A recent question asked about God's omni-benevolence, free will and God's ability to do evil. [My counter](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/95838/51977) to that was to look at Divine Command Theory which defines moral good as God's will, the questioner did ask further questions that made me wonder about this though. Would all conclusions of moral good that stem from the bible agree with DCT or is there a definition which sees moral good as something God also adheres to, external to themselves?

I've looked at the discoveries of things like the Tel Dan Inscription or the Pilate Stone which testify to the existence of David and Pilate. I read that before such archeological discoveries, the existence of people like King David and Pontius Pilate was disputed. Now, it seems that most scholars accept the existence of David, and all accept Pilate existing from what I've seen. Apparently, starting from somewhere around the 17th century, scholars were arguing against Biblical figures existing. They also argued against the Philistines' existence. Every apologist I encounter who brings up these discoveries starts off by saying "Skeptics used to say 'x', but because of these discoveries, we have evidence that 'y' is true, so they agree with us now." But I cannot find many examples of skeptic scholars in the past who have denied the Philistines, David, Pilate, or many other people whose existence is disputed. Maybe I haven't done enough research. But these attacks on skeptics are found on basically all apologist websites defending the validity of the Bible. Here's one example of such a website from a good defender of the Word: https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/a-brief-sample-of-old-testament-archaeological-corroboration/ Could someone point me toward some evidence that the scholars doubted the existence of David, Pilate, and the Philistines back in the day? Thanks.

Obviously the key to salvation is to "know" Jesus, "the Lord" of Matthew 7:21-23 and the master of the house" of Luke 13:25-27. Not everyone who says to Me Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven." Vs22, Many will say to Me on that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?" vs23, And then I will declare to them, I never knew you; Depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness." In my opinion the four most lethal words in the Bible are, "I never knew you." You can read Luke 13:25-27 yourself. The key is to "know" Jesus. The Greek word used there in Matthew 7:23 is "ginosko" and refers to an experiential knowledge as in getting to "know" someone (does not mean to simply retaining an intellectual knowledge of someone's existence). For example, the Greek "ginosko" is used in the LXX to translate the Hebrew word "yada" at Genesis 4:1 where the Bible says that Adam "knew" Eve and she bore a son. Both the Hebrew and the Greek terms in these contexts refer to an experiential, intimate "knowing." Obviously then, to "know" Christ as he requires is to "know" him from experience, personally, intimately, not simply to "know about" him or to memorize facts about him the way one might "know" say, George Washington today. But this kind of "knowing" for salvation is a two-way street. At John 10:14, Jesus said, "I am the good shepherd; and know My own, and My own know Me." Here again it is obvious that Jesus "know" ("ginosko") those who are his. This presents Unitarians with a serious problem, how? Since you do not believe Jesus Christ is God, then by what means do you pretend to know or have any experience with Jesus Christ? How can you have had any experience with him and how can He "know" you (intimately, experientially as in the Gree, ("ginosko") if He is NOT God? None of us were with Him in Israel 2,000 years ago. So if you know him and if you are known by him, how is that even possible unless he is God? This kind of relationship is only possible with someone who is omniscient and omnipresent? But look, Romans 8:8-11 tells us plainly that Christians are "in the spirit" only if the Spirit of God dwells in them. He continues by saying that if this "Spirit of Christ does not dwell in you, than you are "none of his" - ie. you are not a Christian. Clearly, to the inspired author of the Book of Romans, the "Spirit of God" and the "Spirit of Christ" are the same spirit. Furthermore for someone to be considered a Christian (ie, "his") then this "Spirit of Christ" must "dwell in" the believer. Who's "spirit" is the "Spirit of Christ?" Is it not Jesus Christ? To NOT have the "Spirit of Christ" dwelling in you means you are indeed "none of His." But only God can "dwell in" the hearts of all of his people, in all places at all times. Unitarians have reduced the Lord Jesus Christ to a mere man or an angel or an "exalted spirit being" (depending on what kind of Unitarian you are). There is no language anywhere in the Bible which ascribes omnipresence with this ability/characteristic to anyone other than God and God is the ONLY one whom the bible describes as being able to do this. So how is it that the one who alone is this "God" who promises to "dwell in" his people is somehow "not God?" John 14:23, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, AND WE WILL COME TO HIM, AND MAKE OUR ABODE WITH HIM."

Are angels considered divine for being heavenly beings? Was the adjective divine θεῖος /θείας *theios* ever used for angels? Whether in Greek scripture OT NT, early Christians or in Hebrew Bible? What is the general view on this from Christian or Heb commentators? Since, the same word has been used for sulphur, I suspect could be used for the heavenly beings as well. The question is originally focused on linguistic classification of angels as *divine*, however, I am forced to make it broader to avoid close objections. > Thayer Lexicon: θεῖον, θείου, τό (apparently the neuter of the adjective θεῖος equivalent to divine incense, because burning brimstone was regarded as having power to purify, and to ward off contagion (but Curtius, sec. 320 allies it with θύω; cf. Latin fumus, English dust)), brimstone: Luk 17:29; Rev 9:17f; Rev 14:10; Rev 19:20; (Rev 20:10); Rev 21:8. (Gen 19:24; Ps 10:6 (Ps 11:6); Ezek 38:22; Homer, Iliad 16, 228; Odyssey 22, 481, 493; (Plato) Tim. Locr., p. 99 c.; Aelian v. h. 13, 15 (16); Herodian, 8, 4, 26 (9 edition, Bekker).)* and for *lightening* by Homer. > LSJ: θεῖον (A), Ep. θέειον (in Od. 22.493 θήϊον ), τό , brimstone , used to fumigate and purify, δέπας . . ἐκάθηρε θεείῳ Il. 16.228 ; οἶσε θέειον . . , κακῶν ἄκος Od. 22.481 ; δεινὴ δὲ θεείου γίγνεται ὀδμή , from a thunderbolt, Il. 14.415 ; ἐν δὲ θεείου πλῆτο , of a ship struck by lightning, Od. 12.417 ; ἐμβαλόντες πῦρ ξὺν θ . Th. 2.77 , cf. 4.100 ; Κύριος ἔβρεξεν ἐπὶ Σόδομα καὶ Γόμορρα θ. καὶ πῦρ LXX Ge. 19.24 ; as a natural product, Hp. Aër. 7, Ph. 2.21 , 143 , Ti.Locr. 99c ; θ. ἄπυρον Gal. 12.903 ; opp. πεπυρωμένον , Dsc. 5.107; cf. θεάφιον, θέαφος . (Perh. cogn. with θύω, θυμιάω , Lat. suffire.)

Today I was debating with a Christian who believes in polygamy and claimed that the Early Church Fathers allowed for the act of polygamy, is that true and is there any evidence that the Early Church condemned the act of polygamy (ie marriage to more than one spouse at a time).

I've heard several references in History and Discovery channel type TV programs that say that the Bible talks about the Ark of the Covenant miraculously flying. Not to mention there was a line about that in Indiana Jones. I am not aware of any Bible reference that says any such thing. Is there some verse I'm missing? If not, is there some other ancient source -- the Talmud or Josephus or something -- that makes such a statement? Or is this just some crazy idea that came out of nowhere?

Which Christian denomination did it spring from, if any? Or was it a spontaneous rising from the youth culture, meeting a need of sorts? Perhaps in answering this, it would help to know which denominations "assimilated" them the most? (Evangelical denominations, charismatic churches, modernist main-line churches). If the movement was independent, spontaneous, which denominations reached out to them to help them assimilate? Do many of them remain independent of all main-line or evangelical churches? Or are most Jesus People assimilated into denominations, and no longer an identifiable Christian sub-group? P.S. For those who did not live during those times: The Jesus People Revolution was a movement of, originally, hippies, then many other young people, who became turned off by the pagan lifestyle rampant in youth culture in the 70s...and who saw hope, meaning, and joy, in the Gospel message of Jesus Christ. Many were delivered from drug addiction, immorality, and a rebellious attitude...and returned to productive lives in their families, and neighborhoods. The movement was so large and influential that the face of Jesus made it to the cover of TIME magazine! Because of the hippie-style of living, it was hard for some denominations to assimilate them back into church life, though.

The Scripture mentions homosexual practises a lot but Scripture seems silent about transsexualism. This question is asking answers from a Protestant perspective preferably those who uphold the doctrine of Sola Scriptura of the Reformation. How do Protestant Christians explain gender dysphoria/transgenderism?

St. Alphonsus Liguori writes in *Dignity and Duties of the Priest or Selva* p. 112 : > St. Bernard said that incontinence in ecclesiastics was one of the greatest persecutions that the Church could suffer. > >🇮🇹 original, [*Selva di materie predicabili* ch. 6 "Del peccato d'incontinenza" :]
*Dice s. Bernardo che l'incontinenza degli ecclesiastici è la maggior persecuzione che oggidì patisce la chiesa.* Where may I find the actual quote of St. Bernard to which St. Alphonsus alludes?

From [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)) : > In philosophy, **naturalism is the idea or belief that only natural laws and forces (as opposed to supernatural ones) operate in the universe**. > > > Naturalism is not so much a special system as a point of view or tendency common to a number of philosophical and religious systems; not so much a well-defined set of positive and negative doctrines as an attitude or spirit pervading and influencing many doctrines. **As the name implies, this tendency consists essentially in looking upon nature as the one original and fundamental source of all that exists, and in attempting to explain everything in terms of nature**. Either the limits of nature are also the limits of existing reality, or at least the first cause, if its existence is found necessary, has nothing to do with the working of natural agencies. **All events, therefore, find their adequate explanation within nature itself**. But, as the terms nature and natural are themselves used in more than one sense, the term naturalism is also far from having one fixed meaning. > > — Dubray 1911 Has any Christian philosopher ever argued that naturalism is [falsifiable](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability) , that is, that it is possible to show empirically that naturalism is false? Alternatively, what are Christian positive arguments for the falsehood of naturalism? ___ **Related** [Is naturalism falsifiable?](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/93812/is-naturalism-falsifiable) https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/37198/is-creationism-falsifiable https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/37251/have-creationists-advanced-any-particular-theories-of-origin-that-they-claim-are

It's a common assertion by liberal Bible scholars that rather than *Jesus himself* who [prophesied the destruction of the temple in AD 70](https://www.gotquestions.org/AD-70.html) along with the ensuing wars and sufferings, it was the *Gospel authors* who "after the fact" (post AD 70) made Jesus predicted these indisputable historical facts (the [First Jewish-Roman war](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Jewish%E2%80%93Roman_War) , AD 66-73) in the gospel narratives. What are the recent (post-2000) scholarly arguments to refute this, or at least to shift the balance of academic probability toward the traditional assertion that although the gospel narratives could have been written post AD-70, but the kernel of the sayings were *really* coming from Jesus's own mouth? I request respectfully - that the answer **does not use the inerrancy doctrine** (not that there is anything wrong with it), but rather use various textual, narrative, and historical criticism as well as external sources (cultural, other histories, archeology, etc.). - that the answer **does not *merely* use generalized arguments** that target a liberal assertion that most purported fulfilled prophecies are not really prophecies because the record was always written after the fact.

Based on the question "Should Catholics in a state of grace call themselves sinners?" Does Catholic doctrine allow for such a person to come to know of their state of grace while living?

The Bible says our righteousness is a filthy rag(works) it also says we are the righteous of God in Christ Jesus. As a Catholic at a state of grace is it right to still call myself a sinner when I have been justified by grace taking upon me Jesus Christ righteous?

It has been suggested that the religion of Christianity arose as a result of the destruction of the Jewish temple and the Jewish priesthood by the Romans in the year 70. This date marks the inception of the religion and not AD30-33 when Jesus was supposedly crucified. The theological concept of the sacrifice of one man, namely Jesus, to replace the annual Jewish ritual of the Atonement arose at this time and not before because there was no need for the concept prior to this event. Furthermore, it is asserted that the life of Jesus as portrayed in the gospels was invented to explain how the religion arose, but it actually arose as a consequence of the interplay of expectation and traumatic events consistent with normal human behaviour. **What is the evidence for and against this hypothesis?**

Protestants often used Matthew 1:25 as proof text that Mary did not remain a perpetual virginity after her marriage to Joseph, but did any of the Early Church Fathers interpret or understand this verse as NOT speaking in a sexual sense? therefore perserving her virginity. >And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. [Matthew 1:25 KJV] >And he knew her not, till she brought forth her first born son: and he called his name Jesus. [Matthew 1:25 Douay Rheims] >και ουκ εγινωσκεν αυτην εως ου ετεκεν τον υιον αυτης τον πρωτοτοκον και εκαλεσεν το ονομα αυτου ιησουν [Matthew 1:25 TR] >et non cognoscebat eam donec peperit filium suum primogenitum et vocavit nomen eius Iesum [Matthew 1:25 Vulgate]

Do Christians (or at least a well-known subset of them) believe that God chose to create the "best possible world" among multiple/infinite alternatives, and therefore, that we are living in the best possible world right now? My personal impression is that this view portrays God as a *utilitarian*, in the sense that God is viewed as making decisions based on a *Utility* or *Goodness* function, such that He can make comparisons of the form: - *Goodness* (possible_world1) > *Goodness* (possible_world2) - *Goodness* (possible_world1) 2) - *Goodness* (possible_world1) = *Goodness* (possible_world2) And that He solved an optimization problem, by actualizing one specific world (the one we are living in right now) that maximizes the *Goodness* function. However, I know that viewing God as a utilitarian is frowned upon by many Christians, as evidenced by some of my previous questions ([Q1](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/95435/61679) , [Q2](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/95069/61679) , [Q3](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/95350/61679)) . Do Christians believe that we are living in "the best of all possible worlds", as I just explained? If not, are there different conceptions of God in Christianity that still affirm that this is the "best possible world" that God could have created?

In studying Christianity it is inevitable that one comes to the point where the existence of God is compared to the existence of the Universe. This is loosely embraced in the Cosmological argument. >The cosmological argument is the argument that the existence of the world or universe is strong evidence for the existence of a God who created it. The existence of the universe, the argument claims, stands in need of explanation, and the only adequate explanation of its existence is that it was created by God. Like most arguments for the existence of God, the cosmological argument exists in several forms; two of those are: the temporal, kalam cosmological argument (i.e. the first cause argument), and the modal argument from contingency. The main distinguishing feature between these two arguments is the way in which they evade an initial objection to the argument, introduced with a question: “Does God have a cause of his existence?” [Robin Le Poidevin, Arguing for Atheism, Routledge 1996, Chapter 1] Basically the reasoning that all things have a causative factor is the basis for proclaiming that God exists. However, the argument is made that if all things must have a causative factor then God also must have a causative factor. In attempting to verify the existence of God the logic of the existence of the Cosmos is an attempt to prove that God exists. The fallacy of this argument lies in the fact that God and creation are existent in two very differing realms. While the Cosmos is in the material realm (where objects have matter and occupy space) God resides in the Spiritual realm (which has no matter and occupies no Space). Spirituality has no need of a beginning or an end since there is no form of matter to decay. The concept of the Spiritual Realm is hard to grasp in that it has no substance. My question is does any Denomination separate its belief in Heaven from the prevalent Cosmological arguments and portend that Spirituality having no substance and occupying no space has no need for a causative factor.

It’s often claimed that only bishops can could ever validly ordain priests. This is certainly true for modern Catholic practice. I recall reading somewhere though that priests ordaining other priests is recorded or even approved of at points during the Middle Ages. I’ve been unable to verify this claim by my own research. Is there any evidence for Presbyterian ordination prior to the era of the reformation?

Jehovah's Witnesses believe God is the Father whose name is the Hebrew YHVH, the Tetragrammaton, which was the name the Apostles called on to be saved. However, after calling on the name to be saved, the New Testament states that those who believe and accept what has been done to restore the relationship between God and man should acknowledge they are sons of God by calling the Father "Abba:" >For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!” (Romans 8:15) [ESV] >And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” (Galatians 4:6) The term "Abba" is from the Aramaic אַבָּא vocative form, originally a term of endearment, later used as a title and personal name; rarely used in reference to God which is transliterated into Greek as ἀββα. It was taken over by Greek speaking Christians as a liturgical formula.1 The use of "Abba" by the Greek speaking Christians is not surprising given Paul's instruction. Historically what is described with the name, is similar to animal sacrifice which those who rejected God's act of salvation believe is still necessary but the Apostles and all who believe understand are no longer required. In other words, where the Jewish people were told to call on the name of YHVH to be saved and to call on "the Father" (eg. in prayer) **before** the death and resurrection of Jesus, and **still do**, those who had been saved were to use "Abba." Moreover, "Abba" is also how Jesus addressed His Father in the garden of Gethsemane: >And he said, “Abba, Father, all things are possible for you. Remove this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will.” (Mark 14:36) How do Jehovah's Witnesses explain the requirement to use the name which was and still is associated with the Old Testament and its sacrificial system and not address God the Father in the way which acknowledges the current condition? In other words, since Paul says "Abba" is how someone who has been saved because the OT law has been fulfilled and is a child of God should address God the Father, how is instructing someone to use the Jewish name "Jehovah" consistent with the message of salvation Paul preached in the New Testament? ---- 1. Fredrick William Danker, *A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature*, The University Chicago Press, 2000, p. 1

In Matt 23:27, Jesus equates Sadducees and Pharisees to whitewashed tombs. Before the advent of long- lasting tombstones , the tombs , mostly formed of mud, used to be whitewashed and decorated with flowers on special occasions . Poor families which cannot afford to pay for permanent tombs, still have the tombs of their dear ones whitewashed, in many countries. That the practice was prevalent at Jesus' time indicates that Jews had been following it since long. My question therefore, is: Are there any instruction in the OT, which deal with maintenance of tombs, especially whitewashing ?