In common parlance, prophecy is often considered to be "predicting the future." For some, it conjures up images of telephone psychics and the like. Others might envision a crystal ball. It generally has a mystical connotation of some type. On the other hand, the "prophets" of Scripture (e.g. Malachi, Habakkuk, Jonah) seem to be doing something different. Making explicit predictions about the future seems to be a small part of their function as a "prophet." So my question is: **Biblically speaking, what exactly is prophecy?** Is there a Biblical definition that matches the actual practices of the prophets? ------ *If possible, please support your answers using the 66 books of Scripture that are found in the Protestant Bible.*

Given that many conflate evangelicals and fundamentalists and there are significant overlaps, how have evangelical thinkers responded to James Barr's claim in his 1978 Fundamentalism book that: "For fundamentalists the Bible is more than the source of verity for their religion... It is part of the religion itself, indeed it is practically the centre of the religion, the essential nuclear point from which lines of light radiate into every particular aspect." These excerpts came from someone else's review of that book, instead of from an available copy such as on the Internet Archive. My question has been rephrased from my initial attempt, which was closed, and is edited here in hopes of avoiding the identified issues.

In Scripture, the number 7 is often associated with completeness or perfection — for example, God creating the world in 7 days (Genesis 1–2), the 7 seals, trumpets, and bowls in Revelation, and other symbolic uses throughout the Bible. Other examples include: **The seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth (Revelation 5:6)** **The seven eyes of the Lamb (Revelation 5:6)** **The seven golden candlesticks (Revelation 1:12)** **The seven churches (Revelation 1:20)** I have also heard references (both biblical and extra-biblical) to “the third heaven” (2 Corinthians 12:2) and to the concept of multiple heavens in ancient Jewish thought. My question is: If the number 7 symbolizes completeness in biblical numerology, is it reasonable or safe to conclude that there are seven heavens in total? Or would this be an overreach beyond what the Bible actually teaches? References: *Genesis 1–2 (creation week)* *2 Corinthians 12:2 (third heaven)* *Revelation 1, 5, 8, 16 (symbolism of seven)* *Revelation 1:12, 1:20, 5:6 (seven spirits, eyes, candlesticks, churches)*

Mystery religions: >Hydria by the Varrese Painter (c. 340 BCE) depicting Eleusinian scenes Mystery religions, mystery cults, sacred mysteries or simply mysteries (Greek: μυστήρια), were religious schools of the Greco-Roman world for which participation was reserved to initiates (mystai). The main characteristic of these religious schools was the secrecy associated with the particulars of the initiation and the ritual practice, which may not be revealed to outsiders. The most famous mysteries of Greco-Roman antiquity were the Eleusinian Mysteries, which predated the Greek Dark Ages. The mystery schools flourished in Late Antiquity; Emperor Julian, of the mid-4th century, is believed by some scholars to have been associated with various mystery cults—most notably the mithraists. Due to the secret nature of the schools, and because the mystery religions of Late Antiquity were persecuted by the Christian Roman Empire from the 4th century, the details of these religious practices are derived from descriptions, imagery and cross-cultural studies.[1] >Justin Martyr in the 2nd century explicitly noted and identified them as "demonic imitations" of the true faith; "the devils, in imitation of what was said by Moses, asserted that Proserpine was the daughter of Jupiter, and instigated the people to set up an image of her under the name of Kore" (First Apology). Through the 1st to 4th century, Christianity stood in direct competition for adherents with the mystery schools, insofar as the "mystery schools too were an intrinsic element of the non-Jewish horizon of the reception of the Christian message"... Source - click here.

According to the theory of the originally anonymous gospels, the titles of the most ancient surviving manuscripts were added later on. I would like to know: **For each gospel, how many different, distinct, "assigners" were there? When did they do the assignment and where were they?** I am not asking about the authorship of the gospels, but supposing there were no titles, **who** assigned them. For example: **The gospel according to Matthew was assigned by:** 1) X1 person or group, in the Y century in the Z region. 2) X2 person or group, ..."" If much of this is not possible at least list the number of the different assigners and whether they may have assigned these texts independently of one another. **The gospel according to Luke... ""** Please give sources, thank you!

I know our Gospel of Mark is anonymous, and I am trying to understand where the traditions of attribution come from. As far as I understand, the tradition is that the Gospel was written by Mark the interpreter of Peter, who would also be the John Mark referred in *Acts of the Apostles* as a companion of Paul who split up with Barnabas at some point. As *Acts* does not state that John Mark became an interpreter of Peter, I assume these are two different claims: - **Claim 1:** "The author of Mark was the interpreter of Peter". - **Claim 2:** "The author of Mark is John Mark, the character from *Acts of the Apostles*". I know that we can trace *Claim 1* one to Papias (though we do not know if he's discussing *our* Gospel of Mark), and later to Irenaeus (who is definitely talking about our Gospel of Mark). But they do not seem to indicate that the author was also John Mark from *Acts of the Apostles*. I have failed to find our first source for *Claim 2*. **I am interested in finding out at which point in history people started assuming that John Mark (the character in *Acts of the Apostles*) is the author of our Gospel of Mark** (or, failing that, at which point people started assuming that John Mark from the Acts of the Apostles became later in his life an interpreter of Peter).

Perhaps the title could be rephrased, but I don't know a better way to explain my question except in terms of what I've learned in Math and Computer Science. Sometime back I watched some videos from an Orthodox catechism course. During the first lesson of the course, the participants were asked to accept the authority of the church. All subsequent lessons would be based on the participants having accepted the authority of the church to interpret scripture etc for them. I encountered a Protestant sect. They have some unique positions on some biblical issues. What struck me most was that they too claimed that their leadership were the only ones allowed to interpret scripture. What really got me is that instead of making the authority of their leadership the first issue presented to potential members on the first day of their study course, the sect waited till the last day to bring this issue up. Am I fussing over petty things? Because it seems dishonest for people to approach me on the street or elsewhere and tell me "the bible says X" when we've not agreed on a framework for biblical interpretation.

James 1:12 (NIV) says: >“Blessed is the one who perseveres under trial because, having stood the test, that person will receive the crown of life that the Lord has promised to those who love him.” I'm trying to understand what specific kinds of hardship or trials this verse is referring to. Does it include all forms of suffering (e.g., sickness, poverty, personal tragedy), or is it focused more on spiritual trials—such as those that come from the flesh (sinful desires), the world (opposition to godly living), or the devil (temptation and spiritual warfare)? Does persevering through these inner and external spiritual battles also qualify one for the crown of life? Or is the verse mainly referring to persecution and martyrdom for the Christian faith? Also, is the “crown of life” best understood as a metaphor for eternal life itself, or is it a distinct reward for faithful endurance beyond salvation? I'm seeking perspectives grounded in Scripture and theology across Christian traditions.

I watched the debate between James White and Trent Horn on whether a Christian can lose their salvation: [DEBATE | Can a Christian Lose Their Salvation? | Trent Horn vs. Dr. James R. White](https://youtu.be/72TRODe8BdA) . It's remarkable how well-educated scholars, studying the same biblical passages, can reach such diametrically opposed conclusions, particularly on a doctrine as pivotal as salvation. One would expect that salvation, being a cornerstone of Christian faith, would be communicated by God with utmost clarity to His church. Yet, we find ourselves debating the mechanics of salvation and the possibility of its loss. How do Christians reconcile the extensive debates surrounding salvation doctrines with the expectation that such a crucial tenet of the Christian faith would be revealed with unmistakable clarity by God?

An answer was given from the Orthodox perspective to a question about contemplative prayer, regarding their practice of hesychasm. The stated goals were noble, with much Scriptural support. My question is in regard to the Jesus prayer. Humility is of course required of us as we approach the God Who dwells in unapproachable light (1 Tim. 6:16). The Jesus prayer states this: "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner!" It is repeated over and over in an attempt to be like the publican in humility. I have, in fact, repeated this same prayer in my heart many times. But does it not in actuality represent doubt, not faith? Do Orthodox Christians believe that Christ's death has already exemplified His mercy to us, and that our role is to simply believe and receive that truth in our hearts, and then live accordingly? In other words, do we need to continually ask for mercy, or is it just a reminder of the mercy that we have already been shown?

Matthew 24:29‑30 says: >*“Immediately after the tribulation of those days… then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven, and all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.”* Pre‑tribulationists believe Jesus will rapture the church before the Great Tribulation. I’d like to understand how pre‑tribulation interpreters reconcile this verse with their view of Christ’s return because it seems Jesus returns after the Great Tribulation and not before.

Matthew 13:44 reads: > The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which someone found and hid; then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field. One is intrigued by the step-by-step action of the finder. He could have easily taken the treasure. That prospect leads one to believing that there was some law which defined the ownership of a treasure, both legal and moral. (These days it usually goes to the Government, whoever be the one who finds it, and whatever be the place it is found in!). Are there any studies into the legal system prevailing at the time of Jesus that defined the ownership of a treasure ?

If He was revealed, why did He wait so long to reveal Himself? Humans have been around for 100,000+ years.

In a recently posted article on St. John Henry Newman (See: [*St. John Henry Newman's Elevation as Doctor of the Church Seen as a Gift for Our Times*](https://www.ncregister.com/news/pentin-newman-doctor-providential)) , Fr. [Ignatius] Harrison who commented on five key teachings of the Saint only briefly addresses Newman's thoughts on the importance of the laity and their role in the Church: "that the laity is not supplementary' but crucial to the very foundation of the Church, and that he wanted an informed, and well-educated laity for the Church's mission.'" QUESTION: Can anyone expand in more detail St. John Henry Newman's teaching on the importance of the laity and their role in the Catholic Church? Primary references are appreciated. Thank you.

Everything in the NT is addressed to people living in the first century, about past, present or an imminent fulfillment. So why do people read it as if God wrote all that stuff to them? For example, is this a command and promise for the disciples or for the disciples and every generation since?: >[Mat 4:19 NIV] "Come, follow me," Jesus said, "and I will send you out to fish for people."

In Genesis 11:4, the people said, *“Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves...”* God saw this as an act of pride and rebellion, and responded by confusing their language and scattering them. Today, space agencies and astronauts aim to explore or even colonize outer space—what the Bible might refer to as "the heavens." This raises a spiritual question: Are there theological or biblical interpretations that suggest modern space travel could be a continuation of the same spirit of pride or rebellion seen in Babel?

In [Matthew 25:1-12](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25%3A1-12&version=ESV) we read about ten young ladies (a bridal party) eagerly awaiting the arrival of the groom. Five of them run out of oil and have to go buy more, missing the groom's arrival and thus be excluded from the wedding feast. The groom is universally seen as representing Jesus, the women are seen as representing individual believers, and the oil is generally seen as representing God's grace. (See [my analysis](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/20227/10092) on the parable and especially the symbolism of the oil.) A surface reading would seem to indicate that all the women were nominally believers in Jesus, but someone of them did not properly prepare for his arrival (i.e. for their death or Jesus' Second Coming). This would suggest that there is more to salvation than faith alone - an aspect that can be "bought". How do *sola fide* adherents explain this passage? A good answer should cite published commentary by notable advocates of salvation by faith alone.

It was mentioned in Exodus that God has granted Moses abilities such as turning his staff into a snake and turning the water of the Nile into blood in order to make the people believe he was sent by God. Why had God not by himself saved the Israelites from slavery? Why did he not talk to them? “But I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and though I multiply my signs and wonders in Egypt,” why did God harden pharaohs heart and torment the Israelites more?

There have always been wars around the world, most of which are driven by race or religion. There has also always been a significant gap between the super-rich and the poor, many of whom cannot afford healthy food or proper healthcare, or live with very few opportunities. Additionally, sudden health problems or deaths in families often cause catastrophic and lasting trauma for the relatives. Unhappiness, failures, sadness, misery, sorrow, and other forms of suffering affect people regardless of whether they are Christian or not. So, why pray if, for thousands of years, prayer has seemingly changed nothing? Nothing at all. It appears that religion can resemble fanaticism or even perpetuate slavery because, if something isn't working, why would intelligent people continue with it? This is especially relevant when it comes to praying to God.

*I am aware of [this](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/28431/do-the-catholic-church-ex-cathedra-pronouncements-about-necessity-of-catholicism/28433#28433) previous question where the discussion centered on statements of Pope Francis and the catechism but that is not my interest here. [This](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/30898/has-the-church-stated-any-advantages-or-reasoning-or-prompting-to-re-formulating/30899#30899) question also asks about the reasoning behind these changes but that is also not my question.* From what I understand about Catholic teaching, it is not possible for infallible teachings, either from a pope or an ecumenical council, to contradict each other. However, there seems to be a clear incompatibility between medieval Catholic doctrine and that of Vatican II around the question of salvation outside the church: [Pope Boniface VII, Unam Sanctam (1302)](https://www.papalencyclicals.net/bon08/b8unam.htm) > Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. [Council of Florence, Session 11 (1442)](https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum17.htm) > It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives. Contrast this with two documents from Vatican II in 1964: [Vatican II, Decree on Ecumenism](https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html) > It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church. [Vatican II, Pope Paul VI, Lumen Gentium](https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html) > But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. To me it seems fairly clear that the "schismatics" from the council of Florence would correspond to the "separated churches and communities" from Vatican II. Unam Sanctam makes even clearer that the intent of the earlier documents is that "salvation outside the church" does mean communion with the Roman Pontiff, despite Vatican II's discussion of separated communities and Muslims. Admittedly I do not understand the intricacies of Catholic thought on many matters so my question is: How can all of these documents be read together consistently within a Catholic framework? In particular I'm interested in how this can be consistent with the infallibility of ecumenical councils and papal infallibility.