implicative identity and distinction—creatures partake in divinity while remaining distinct. How what proceeds is expressed or communicated --- "Maximus’ model is non-hierarchical, avoiding Dionysian verticality, allowing movement across ontological boundaries based on participatory capacities rather than fixed ontological grades." The Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son and is manifested/given from the Son The Spirit can be from the Son relationally Without being caused by the Son --------------------------------- --------------------------------- God the Father (αἰτία) / Ultimate Cause │ ▼ Logos / Eternal Logoi │ ┌──────────────────┴───────────────────┐ │ │ Nature Rational Beings │ │ └──────────────────┬───────────────────┘ │ Manifestation Level Maximus: Mediation Through Son Aquinas (reinterpreted by Maximus): Participation of Son in spiration [side note: related question by another https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/35279/the-difference-between-how-the-holy-spirit-and-son-proceed-from-the-father]

The theology Hamartiology is relevant to this posting The sin was forgiven but the consequences linger on. Case in point from bible scripture would be David's adulterous sexual lustful sinning with Bathsheba, and his subsequent order to kill her husband, Uriah the Hittite. This is evident in the biblical account of the Prophet Nathan confronting David regarding said sinful actions: >(NASB1995) > >2 Samuel 12:9 > >9 Why have you despised the word of the Lord by doing evil in His sight? You have struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword, have >taken his wife to be your wife, and have killed him with the sword of >the sons of Ammon..................................more >scripture....more..scripture.... > >2 Samuel 12:13-15 > >13 Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.” And Nathan said to David, “The Lord also has taken away your sin; you >shall not die. 14 However, because by this deed you have given >occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also that >is born to you shall surely die.” 15 So Nathan went to his house. Then >the Lord struck the child that Uriah’s widow bore to David, so that he >was very sick. ..................................more >scripture....more..scripture.... > >2 Samuel 12:19 > >19 But when David saw that his servants were whispering together, David perceived that the child was dead; so David said to his >servants, “Is the child dead?” And they said, “He is dead.” 2 Samuel 12:13-14 is proof that King David confessed and repented for said sin. Furthermore, Nathan says God took his sin away which I believe is proof that God forgave King David for said sin. However, here is a subtle & nuanced point; the consequence(s) of said sin will still manifest into reality. In the aforementioned case, Nathan prophecies in 2 Samuel 12:10 that "the sword shall never depart from your[Kind David's] house". The prophecy of doom & gloom will ultimately manifest into reality when King David's son, Absalom, kills off his elder half-brother, Amnon, due to the fact that Amnon raped Tamar, Absalom's sister. Furthermore, there would be more bloodshed when Absalom tried to lead a failed violent coup against his father, King David. Furthermore, in the 2 Samuel 12:14 bible verse, Nathan prophecies that David first child born to Bathsheba will die in the child's early infancy. The following AI-generated photo might be good illustrative analogy: a) Lets hypothetically consider the yellow paint in the image above as sin. b) lets hypothetically say that the yellow paint that is splattered on the face of the man is washable if the man confesses and repents. c) However, lets hypothetically say that the yellow paint can **Never Ever** be washed off the man's blue shirt because shirt is just made of a material that can easily get permanent stains. Therefore, Sin which is represented by the yellow paint on the man's face can easily be washed if the man confesses and repents. However, Consequences of said sin which is represented by the yellow paint on the man's shirt can Not be washed because of the shirt's material just getting permanently stained, and therefore, can Not be washed off. The sin can be washed off if one confesses and repents. The consequences of sin might linger on, and may or may Not go away. Essentially the consequences of sin has to be dealt with separately. Is the aforementioned evaluation correct? Could someone please provide feedback in regard to said evaluation, and back it up with other bible scripture verses and passages?

At least since the pontificate of John Paul II, and definitely during the times of Francis, the Church ignores the teaching of many popes including - *Quanta cura * together with *Syllabus Errorum * by Pius IX - *Pascendi Dominici Gregis * by Pius X - *Mortalium animos * by Pius XI and, in fact, acts against the teachings explained therein. Vatican II documents never fully revoked these documents explicitly. The question is if Vatican II did it as a pastoral council (it was a council that was not infallible as confirmed by Paul VI so it couldn't do it anyway). So my question is: is the hierarchy of the Catholic Church in a state of contradiction? If something was declared by Pius IX, X, or XI as sinful can it be without being explained as erroneous, ignored and in fact encouraged as John Paul II Assisi-style ecumenism?

Except the book of Genesis, I believe that it is possible to make some plausible possibilities on how the books of the Bible were written. Moses wrote about himself, Joshua recorded his conquest of Canaan, some priests or prophets recorded the stories of Gideon, Samson and Ruth. Samuel recorded the events in his lifetime, historians recorded the chronicles of the kings of Israel, prophets wrote down their visions and messages from God, the apostles recorded the life of Jesus, apostles wrote letters and John wrote down his visions. Now, I can't make any hypothesis how Moses could write down the stories which were around 2000 years before him. The Creation story where no one was there to witness is the most astounding account. Genesis contains many complicated contents such as the years of the first men, thousands of names, complicated family trees, detail stories of people and such. How have historians and theologians explained how Moses wrote the Book of Genesis?

From the creation until the time of Moses, who documented the events? Abraham? Prophets? Priests?

So I have visited various churches of various denominations throughout my life. There was always a somewhat a "They are wrong"-mentality towards other churches/denominations on a theological level. Aka. baptism means this for us and for these reasons, we think baptism is not what X, Y says it is. This is still fine because it just means that there are differences and that people agree to disagree. But when dealing with charismatic or people in "similar" denominations I face more and more what I call flat-out hostility towards the catholic church in particular but it also is directed towards traditional churches like the protestants. I faced statements like: - The pope is a false prophet/teacher - Rome/The Vatican is the whore of Babylon (referring to Revelation 17:1-6) - Priests do the forgiving during the confessions - Catholics are not really Christians (or at least the faith of many is empty) - and a lot more than I care to remember As you can see these kinds of statements are more than just differences in theology where you can say you simply disagree but still can love each other. Now chances are that this kind of thing happens in every denomination towards any other one, but anecdotally speaking, I found the attacks from charismatics (or similar) towards the Catholic Church in particular but also other traditional churches are rising and are particularly underhanded. Of course, the Catholic Church is not without criticism and I am not in this church for my own good reasons, but I still respect them and see Catholics as Christians, Brothers and Sisters in Christ. Hence the question(s): - Is that only my own experience or is there more to it? - If this hostility is prevalent and rising, what are the reasons for it? - (Optional since that might blow up the scope): What strategy do you propose to remedy it on an individual level?

In the Book of Revelation, chapter two, Jesus addresses the church in Thyatira. The NIV translation of Revelation 2:19-23 reads, Jesus speaking: > I know your deeds, your love and faith, your service and perseverance, and that you are now doing more than you did at first. Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols. I have given her time to repent of her immorality, but she is unwilling. So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. I will strike her children dead. The end of the last verse (Rev 2:23) appears to contain the motivation for Jesus killing the children of the woman, namely to show that Jesus is the one in charge and the ultimate moral judge; again Jesus speaking: > Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds. Why did Jesus kill Jezebel's children? How do different Christian denominations, that include the Book of Revelation in the canonized New Testament, interpret this punishment and the reasons for this divine intervention? (This question applies to trinitatian and non-trinitian denominations, since in both cases Jesus has moral authority regardless of if Jesus is God or merely "imitates the Father" and is "given the moral authority" by the Father.)

Today the Universal Church celebrates the Solemnity of the Holy Trinity. In the Trinitarian Formula, we invoke the NAME (singular) of the Three Persons of the Trinity. In English we say: "In the NAME OF the Father, and OF the Son and OF the Holy Spirit." Note the repetition of the preposition 'OF' prefixed to each of the Three Persons, to reinforce individuality. But at the same time, we do not say: "In the NAMES of the Father, etc." Does it imply that there is but one name for all the Three Persons, and that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not individual names? My question therefore, is: What according to Trinitarians is the reason for starting of the Trinitarian Formula with "In the name…" (singular) and not "In the names…" (plural)?

In Catholicism, is it a serious sin to make major decisions as if you don't believe in Catholicism? >"844. Negative doubt is the state of mind in which one remains suspended between the truth contained in an article of faith and its opposite, without forming any positive judgment either of assent to or dissent from the article, or its certainty or uncertainty > >(a) If this suspension of decision results from a wrong motive of the will, which directs one not to give assent on the plea that the intellect, while not judging, offers such formidable difficulties that deception is possible, then it seems that the doubter is guilty of implicit heresy, or at least puts himself in the immediate danger of heresy. > >(b) If this suspension of judgment results from some other motive of the will (e.g. from the wish to give attention here and now to other matters), the guilt of heresy is not incurred, for no positive judgment is formed. Neither does it seem, apart from the danger of consent to positive doubt or from the obligation of an affirmative precept of faith then and there, that any serious sin in matters of faith is committed by such a suspension of judgment. Examples: Titus, being scandalized by the sinful conduct of certain Catholics, is tempted to doubt the divinity of the Church. He does not yield to the temptation by deciding that the divinity of the Church is really doubtful, but the difficulty has so impressed him that he decides to hold his judgment in abeyance. It seems that there is here an implicit judgment (i.e., one contained in the motive of the doubt) in favor of the uncertainty of the divinity of the Church. Balbus has the same difficulty as Titus, and it prevents him from eliciting an act of faith on various occasions. But the reason for this is that an urgent business matter comes up and he turns his attention to it, or that he does not wish at the time to weary his brain by considering such an important question as that of faith, or that he thinks he can conquer a temptation more easily by diverting his thoughts to other subjects, or that he puts off till a more favorable moment the rejection of the difficulty. In these cases there is not heretical doubt, since Balbus forms no positive judgment, even implicitly, but there may be a sin against faith. Thus, Balbus would sin seriously if his suspension of assent should place him in immediate danger of positive doubt; he would sin venially, if that suspension be due to some slight carelessness." (McHugh & Callan, *Moral Theology* Vol. I) For example, suppose Bob is dating a Catholic woman and would like to marry her as soon as possible. However, he has some doubts about whether Catholicism is true or not and whether he will ultimately remain Catholic although he continues to practice Catholicism in the mean time. For this reason he is delaying getting married. What will happen to Bob if he dies suddenly? Sure he is theoretically a Catholic in good standing, but he is living as if he doesn't believe in it.

It has been suggested to me that some Christians believe that rock music is inherently immoral, and as a result they believe that Christians would do well to avoid the entire genre. For example, several older Christians have told me that statements about the immorality of rock were more common back in the 60s and 70s. Apparently, American evangelist Bob Larson was against rock music, and that he was lampooned for these view by Larry Norman, a musician who wrote rock music with a gospel theme. If this perspective is widespread, are there denominations that are opposed to rock music? Is there a cross-denominational movement that objects to rock music on the grounds that the genre is in some way unholy? I met someone in my previous church who held this view, but I was never able to get a straight answer from her as to why. Was this just a personal perspective, or is this a widespread perspective amongst Christians? If there is an anti-rock music movement amongst Christians, where did it originate? What is the basis for the belief? Are there particular Bible verses or doctrinal stances that underpin the anti-rock stance? In answering the question, note that I'm not interested in debating whether or not rock music is *actually* immoral. I just want to know if / why groups of Christians believe it to be so.

WE read in Is 7:14 (KJV): > Therefore the Lord himself shall give you **a sign;** Behold, **a virgin shall conceive**, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Of course, the Gospels explicitly speak of the Virgin Birth of Jesus. But, **before the Gospels were recorded**, there must have been a way in which the people awaiting the Messiah became aware of the virgin birth of the Son of God. In fact, Joseph must have taken Mary home as his wife, on the initial days of her pregnancy, as we see in Mtt 1:24: > When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. That would mean that Mary, for the public eye, was a married woman staying with her husband before the childbirth and not a virgin *per se*. We do not see the Gloria- singing angels or the Wise Men from the East mentioning the virgin birth; nor does the Baptist make a mention to the effect. On the contrary, the public would later refer to Jesus as the son of Joseph (Mtt 13: 55) In fact, very few people including Mary and Joseph, a couple of their relatives like Elizabeth and some of the disciples knew of the virgin birth of Jesus by the time he entered public life. But then, whom was the sign as mentioned in Is 7:14 meant for? My question therefore is: **How did the Virgin Birth of Jesus prove to be a “sign” as prophesied in Is 7:14?** Inputs from any denomination are welcome.

A comment to another question that I had asked said that the LDS does not accept the NIV as a correct translation. Based on that comment it seems that they only accept King James Version (KJV) which, according to the Wikipedia article , is also known as King James Bible or Authorized Version. **The questions I would like ask are:** 1. Is the KJV from 1611 the only translation accepted by Mormons, or are there other translations they accept, such as perhaps NKJV? 2. What Bible translations do Mormons use in countries where KJV does not exist in local language, such as Sweden?

For instance, in the *Tim LaHaye Prophecy Bible,* in his notes for Rev. 7:1-8: "... we are given an insight into the divine protection of the earth from powerful winds by the assignment of powerful angels and the sealing and **ministry of the 144,000 witnesses.** ... We can only imagine what **evangelistic success these 144,000 servants of God** will have." Where do people get the idea of ministry for the 144,000? Is it stated somewhere in the OT? I don't see any evangelistic work during Revelation's last days by men, only by an angel in Rev. 14:6.

I've been reading through the book of Ezekiel lately, and am confused by 26:14. The verse states that Tyre would never be rebuilt, but there is in fact a city called Tyre in roughly the same spot in modern-day Lebanon--it's the biggest city in that country, in fact. Skeptics across cyberspace love to pull up issues with 26 and 29, but I find most of them to be pretty trivial--*except this one*, which is giving me fits. GotQuestions says that Tyre being less impressive now (which it is, to be fair) means it was never "truly" rebuilt, but I don't think that's a very convincing argument. I also heard somebody say that large swatches of Tyre were archeological digs and thus not being rebuilt--this does not seem to be the case, judging by satellite photos. It also can't be the case that one of the two Tyres (Island vs Coastal) was restored but not the "real" Tyre, because modern Tyre covers both sites and most of the causeway that Alexander built betwixt them. **I'd like to ask how you all reconcile this passage, especially if you have any novel takes on it**. The main counterpoints I can think of are: 1) A rebuild in the sense described would almost certainly require being built on the same land, and *maybe* with some of the same assets--I couldn't just create Tyre, Nebraska and call it a rebuild. Given Alexander's causeway having mucked up the terrain so badly (and torn down all surrounding ruins to build it), a "rebuild" may be definitionally impossible. I'm not sure about this one, because it's not like there was just a Tyre-shaped hole in the earth--there *was* still ground, and Tyre *had* been on top of it, so would that be the same ground? 2) I am unsure *where* modern Tyre started, but it is possible I suppose that it could have started off-site and urban sprawl reclaimed the old location--thus, you may not call it a "rebuild" of old Tyre, but an expansion of new Tyre. Again, this is a definitions game that I'm not confident in. 3) Technically, it could simply be unfulfilled--somebody else could throw Tyre into the ocean again. This may stretch plausibility though. Please help me out here. Everything else in the chapter seems to line up dandy, and it's frankly embarrassing that I can't reconcile a town smaller than my state capital. EDIT: Something I remembered from a conversation with a mutual was that in Bible times a city would likely not be considered proper without defensive walls & such. Tyre has not had those since Alexander, and thus may not, within the Biblical sense, be considered a complete rebuilt city. EDIT AGAIN: Re-reading the passage, it occurs to me that the prophecy may be discussing Tyre *as a country*. I believe I am to understand that Tyre was independent of national rule and was thus effectively it's own country (the world was a lot smaller back then), until Nebuchadnezzar made the city a vassal state. I don't know if this is a valid tack, as the word city is mentioned later in the chapter--but I think back then, a fortified city and a country were somewhat synonymous (thought not of course entirely interchangeable. Jerusalem was not Israel). Can somebody who knows more about the history/culture of the Near-East chime in on the merits of this point?