I am currently ordering a batch of exotic meats from a wholesaler. The meat includes Buffalo, Wild Boar, Kangaroo, Horse, Venison, Zebra, Crocodile, Elk, Ostrich, Reindeer, Frog, Rabbit, Snail, Pigeon, Squirrel, Camel. The problem is that I can't get my mother to agree to eat any of it, as she says that the Bible explicitly prohibits people from eating unclean animals (Deut 14:3-10, Lev 11:3-4).

*This Q is appealing to each and every of the 35,000+ individual denominations of Christianity, and even those non-denominational sects who perhaps glibly adhere to biblical principles.* Q. If every word of scripture is true, trustworthy, and inspired, (2Tim 3:16) why does Proverbs say this when this didn't work out for even God himself? Pro 22:6 ESV >Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old **he will not depart from it.** And yet... Isa 1:2-4 NLT >**2** Listen, O heavens! Pay attention, earth! This is what the LORD says: "**The children I raised and cared for have rebelled against me.** **3** Even an ox knows its owner, and a donkey recognizes its master's care--but Israel doesn't know its master. My people don't recognize my care for them." **4** Oh, what a sinful nation they are--loaded down with a burden of guilt. **They are evil people, corrupt children who have rejected the LORD.** They have despised the Holy One of Israel and turned their backs on him. This isn't even an isolated incident, it was a recurring theme throughout the Bible: Eze 20:17-18, 21 NLT >**17** Nevertheless, I took pity on them and held back from destroying them in the wilderness. **18** "Then I warned their children not to follow in their parents' footsteps, defiling themselves with their idols. > >**21** "**But their children, too, rebelled against me**. They refused to keep my decrees and follow my regulations, even though obedience would have given them life. And they also violated my Sabbath days. So again I threatened to pour out my fury on them in the wilderness.* Are godly parents really expected to experience this promise from Proverbs with their own children, when God couldn't even keep his own children on the straight and narrow? And if you are one of those who simply write it off as a "general" rule, not to be applied to all godly parents, yet, wouldn't it—at the very least—be applied to GOD himself as the ultimate Parent? I am looking for those with adept scriptural perception as to *how and why* a godly parent—one who pleases God— would not receive this promise of seeing their children endure to the end in faith. Thank you. *I was expecting more people to use actual scripture passages about rearing children correctly or parent/child relationships with logical interpretations to answer this. Instead, I seem to be getting criticism for taking Biblical promises too seriously.*

Nothing to add to the title: did any Apostolic or Ante-Nicene Fathers believe that Jesus was a created being? ______ Related questions: - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/43266/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/82496/50422

I saw a TikTok video saying that *"The Catholic church is a pagan mixture"* accusation entirely came after the **19th century** and none of the **16th-century original reformers** make that argument. Is that true, or did any of the **original reformers** make that argument?

Do we know of any martyrs from among the Roman Catholic Church that lived during the five centuries before Martin Luther (i.e., 10–15th centuries)? I am especially interested in those who have been well-spoken of by Martin Luther.

We can arrive at an [infinite regress](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/infinite-regress/) of designers as follows: - Suppose that X is so complex that it's considered to show evidence of design. Accordingly, we infer that an intelligent designer must be behind X. Let ID1 be this intelligent designer. - We can ask the following question about ID1: **Is ID1 at least as complex as X?** We have two possibilities: - if Complexity(ID1) >= Complexity(X), we can infer that there must be an intelligent designer ID2 who designed ID1. - if Complexity(ID1) 2 must exist. But then we can ask the same question about ID2, and infer the existence of ID3, and then the existence of ID4, and the existence of ID5, and ... - And thus we arrive at an infinite regress of intelligent designers. Would ID proponents agree with this reasoning, and if so, do they find an infinite regress of intelligent designers problematic? If one believes that infinite regresses of this kind are impossible, a possible solution would be to stop the regress by claiming that there has to be **a first undesigned designer** (just like the *unmoved mover* or *uncaused cause* of the cosmological arguments for God's existence), but I think this would essentially reduce ID to Creationism. Is there a way to solve the infinite regress problem without resorting to Creationism? **I'm interested to know if any prominent Christian ID proponents have expressed any thoughts about this potential infinite regress problem**, while keeping a separation of concerns between Intelligent Design and Creationism. I'm suggesting this last requirement in light of articles such as this one: [Intelligent Design and Creationism Just Aren’t the Same](https://www.discovery.org/a/1329/) --- For those interested in a broader range of answers to this very same question, you are welcome to have a look at a [cross-posted version](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/99474/does-intelligent-design-id-entail-an-infinite-regress-of-designers-and-if-so) asked on Philosophy Stack Exchange. Judging by the reactions, I had much, much better luck over there.

>Then said Jesus unto him, Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe. 49 The nobleman saith unto him, Sir, come down ere my child die. 50 Jesus saith unto him, Go thy way; thy son liveth. And the man believed the word that Jesus had spoken unto him, and he went his way. [John 4:48-50 KJV] The nobleman, as recorded by John, expressed his need when Jesus said to him 'Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe'. His importunity responded to the test, the trial, that Jesus makes upon the man. 'Go thy way ; thy son liveth.' And he believed. Without seeing anything, the man responded, out of importunity, and he believed the word that Jesus spoke. >... without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. [Hebrews 11:6 KJV] The writer to the Hebrews makes it clear that one must first have faith before coming to God. And not only faith in his existence, his being, but faith in that God will respond, and God will reward one's seeking after him. Therefore the 'proof' of God's existence and the 'proof' of real Christianity (the having a relationship with God by the mediatorial work and ministry of his Son, Jesus Christ) is available to faith and to faith alone. And more so, for the gospels teach the necessity of repentance, a baptism of repentance without which none can come to Christ. A pentinence that precedes faith. What does Trinitarian Protestantism teach regarding the possibility of 'proving' anything about Christianity without repentance, first, and genuine faith ?

In entry 684, Chapter 32 (Other Virtues), of Josemaria Escriva's "The Way," it is written: > Meditate well these words of a spiritual writer: `The incense offered to God is not wasted. Our Lord is more honoured by the immolation of your talents than by the vain use of them.' Who is the "spiritual writer" alluded to by the author?

The prayer for peace and the wishing of peace to one another are closely knitted into the fabric of Christianity. The practice definitely traces its origin to the Old Testament, and it has been reinforced by the Gloria sung by the angels at the Nativity, the Lord's own peace messages, his exhortation to the disciples to be the messengers of peace, etc. One can definitely make out that peace was one of the main concerns of the Jews as well as early Christians who had always been fighting external forces. But in the modern world, the Gifts of the Holy Spirit, including the Fear of God, Discernment, Wisdom and Knowledge, stand at equal footing. One is therefore inclined to conclude that the wishing of peace which occurs many times during the liturgy could perhaps be replaced with wishing for the Gifts of the Holy Spirit. **My question therefore is**: Has the Catholic Church ever considered replacing the "Peace Be With You" salutations in the liturgy with a wish for the Gifts of the Holy Spirit?

The talk given by Ven. Fulton Sheen in the following link pertains to the laity: - [**Confirmation** - Venerable Bishop Fulton J. Sheen (YouTube video)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Gm3X1vJNZU) It begins as follows: “... The greatest untapped reservoir of spiritual power is to be found in the Christian laity.” I would like to obtain a transcript of the audio, which is entitled *Confirmation*. QUESTION: Does anyone know if a transcript of this audio is available online? I have been able to locate other transcripts of Ven. Sheen, but not this one. Thank you.

In Deuteronomy Moses teaches to make oaths in the Lord's name: > Fear the Lord your God, serve him only and take your oaths in his name. Deuteronomy 6:13 NIV > Fear the Lord your God and serve him. Hold fast to him and take your oaths in his name. Deuteronomy 10:20 NIV The instructions surprised me because Jesus to take oaths at all and that we should simply say yes or no. > “Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one. Matthew 5:33‭-‬35‭, ‬37 NIV God urges the people to do one thing and later the polar opposite thing. Surely, there must be something that I've missed. I recall learning that there was a silly opinion among people that it was okay to break oaths made on the temple gate but it's not okay to break oaths made on the temple coins. Jesus calls out the silliness of that. So is this related to that in a way or the Deuteronomy one needs to be viewed in some context? **How have various theologians resolved this contradiction?**

Concerning the end of the world and when this will happen Mark 13:10 says: > And the gospel must first be preached to all nations. (NIV) Has the gospel been preached to all nations?

In Luke 22:44 we read how Jesus sweat blood during his prayer at Gethsemane. This happens when one goes through extreme stress and mental agony. Da Vinci is said to have recorded the phenomenon that happened with soldiers prior to fierce battles. Now, we find the human nature of Jesus in dominance in all other stages of the Passion -- right from his trial, through the flogging and crowning, on his path to Calvary where he falls under the weight of the cross and to his loud cry of agony at the moment of death. But in the garden we see him having a frame by frame fore-view of all the suffering that was on the way. Ordinary persons awaiting execution, even through the most cruel methods, are not known to have sweat blood. Thus, it was the human nature in Jesus that sweat blood, while his divine nature had set the stage for it. **My question therefore is**: Was the divine nature of Jesus in dominance at the Garden of Gethsemane? Inputs from any denomination are welcome.

Deuteronomy 13:1-4 [states](http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0513.htm) : >1. All this word which I command you, that shall ye observe to do; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it. > > 2. If there arise in the midst of thee a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams--and he give thee a sign or a wonder, > > 3. and the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spoke unto thee--saying: 'Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them'; > > 4. thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or unto that dreamer of dreams; for the LORD your God putteth you to proof, to know whether ye do love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. The above passage seems to state that one may not subtract commandments from the Law of Moses which the Jewish people were commanded to obey, and seems to imply that a true prophet will not do so. Do Christians believe that Jews must still obey the Mosaic Law, and if not, how is that consistent with the above passage?

So, biblically, Satan comes as "an angel of light." and yet, in the popular imagitation, he is usually wearing a red costume with a pointy tail, a sharp beard, and a pitchfork. When and how did this characterization develop?

In War 1.650ff, Josephus describes a confrontation between the Herod and the people over a statue of an eagle that he had put up over the entrance to the temple. What was the significance of this eagle? The eagle was a complex symbol in the ancient world. It was a Greek symbol of Zeus (an Egyptian religious symbol before that), appeared on lots of Ptolemaic coins and might have been a sort of dynastic symbol, but also a symbol of the Roman Empire. The eagle appears in relief on lots of temples of the time, but Josephus' description makes it sound like the eagle is fully 3D (rather than a relief), like those on the treasury at Petra. Why did Herod put up the eagle? It is the only animal representation we have evidence of in Herod's temple (or at any time in the Second Temple). He knew it would make the people mad, so what was he after? I'm interested in historical arguments based in academically credible source material.

I don't really know the answer to this question and it seems like it would be subjective but I think that we can only know the will of God through the bible. Jeremiah 29:11 says: >"For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future." Ephesians 2:10 says: >"For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do." We were made by God and he had already prepared for us in advanced to do his will. God sees the future and if he says that he will do it then he will do it. One of the questions some humans might ask themselves is Why are we here? We are here to do Gods will. God had already prepared us to already do these things and if it is apart of his plan then we should live by Gods will and not our own because it has already been planned out. Ezekiel 24:14 says: >"I the Lord have spoken. The time has come for me to act. I will not hold back; I will not have pity, nor will I relent. You will be judged according to your conduct and your actions, declares the Sovereign Lord." Once God has spoken something it can't be undone unless he decides to change it but he says it right here that he will not hold back and he will do it and this is talking about the future and it is already planned out. If God already has a plan then how does free will have a part in that plan? My main question is if God's Will is Predestined. This question is not to challenge Christian Doctrine but to simply go over things about Predestination.

In the first few centuries, there appears to have been many Christian currents in the Mediterranean and Near East. While Christology was often not a sound basis to delineate between these groups (as views were changing and evolving), there is arguably some large bins we can bring to bear. This included Monophysitism, of which, perhaps the [Docetist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docetism) view was the most well-known (Marcion). This Christology holds that Christ had only one nature (the divine) and that his body was a phantasm or optical illusion. A very different view was that of the Adoptionists, asserting that Christ had no divine nature other than what was bestowed to him by God ad hoc. The Ebionites were known to adhere to this view. Either of these, clearly, contrasts starkly with what become the orthodox stance of the dual nature of Christ, that he is simultaneously divine and human. I would like to research further into whether or not there was ever a legacy Christology that held that Christ had only one nature (the divine) but was flesh and blood. I'm not sure it exists, so I will term it as a "theoretical Christology" for now. It would be distinct from the above in the following ways: - Docetist: Docetist view of the body as an apparition, whereas this theoretical Christology implies Christ does indeed have flesh and blood - Adoptionist: Adoptionists hold there is no innate divine nature whereas this theoretical Christology would imply a divine nature (just in flesh form) - Dyophysitism: The orthodox view is that there is a dual nature whereas this theoretical Christology would hold that Christ only has one divine nature (just in flesh form) I concede that, to the modern reader, "Divine flesh" sounds like a contradiction in terms. Perhaps Saturninus, or to an extent Heracleon would fit under this theoretical category, but I don't think they are perfect fits. It could be the case that there are no perfect matches. But again, theoretically, if archaeologists unearthed such a doctrine tomorrow, no matter how bizarre it sounds to us, we would need the framework to analyze it. The closest I could get was [Apollinarist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollinarism) , where Christ has a human body but a divine mind. However this seems to assume that his body is not at all divine and the divine nature is limited to his mind.

Question

Is there a Christology that lays out the prosopon in such a way that Christ is thought of as divine only, even though he is flesh? (That is to say he has no mortal/man nature, despite being flesh and blood?)

There are many translations used in writing the content of the Scripture. But can you tell us the most accurate language/translation?

Some Christians (e.g., Young-Earth Creationists) believe in a literal interpretation of the Genesis account. In particular, they believe in the historical occurrence of a massive worldwide flood that is supposed to have taken place just a few thousands years ago, as related in Genesis 6:9-9:17. What are reasons (scientific or otherwise) to disagree? Note: I found this similar question https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/2904/61679 , but little to no emphasis is given to the flood account.