*"What kinds of things did the pagan authors of Jesus time have to say about him?"* asks Dr. Bart Ehrman in his book Jesus: *Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millenum (Oxford University Press)*. *"Nothing,"* he answers. *"Strange as it may seem, there is no mention of Jesus by any of his pagan contemporaries."*, Ehrman asserts in his book. *"There are no birth records, no transcripts of his trial, no death certificates; no expressions of interest, no slander, no passing references. Nothing. In fact, if we extend our field of study to the years after his death - including the entire first century of our era - there is not a single reference to Jesus in any source either Christian or Jewish of any kind. I should point out that we have a large number of documents from the period: writings of poets, philosophers, historians, scientists, government officials... Not to mention the large collection of stone inscriptions, private letters and legal documents on papyrus. In none of these documents does the name of Jesus even appear".* Why is the first pagan historical evidence that Jesus existed years after his crucifixion (Flavius Josephus)?

Supposing Jesus will judge the living and the dead, is this judgment an omniscient one? I would be absolutely terrified of the claim that anything except an omniscient God is capable of condemning me to eternal torment (for what if he is tricked or does not know me well?). Which is not to say I am certain I won't, only that I would struggle to put my faith in Him otherwise.

I'm trying to figure out what are the oldest complete manuscripts of the Gospel of John in Greek. [New Testament (Wikipedia)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_papyri) For example, papyrus 66 > They say 66 is the oldest and nearly complete; but the trouble is I don't want anything that was DISCOVERED in 1952… even though it was dated as the earliest, I want there to be a historical record of the manuscripts existence since ancient times. And I'm not researching any other books of the bible, I'm just concerned with finding an old source for the gospel of John. Thanks [Codex Bezae](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Bezae#History) >The manuscript is believed to have been repaired at Lyon in the ninth century, as revealed by a distinctive ink used for supplementary pages. It was closely guarded for many centuries in the monastic library of St Irenaeus at Lyon. I found Codex Bezae: there are records that people were familiar with it around the 10th century; and scientific dating places its creation in the year 400. Vaticanus was created in 300, but discovered in 1516. this isn't old enough for me Sinaiticus was created in 330, but discovered in 1844... definitely not old enough. Textus Receptus was critical collation created in 1516 by Erasmus. That's great but I'm interested in seeing his raw sources; not his expert opinion on the best combination of sources. Any others? I like to get the two oldest and compare them.

In his *Dignity and Duties of the Priest, or Selva*, St. Alphonsus Liguori writes: > Hence the devil has always sought to deprive the world of the Mass by means of the heretics, constituting them precursors of Antichrist, whose first efforts shall be to abolish the holy sacrifice of the altar, and, according to the prophet Daniel, in punishment of the sins of men, his efforts shall be successful: *And strength was given him against the continual sacrifice because of sins. (Dan. viii. 20.)* I recall having read somewhere a while back, that St. Robert Bellarmine interpreted the aforementioned verse in Daniel as meaning that (all) *public Masses* would be suspended for a time. Can anyone point me to where I may find this in St. Robert Bellarmine's writings, as well as to what else he may have had to say on Daniel 8:12?

Fundamentally*, an inerrant Bible is one without errors and an infallible Bible is one that cannot have errors, as David Stratton pointed out in his answer . As for the Roman Catholic Church, all of its doctrines are infallible , so presumably, they believe the Bible is infallible as well. My question is: ***when* and *why* was inerrancy/infallibility formally declared?** I'm looking for any combination of these four sources: 1. an Old Testament text declares itself or another OT text to be inerrant/infallible, 2. a New Testament text declares itself or another NT text to be inerrant/infallible, 3. one or more early church authors declare some OT/NT text to be inerrant/infallible, or 4. the closed canon (with or without the Deuterocanon) is declared inerrant/infallible by the Church, before or after the Great Schism. I'm most interested in writings from the early church fathers, and 2 Timothy 3:16 is allowed in the answer only if the link between "God-breathed" and "infallible"/"inerrant" is shown in a clear and direct way. Also, declarations of inerrancy/infallibility should apply to the whole text, not just God's directly-spoken words. --- *[Stealthy](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StealthPun) or [lame](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LamePunReaction) , take your pick.

It seems to me that most Catholic lay people do not focus on the 150 Psalms (found in the Bible) in their daily prayer life. It seems that many focus on pious devotions instead. I have always felt that the Psalms are way more interesting than pious devotions. The Rosary is said to have come from a tradition that did not allow the laity to focus on the 150 Psalms. It seems that many lay people find pius devotions way easier to focus on. It is like they are drawn to it rather than the Psalms. What are some of the reasons why Catholics would feel more drawn to focus on pious devotions than the Psalms?

I was "assisting" (more like just attending) some Latin vespers, Mass and other hours at a Benedictine Monastery last week and I raised this question with a friend of mine but he didn't know the answer because he'd never been to this monastery, although he had been in formation to be a monk for several years. Are the people on the other side of the fence considered something besides the choir at these liturgical functions? All I'm really familiar with is the TLM sung high Mass and the very quiet low Mass (with a few variations in between). So I'm not used to attending something where we don't even mutter "_et cum spiritu tuo_". Also, there seemed to be a second choir of five or six monks who gathered together in the middle (Between the three rows of monks in the middle) and they seemed to have some extra function, maybe they sang or responded more. I couldn't quite tell what was going on, but were _they_ the choir or were all the monks the choir, or were we all the choir and just didn't say anything?

I realise that Jehovah's Witnesses believe there will be survivors from Armageddon who do not die and who will enter into the earthly kingdom. Then billions of dead people will be resurrected with physical bodies and will get a chance to live forever on this paradise earth. I have been asked what Jehovah's Witnesses believe regarding marriage and reproduction on the paradise earth, and I would hate to misrepresent the official view. Because Jesus said there will not be marriage or reproduction in heaven, my question is focused on humans who will be living on earth. Will marriage and reproduction be restricted only to the Armageddon survivors, those individuals who did not die? And will that privilege also be extended to children born of those survivors by virtue of the fact they were never resurrected? Or will the earth already be filled by the time all the billions of dead people are resurrected. With regard to people who inhabit the paradise earth, will there be marriage and reproduction and what Bible verses support the Jehovah's Witness view?

See below for a more precise definition of the question. Two Views among Evangelicals ---------------------------- Ted Peters says that if anything, contemporary mainline Protestant and Roman Catholic trinitarian thinking is “antisubordinationist.” (God as Trinity (Louisville: Westminster, 1993), p. 45.) But Kevin Giles , in an article in The Academic Journal of CBE International, stated: > “Paradoxically … many evangelical theologians have been moving in the > opposite direction. Since the 1980s, evangelicals wishing to uphold > the idea male headship … have been arguing that the Son is eternally > subordinated to the Father.” > > "Conservative evangelicals who speak of the eternal subordination of > the Son quote in support Paul’s assertion that God the Father is the > “head of Christ” just as “man is the head of woman” (1 Cor 11:3), and > the texts that speak of the Son being “sent” by the Father (John 4:34, > 5:30 etc.), and obeying the Father (Rom 5:18-19; Heb 5:8). Giles, on the other hand, claims that the Bible writers present the Son as equal with the Father: > “They frequently associated the Father, Son, and Spirit together, > **implying their equality** (cf. Matt 28:19; 1 Cor 12:4-6; 2 Cor 13:13; > Eph 4:4-6; etc.), and on occasions spoke of Jesus as Theos (John 1:1, > 20:28; Rom 9:5; Heb 1:8), calling him “the Lord” (the title for Yahweh > used in the Greek OT) some two hundred times.” Can the Bible answer this question? ----------------------------------- However, Giles implies that this debate, whether the Son is subordinate to the Father or not, cannot be resolved from the Bible alone and that we must rely on “tradition:” > “If there were no way to settle this debate over the interpretation of > the Bible we would have a stalemate. Each side could simply go on > quoting their proof texts and **no resolution would be possible**. But > this is not the case. Evangelicals … are in complete agreement that > “tradition”—understood as how the scriptures have been understood by > the best of theologians across the centuries—is a good guide to the > proper interpretation of scripture: it is a secondary authority.” Gotquestions , another conservative protestant site, claims that the Bible is able to provide the answer. Using language that is similar to the Athanasian Creed, it states: > **The Bible teaches** that the Father is God, that Jesus is God, and that > the Holy Spirit is God. **The Bible also teaches** that there is only one > God. The Question ------------ (a) The Trinity doctrine teaches that the Son is equal with the Father. What are the main texts and principles in the New Testament that are used to prove the equality of the Son to the Father and how do non-trinitarians show that these texts do not prove equality? (b) The Trinity doctrine teaches that the Person of the Son is ontologically equal but functionally subordinate to the Father. What are the main texts and principles in the New Testament that support eternal functional subordination and how would non-trinitarians show that eternal functional subordination is inconsistent with the Trinity doctrine? Eternal Subordination --------------------- As Giles indicated: > “All accept that the Son was for a limited period (temporally) > subordinated in the incarnation. What is in dispute is whether or not > the Son is subordinated in the eternal or immanent Trinity in his > being/nature/person and/or work/operation/function.” So, I am particularly interested in indications that the Son was subordinate to the Father before He “became flesh” and after His ascension. Role vs Being Subordination --------------------------- Giles distinguishes between “eternal subordination in role/function” and “subordination in person or being,” but also states that, if the Son, in “eternity” is subordinate in His “role/function,” then He is also subordinate in His “being:” > “Most speak only of an eternal subordination in role/function for the > Son. However, some evangelicals honestly admit that eternal role > subordination by necessity implies subordination in person or being.” In note 4 of his article, Giles states that this distinction ”is entirely novel. It has no historical antecedents. Previously the argument has been eternal subordination in being/nature/essence and work/operation/function are two sides of one coin.” Furthermore, the Bible does not explain the relationship between the Father and Son in terms of substance or being. Nevertheless, since no Trinitarian will be convinced by an answer that avoids this Trinitarian defense, the answer must address the distinction between Role and Being Subordination. Catholic Christians ------------------- Perhaps this is not a question that will interest Catholic Christians, since they rely on tradition to a greater extent. On the other hand, for that same reason, compared to protestants that are subject to the demands of Sola Scriptura, Catholic Christians sometimes can afford to be more honest with respect to the meaning of the Biblical text.

This question asks and answers the addition of the word "other" in the NWT of Colossians 1:15-16: > 15 He is the image of the invisible God,the firstborn of all creation;16 because by means of him all **other** things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible,whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All **other** things have been created through him and for him. 17 Also, he is before all **other** things,and by means of him all **other** things were made to exist, The accepted answer appeals to examples where "other" is added to "all" in order to clarify what was intended even though it does not appear in the Greek text. However, the NWT translation of John 1:3 does not add in "other" for this same clarification: > All things came into existence through him,+ and apart from him not even one thing came into existence. Contextually, him is the Word/logos/Jesus and it is striking that, "other" having been so carefully added in to Colossians to make clarification that all other things were created through him (excepting himself), the same other is not added in here as well. John 1:3 appears to be removing Jesus from the category of things that came into existence since, according to JW teachings, Jesus **is** one thing that came into existence and the verse clearly states (without the clarifying addition of "other") that not one thing came into existence apart from him. So, either Jesus brought himself into existence or he was not brought into existence. 1) How do Jehovah's Witnesses reconcile John and Colossians and, 2) Should we expect to see a future revision to the NWT translation of John 1:3 so that it reads: > All **other** things came into existence through him,+ and apart from him not even one **other** thing came into existence.

The above include the use of online platforms, employment contracts, and other official documents. When signing up to use online platforms the user is required to agree to a set of terms which includes an agreement not to do anything illegal. Since what is legal is not always moral and vice versa, how can a Christian agree to such terms? Similarly, the residence permit application for China contains a box the applicant is required to tick that they will obey the law of China, which includes restrictions on speech and an injunction to have "religious" meetings only in government sanctioned buildings.

According to Wikipedia , "christian mortalism" describes the idea that the soul is not immortal, but dies together with the body and rises in the resurrection. Proponents of this are Jehovahs Witnesses, some Lutherans, Seventh-Day adventists and some others. Since the soul is dead or dissolved after death, that means God recreates it for the resurrection, as a body that is dissolved would need to be recreated. Since God is omniscient, not only does he know how each person would behave before they are born, this arguably also means that he knows how any potential person would have behaved if given the chance. Then, what is the difference between someone actually having gone through life, now no longer existing after death except for in the mind of God, to a person never having existed except for in the mind of God? In a sense this is asking what value the life-on-earth has, but I want to expand it in this sense to add the notion of how could God not grant resurrection to a person never having existed when that person is not fundamentally different from a person who has lived (both just existing in the mind of God after the latter person has died).

[Samuel Rutherford](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Rutherford) was an important 17th-century Presbyterian theologian who had significant influence in the drafting of the Westminster Standards, still widely used as a part of the constitutions of many Presbyterian denominations. Recently, during deliberations on marriage in my denomination, a speaker raised the point that Samuel Rutherford and others did not believe that Christian pastors should preside over weddings – that instead, it was the civil magistrate's role to marry people. However, I haven't been able to find evidence that Rutherford believed this. I looked in his *Lex, Rex*, but a cursory search didn't turn up anything. I found a bit of background in J. V. Fesko's *Theology of the Westminster Standards*, which says: > In their deliberations over the creation of the [*Directory for the Public Worship of God*] some divines argued that marriage is merely a “civil contract,” but others, such as Rutherford, believed there is something divine about marriage, but did not regard it as formally part of worship. This doesn't shed much light on the specific question of the Rutherford's view of the role of Christian ministers, however, and Fesko doesn't cite his source on this particular point. What was Rutherford's position on the role of ministers in marriage, and where does he comment on this issue?

Above some sort of a shrine(?) on the way up to the Kapuzinerberg in Salzburg, Austria there is this inscription: > CHRISTUS DNS CAPTUS EST IN PECCATIS NOSTRIS > > Christus der Herr ist gefangen worden um unserer Sünden willen: Thren: IV.20 I would translate the German as: > Christ the Lord was captured on account of our sins. and the Latin seems to say almost the same. However, the reference seems to be to the ''Lamentations of Jeremiah'', 4.20, which says (in the [KJV](https://sacred-texts.com/bib/kjv/lam004.htm#020)) : > The breath of our nostrils, the anointed of the LORD, was taken in their pits, of whom we said, Under his shadow we shall live among the heathen. which is only faintly similar and does not say anything at all about sin. What is going on here? Is that really the source?

The Revelation that Jesus Christ gave to his servant John describes a series of seven scrolls and seven trumpets that precede the end of the age. The scrolls are opened and in the first four, John is told by each of of the four living creatures to go and see and he sees riders on **differently colored horses**. The first horse is **white** which goes forth to conquer and conquering. The next horse is **red** and it's rider is commanded to take away **peace** from the world so that a world War may happen and cause many inhabitants of the earth to die. The third horse is **black** and the rider of this horse is commanded to cause **scarcity** on the earth such that a quart of wheat should cost a **denarius** and three quarts of barley should cost a denarius. Since this **currency** is no longer in use, is it safe to conclude that this event already happened? In the modern context, the red horse causes an event similar to a nuclear warfare and then after this **scarcity** which brings about **inflation** but the currency described in this verse aged away with the Roman Empire, so has this event already happened?

Government employees of many countries are prohibited by the respective conduct rules, from taking up any employment of monetary gain, on the assumption that they are 24x7 for the Government. From the employees' perspective, many find it difficult to save enough after paying the taxes and hence resort to working outside official duty time and on holidays. Such an activity is called 'moonlighting'. If caught, the employee is liable for action under the service rules. But, one doubts if moonlighting by a Christian employee goes against any of the Ten Commandments. If it does, which is the Commandment attracted? Inputs from scholars of any denomination are welcome.

What was the denomination of Bishop Heahmund from? If he is a Catholic bishop how did priestly celibacy work in that era? *(The Vikings TV series shows him with multiple relationships)*

In the beginning of the bible it is said that God created man in his image and likeness. That means by the way that god had eyes. That he had eyes from eternity on is also obvious because he made light and then immediately sow it. But why did he posses eyes when they were useless before creation of light. Of course Darwinism has not that kind of question to ask. Does it prove that bible is not true? I hope of logical answers and not in kind of believers answers.

The meaning of Zion is uncertain. There is a hymn related to Zion . The refrain part says, > We’re marching to Zion, Beautiful, beautiful Zion; We’re marching upward to Zion, The beautiful city of God. What is the role and importance of Zion in Christianity?

Matthew 10:28: > 28 `And be not afraid of those killing **the body**, and are not able to kill **the soul**, but fear rather Him who is able **both soul and body** to destroy in gehenna. [YLT] > > 28 And fear not them which kill **the body**, but are not able to kill **the soul**: but rather fear him which is able to destroy **both soul and body** in hell. [KJV] > > 28 And do not fear those who kill **the body** but cannot kill **the soul**. Rather fear him who can destroy **both soul and body** in hell. [ESV] According to believers in the tripartite nature of man (body, soul and spirit, i.e., *trichotomism*), why did Jesus omit the word "spirit" in Matthew 10:28? Did Jesus expect his audience to have an understanding already of the fate of a person's spirit upon death, which is why he thought it unnecessary to say anything about the "spirit"? If so, what was that implicit understanding?