My research into the Council of Nicaea called by the pagan Roman emperor Constantine, shows they Council of Nicaea voted to change the name to iesus kristus by a vote of 161 for & 157 against. Again, why did they vote to change the Name of The Messiah?

In Mormon theology, it is taught that Jesus Christ’s atonement guarantees the universal, physical resurrection of all humankind. When Jesus physically died on the cross his mortal suffering ceased and his spirit departed from his body. On the third day after his death his spirit re-inhabited his body and he was thereby the first to be resurrected, receiving a perfected, immortal, physical body. Mormon theology holds that all who have ever lived on earth will one day be resurrected. Following resurrection, individuals are subject to judgment by Jesus Christ as part of the Final Judgment. Mormon cosmology describes three possible post-mortem eternal realms, and that the assignment to one of these kingdoms is to be determined at the Final Judgment. These realms are called the the celestial, the terrestrial and the telestial kingdom. (Joseph Smith articulated this conception of the afterlife primarily on the basis of a vision he reportedly experienced with Sidney Rigdon in 1832. This doctrinal exposition is canonized within the Latter-day Saint scriptural corpus as section 76 of the Doctrine and Covenants.) We can succinctly describe these different realms: * The celestial kingdom is reserved for those who have lived righteously, accepted the fullness of Jesus Christ’s teachings and respected all holy covenants. \* * The terrestrial kingdom is an intermediate kingdom. It includes individuals considered honorable in their conduct yet who, during mortality, rejected the "fullness of the gospel." This rejection is explicitly attributed not to inherent malice but to external deception, characterized as being "blinded by the craftiness of men." It also includes individuals who repudiated "the testimony of Jesus in the flesh" (i.e., during their mortal lives), and accepted that testimony in the post-mortal spirit world. In the terrestrial kingdom we also find individuals who did accept the gospel testimony during their earthly lives. but failed to demonstrate sufficient commitment or zeal. * The telestial kingdom constitutes the lowest of the three degrees of glory. Its inhabitants are described as including those who, during mortal life, “received not the gospel of Christ, nor the testimony of Jesus.” It also includes "liars, and sorcerers, and adulterers, and whoremongers and cloakers". We also find murderers, and idolaters in this realm. * A small subset of individuals will not be assigned to any of these realms. Though they will be resurrected, they will be in realm or state of “outer darkness”. Those described as “sons of perdition” are traditionally portrayed as residing in this state, dwelling in company with Satan and his attendant spirits. Many ex-Mormons have reported profound existential anxiety and genuine dreaded angst at the prospect of being assigned to a different eternal dwelling place than loved ones. It is not clear to me – however – whether all Latter Day Saint movements view these assignments as eternal, or whether individuals from lower realms universally (among Mormons) are denied communication with individuals from higher-order higher-status realms. Does the LDS Church or any other Latter Day Saint movement teach a notion of possible social mobility between these realms, in the afterlife? To make it concrete: if one’s parents were assigned to the terrestrial kingdom, one’s siblings to the celestial kingdom, and one’s cousins to the telestial kingdom, according to Mormon theology, will there be any possibility of those relatives ever meeting again? Does the answer differ to this question depending on which Latter-day Saint tradition one considers? To my knowledge, the dogma of hierarchical visitation is accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ([D&C 88:22-24](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/88?lang=eng&id=22-24#22) and [D&C 76:86-88](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/76?lang=eng&id=86-88#85)) , but the Community of Christ has largely moved away from the literal, detailed cosmology of D&C 76 and D&C 88. --- \* "All men who become heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ will have to receive the fulness of the ordinances of his kingdom; and those who will not receive all the ordinances will come short of the fulness of that glory" – Joseph Smith

The Bible reveals the year and month of the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. But does anyone have an idea of ​​the exact day and hour?

From the website Catholic.Org comes this explanation of what is meant by the title Co-Redemptrix as applied to Mary, the Mother of Jesus: > In his helpful Introduction to Mary: The Heart of Marian Doctrine and Devotion, Deacon Mark I. Miravalle, S.T.D., Professor of Theology and Mariology at the Franciscan University of Steubenville in Steubenville, Ohio, offers a valuable explanation of this term. > "The title, "Co-redemptix," refers to Mary's unique participation with and under her Divine Son Jesus Christ, in the historic Redemption of humanity. The prefix, "Co," comes from the Latin "cum," which means "with." The title of Coredemptrix applied to the Mother of Jesus **never places Mary on a level of equality with Jesus Christ**, the divine Lord of all, in the saving process of humanity's Redemption. Rather, **it denotes Mary's singular and unique sharing with her Son in the saving work** of Redemption for the human family. The **Mother of Jesus participates in the redemptive work** of her Savior Son, who alone could reconcile humanity with the Father in his glorious divinity and humanity." Deacon Miravalle states: > "Mary uniquely **participated in the sacrifice of Jesus** on Calvary and in the acquisition of the graces of Redemption for humanity And Pope Pius XII, in his encyclical On the Mystical Body, confirmed that: > **Mary offered Him on Golgotha to the Eternal Father**, together with the holocaust of her maternal rights and her motherly love, like a New Eve for all children of Adam. The apostle Paul, deeply concerned that the Corinthians were being deceived away from undiluted devotion to Christ, wrote: > I wish you would bear with me in a little foolishness. Do bear with me! For I feel a divine jealousy for you, since I betrothed you to one husband, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ. **But I am afraid that** as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, **your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ**. For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough. - 2 Corinthians 11:1-4 "Sincere and pure devotion to Christ" here in the ESV is sometimes rendered "simplicity towards Christ" (ASV), "simplicity that is in the Christ" (YLT) or "sincere [and pure] commitment to Christ" (NABRE). **Douay-Rheims and the Latin Vulgate both contain "simplicity that is in Christ".** While some take the meaning to refer to an uncomplicated presentation of the Gospel message and some decry doctrinal teaching as muddying the "simple Gospel" the idea actually appears to refer not to some quality in Christ (although He exemplified simplicity as explained below towards the Father) or in the Gospel message itself but to us: > It is not simplicity *in* Christ, but *towards* Christ of which the Apostle is speaking; not a quality in *Him*, but a quality in *us towards Him*. - MacLaren's Expositions This seems well in keeping with the apostles concern that anything (in the immediate context, the teachings of the Judiezers) be received as an admixture to what Christ has done in redemption. MacLaren goes on further to describe the word picture intended in the Greek haplotēs (ἁπλότης): > To be ‘without a fold,’ which is the meaning of the Greek word and of its equivalent ‘simplicity,’ is, in one aspect, to be transparently honest and true, and in another to be out and out of a piece. There is no underside of the cloth, doubled up beneath the upper which shows, and running in the opposite direction; but all tends in one way. A man with no under-currents, no by-ends, who is down to the very roots what he looks, and all whose being is knit together and hurled in one direction, without reservation or back-drawing, that is the ‘simple’ man whom the Apostle means. Catholicism currently holds 4 Marian dogmas (from Wikipedia ): 1) Mother of God - 1st magisterial definition, Council of Ephesus, 431 AD 2) Perpetual Virginity - wikipedia has the 1st magisterial definition as (one of the?) Synod of Milan (345, 355, 389, 451, 860), but the University of Dayton lists the Fifth Ecumenical Council held at Constantinople in 553 3) Immaculate Conception - 1st magisterial definition, Pope Pius IX, 1854 4) Assumption in Heaven - 1st magisterial definition, Pope Pius XII, 1950 Of the four dogmas the latter two are relatively recent, at least in terms of their formal definition and acquisition of dogmatic status. An article in the National Catholic Register on Pope Francis' spontaneous remarks regarding the Marian title "co-redemptix" during a Dec. 12 2019 Vatican Mass explains the evolution of these latter two dogmatic statements as being the results of massive "people of God petition drives". This appears in the context of a current, worldwide, and century old "people of God petition drive" to introduce a fifth Marian Dogma, namely Mary's Spiritual Motherhood of All People: > The century-old international movement for a proposed fifth Marian dogma of Mary’s Spiritual Motherhood (**which necessarily includes her foundational roles as Co-redemptrix and Mediatrix of all graces**) was started by the renowned Belgian cardinal, Cardinal Désiré Mercier, in 1915, and by 1918, Pope Benedict XV has received hundreds of other cardinal and bishop petitions for the solemn papal definition or “dogma” of Mary’s relationship with humanity as a “mother to us in the order of grace” as delineated by the Second Vatican Council (Lumen Gentium, 61).But over the course of the last 100 years, it has especially been the holy People of God who, as an expression of the sensus fidelium, the common consensus of the faithful, have prayed and petitioned the various popes for this dogmatic crowning for Our Lady. Over the past 25 years, the People of God from over 170 countries have sent over 8 million petitions to the Holy See for this dogmatic crowning for Our Lady. This contemporary movement of the Christian faithful has constituted a massive worldwide “People of God petition drive” to recent pontiffs, which follows the Church precedent of the past petition drives from the laity that successfully led to the last two Marian dogmas of the Immaculate Conception (1854) and the Assumption (1950). The following is from CRUX: Taking the Catholic Pulse : > ROME — Pope Francis appeared to flatly reject proposals in some theological circles to add “co-redemptrix” to the list of titles of the Virgin Mary, saying the mother of Jesus never took anything that belonged to her son, and calling the invention of new titles and dogmas “foolishness.” > > “She never wanted for herself something that was of her son,” Francis > said. “She never introduced herself as co-redemptrix. No. Disciple,” > he said, **meaning that Mary saw herself as a disciple of Jesus**. > > Mary, the pope insisted, “never stole for herself anything that was of > her son,” instead “serving him. Because she is mother. She gives > life.” > > “When they come to us with the story of declaring her this or making > that dogma, let’s not get lost in foolishness [in Spanish, tonteras],” > he said. How does the petitioning for a new Dogmatic definition, which necessarily includes the naming of Mary as "co-redemptix", to the highest levels of Roman Catholic authority, "grass-roots" style from the laity, exemplify and encourage simplicity and purity of commitment towards Christ (sole-mediator between God and man), especially when the current Pope appears to reject the notion, calling her a disciple?

In Protestant eschatology, it is commonly taught that when Christ returns, believers who are alive at that time will have their mortal bodies transformed into glorified, heavenly bodies (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:51–53; 1 Thessalonians 4:16–17). My question is: What happens to those who are alive but not saved when Christ returns?

As far as I know [there are 4 Gospels](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/18703/what-is-a-gospel-and-how-many-gospels-are-there-in-the-catholic-bible) : Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. I am an ex-Christian (currently atheist) who had a debate with a Muslim about a few discrepancies between the Qur'an and the Bible. The Muslims believe that 1. Haman worked for Pharaoh and is building babel tower 2. Mary was a sibling of Aaron 3. Jesus is given "gospel". As a non-Muslim and atheist, I of course think that Muhammad simply made a mistake. Perhaps he didn't get the story right or wasn't consistent with his sources. But of course Muslim apologists will claim that it's a misunderstanding anyway: different Haman, different meaning of sibling, and different gospel. The 3rd point is more interesting though. My Muslim friend pointed out that gospels *already* EXISTED before the Bible was written: - [Mark 1:14](https://biblehub.com/mark/1-14.htm) - [Matthew 4:23](https://biblehub.com/matthew/4-23.htm) - [Luke 8:1](https://biblehub.com/luke/8-1.htm) So it's a bit tricky. In Indonesia the word for "gospel" is "injil". I wonder where that word came from. Muslims seem to think that Jesus got the "gospel" like Muhammad got the Qur'an. But I think that's just not the case. The Gospels we have now, I understand them to be Jesus' late biographies, a bit like Hadith in Islam. However, the fact that the word "gospel" DOES show up in the Gospels themselves is intriguing. **What "gospel" was Jesus preaching because the Gospels as books weren't even written when he was living?** It looks to me that he was a Rabbi who preached typical Judaism stuff that might or might not be reinterpreted by his followers to be something much more than that.

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 (see 925), 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 (see 257), 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.

Wikipedia explains the etymology of the word Pope as follows: > The word pope is derived ultimately from the Greek πάππας > (páppas) originally an affectionate term meaning "father", later > referring to a bishop or patriarch. The earliest record of the use > of this title is in regard to the Patriarch of Alexandria, Pope > Heraclas of Alexandria (232–248) in a letter written by his > successor, Pope Dionysius of Alexandria, to Philemon, a Roman > presbyter: > > τοῦτον ἐγὼ τὸν κανόνα καὶ τὸν τύπον παρὰ τοῦ μακαρίου πάπα ἡμῶν Ἡρακλᾶ παρέλαβον. > > Which translates into: > > I received this rule and ordinance from our blessed father/pope, Heraclas. > > From the early 3rd century the title was applied generically to all > bishops. The earliest extant record of the word papa being used > in reference to a Bishop of Rome dates to late 3rd century, when it > was applied to Pope Marcellinus. Eventually the term Pope/Papa was limited to the Bishop of Rome alone and now, in the Roman Catholic church, the term 'Father' is usually used to address priests: > In the early church, members of the clergy generally did not have standard titles. However, an accepted way to address bishops was “papa” or “pappa,” which referred to the role of the bishops as father figures. This name eventually became associated solely with the Bishop of Rome. The highest title in the Catholic Church, that of “Pope,” is derived from those early titles. By the late Middle Ages, priests belonging to various religious orders were called father. This practice has persisted to modern times, as priests are customarily called father today. - Mercy Home Regardless of whether papa/father is used to refer to the Pope or Bishops or local Priests the idea underneath seems to be a reference to spiritual and familial paternity based ultimately upon the notion that Adam was created to be both High Priest and Father of all humanity: > Adam is the father of the human race, as well as the high priest of humanity. Thus, there is an intimate link between priesthood and fatherhood. The priesthood leading up to Aaron and the Levites is a familial priesthood. What is important to understand during this period of salvation history is that the father of the family is a priest, and the prominence of the first-born son in the family. - Catholic News Agency In Matthew chapter 9 Jesus is speaking to the crowd and the disciples and He is talking about the Scribes and Pharisees, that is to say the religious teachers and leaders. What he tells everyone is: > But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. - Matthew 23:8-10 1) Don't allow anyone to call you teacher/guide or Master because Christ is in that role and you are all brothers/equal under Him. 2) Don't call anyone on earth your Father because only God fills that role The prohibition appears to be twofold: One is against accepting the designations of teacher or master over another and the second is against assigning the designation of Father to anyone. It should be obvious that these prohibitions are expected to be understood 'spiritually' both from the immediate context and the Bible as a whole (since Jesus has made clear that, spiritually, there are only two fatherhoods : God or the Devil) as well as from common sense ... we all have natural fathers as well as secular teachers, mentors, and bosses. Taking the Matthew passage at face value there is no clear prohibition against a priest, for example, accepting the designation (spiritual) 'Father' but there is clear prohibition against anyone actually assigning that designation to 'any man on earth'. A highly voted answer to this strongly related question indicates a Catholic view that Jesus was prohibiting the term 'Father' being applied to those who are undeserving of the term: > Jesus is not forbidding us to call men "fathers" who actually are such—either literally or spiritually. [...] To refer to such people as fathers is only to acknowledge the truth, and Jesus is not against that. He is warning people against inaccurately attributing fatherhood—or a particular kind or degree of fatherhood—to those who do not have it. With this understanding in mind coupled with the fact that priests in the Catholic Church seem to be called 'Father' by custom rather than according to whether they deserve the title (that is to say, a priest who does not have the heart of a shepherd nor the well-being of his flock as priority will still, by custom, be called 'Father'), how does the Catholic Church interpret Matthew 23:9 so as to normalize priests being called Father irregardless of their performance?

John the Baptist is a central figure in Christianity. Sent by God as shown by the prophets, he prepared the way of the Lord, the way of Jesus Christ (Malachi 3:1, Mt 3:3, 11:10). John was of the priestly Levitical tribe in the order of Abijah, being born of Zechariah and Elizabeth, both of whom were of Levi (1 Ch 24:10, Luke 1:5). When John was preaching and baptizing, it is important to note for this question, he did so apart and away from the temple in Jerusalem. He preached in the wilderness. He baptized in the Jordan. (See Mt. 3:1, Mar 1:4.) The point is he did this without reference to the Levitical system of confession of sin and sacrifice. (See Lev 4, 23, etc.) With these things in mind, from a Trinitarian position, what exactly was John the Baptist preaching apart from the temple system when he said repent? Repent means change your mind. Metanoeo, Strong's G3340, to think differently, to reconsider. How would this change prepare the way of the Lord? How would it make straight His paths?

There is an old man in our neighborhood who is a member of a Southern Baptist congregation, though for various reasons he does not attend the local church. He asked me what I thought about the question, "Might a person read the Scriptures, remembering Jesus and the Cross, and take communion (the wine and the flat bread) alone at home, by one's self?" He reminded me that various wealthy people throughout history had their own chapels, priests and attendants that served the communion supper, "at home alone." Do the Southern Baptists have a position on private home-communion?

Whilst there are other questions I have found similar to this one, they do not specifically seem to explain the exact start date for the 70 week prophecy in Daniel regarding the command to rebuild Jerusalem. If we read the Daniel 9:25 prophecy, verse 25 talks about "**restore and rebuild Jerusalem**". **Cyrus decrees in Ezra 1 to Return to Jerusalem and Build the Temple** > In the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, to fulfill the word of the > LORD spoken through Jeremiah, the LORD stirred the spirit of Cyrus > king of Persia to send a proclamation throughout his kingdom and to > put it in writing as follows: > > 2“This is what Cyrus king of Persia says: > > ‘The LORD, the God of heaven, who has given me all the kingdoms of the > earth, has appointed me to build a house for Him at Jerusalem in Judah. Zerubbabel is among those who return to carry out this decree. **Enemies of the tribes obtain a decree to stop construction** King Artaxerxes, in the first year of his reign, after being told by the "enemies of Judah and Ephraim" and also consulting the original decree given by Cyrus, believes the Israelites are in breach of said decree (in that only the Temple may be built) and stops the entire process. > *Ezra 4 12 "Let it be known to the king that the Jews who came from you to us have returned to Jerusalem. And they are rebuilding that > rebellious and wicked city, restoring its walls, and repairing its > foundations." 21 Now, therefore, issue an order for these men to stop, > so that this city will not be rebuilt until I so order.* We obviously know that he was told a falsehood by the enemies of Judah and Ephraim about what was actually going on in Jerusalem in that they were not rebuilding city walls as Artaxerxes was led to believe, however, he stopped the process nonetheless. Moving forward in history...we know in Ezra 6, after the death of Artaxerxes, construction restarted by Zerubbabel, and that King Darius was approached by Tattenai the governor of the region west of the Euphrates to confirm the decree to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. The response from Darius: > Exra 6:1 Thus King Darius ordered a search of the archives stored in the > treasury of Babylon. 2And a scroll was found in the fortress of > Ecbatana, in the province of Media, with the following written on it: > > Memorandum: > > 3In the first year of King Cyrus, he issued a decree concerning the > house of God in Jerusalem: > > Let the house be rebuilt as a place for offering sacrifices, and let > its foundations be firmly laid. It is to be sixty cubits high and > sixty cubits wide,a 4with three layers of cut stones and one of > timbers. The costs are to be paid from the royal treasury. > > 5Furthermore, the gold and silver articles of the house of God, which > Nebuchadnezzar took from the temple in Jerusalem and carried to > Babylon, must also be returned to the temple in Jerusalem and > deposited in the house of God. > > 6Therefore Darius decreed: > > To Tattenai governor of the region west of the Euphrates,b > Shethar-bozenai, and your associates and officials in the region: > > You must stay away from that place! 7Leave this work on the house of > God alone. Let the governor and elders of the Jews rebuild this house > of God on its original site. **Ezra obtains letters from Artaxerxes and returns from Babylon** Ezra is granted authority by king Artaxerxes in the 7th year of his reign. However, it appears to me that the letter given to Ezra by the kind at that time is still only for Temple, its services, and for the self governance of Judah. It does not appear to make any reference to the rebuilding of the city itself. > Ezra 7:12 Artaxerxes, king of kings. > > To Ezra the priest, the scribe of the Law of the God of heaven: > > Greetings.d > > 13I hereby decree that any volunteers among the Israelites in my > kingdom, including the priests and Levites, may go up with you to > Jerusalem. 14You are sent by the king and his seven counselors to > evaluate Judah and Jerusalem according to the Law of your God, which > is in your hand. > *Ezra7: 23 Whatever is commanded by the God of heaven must be done diligently for His house.* Some 12 or 13 years later, in the 20th year of Artaxerxes reign, Nehemiah the cupbearer asks the king for permission to **rebuild the walls and gates of the city** > *Nehemiah 2:4 “...If it pleases the king, and if your servant has found favor in your sight, I ask that you send me to Judah, to the > city where my fathers are buried, so that I may rebuild it.” 7 I also > said to him, “If it pleases the king, may letters be given to me for > the governors west of the Euphrates,b so that they will grant me safe > passage until I reach Judah. 8And may I have a letter to Asaph, keeper > of the king’s forest, so that he will give me timber to make beams for > the gates of the citadel to the temple, for the city wall, and for the > house I will occupy.”* My point of interest is the original prophecy in Daniel 9 stating **restore and rebuild Jerusalem**. The decree given by Cyrus is only for the Temple, then Nehemiah is given authority to build the city walls and gates. Finally, remember the prophecy given in Isaiah 44): > 26 who confirms the message of His servant and fulfills the counsel of > His messengers, who says of Jerusalem, ‘She will be inhabited,’ and of > the cities of Judah, ‘They will be rebuilt, and I will restore their > ruins,’ 27who says to the depths of the sea, ‘Be dry, and I will dry > up your currents,’ 28who says of Cyrus, ‘My shepherd will fulfill all > that I desire,’ who says of Jerusalem, ‘She will be rebuilt,’ and of > the temple, ‘Let its foundation be laid.’ Which of the above is the official decree that fulfills the explanation of the prophecy by the angel Gabriel in Daniel 9:25? 1. The first decree given to build the Temple by Cyrus in 539 B.C and overseen by Zerubbabel (Cyrus lived 600-530 B.C) 2. the second decree given by Darius the Great 522-486 B.C (what year was this decree given... 521 B.C?) 3. The authority given to Ezra by Artaxerxes in 7th year of his reign (457 B.C) 4. or the letters given to Nehemiah by Artexerxes to build the city walls and gates? (445 B.C) Dates for the above are based on Wikipedia (Cyrus The Great , Darius The Great or Hystaspes , Artaxerxes I )

What is a good analogy for God being outside of time but not completely controlling it? We have heard the analogy of God being on the bank of the river of time. Revelation Lad wrote about God looking down on the solar system and seeing us experience day and night without His experiencing them (https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/111175/102058) . I have a different analogy. I read that if one wants comments on a write-up, they should post it as the answer to a question, making up an appropriate question, if necessary. When I ask a question, the system says, "Answer your own question – share your knowledge, Q&A-style". So, please comment on my answer. **Conclusion** Rather than my analogy, I prefer Mimi's analogy that God can travel back and forth through time. Thus God can - 1. Know the future without controlling it. 2. Change the future in response to our prayers. 3. Change the past (although I am not aware of His having done this). **Comments** 1. This does not represent my personal beliefs, only a simple way of understanding one set of beliefs. 2. This does not appear to be a salvation issue. Those of us with a proper relationship with Jesus should end up in the New Jerusalem, regardless of whether we believe that a. God doesn't completely know the future, b. God completely knows the future but doesn't completely control it, or c. God completely knows the future because He completely controls it. 3. Googling a definition of absolute sovereignty got me the following: >absolutism political system Also known as: absolute monarchy, autocracy Written and fact-checked by The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica Last Updated: Oct. 11, 2025 •Article History Britannica AI Icon Britannica AI Ask Anything >absolutism, the political doctrine and practice of unlimited centralized authority and **absolute sovereignty**, as vested especially in a monarch or dictator. The essence of an absolutist system is that the ruling power is not subject to regularized challenge or check by any other agency, be it judicial, legislative, religious, economic, or electoral. King Louis XIV (1643–1715) of France furnished the most familiar assertion of absolutism when he said, “L’état, c’est moi” (“I am the state”). Absolutism has existed in various forms in all parts of the world, including in Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler and in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin. Please notice that the definition requires only that the rule be unchecked. It says nothing about how much control the ruler chooses to apply. Each of the three groups listed in comment 2 tends to agree that God has absolute sovereignty, that He can do and have done whatever He chooses, and no one can interfere. Using "absolute sovereignty" such that it applies to only one of the three groups in comment 2 is unfair and misleading.

I know two sources on this Catholic issue. St. Thomas Aquinas says no. *ST II-II, Q83 A11 ad 3*: >Those who are in Purgatory though they are above us on account of their impeccability, yet they are below us as to the pains which they suffer: and in this respect they are not in a condition to pray, but rather in a condition that requires us to pray for them. [Edit: I find that Aquinas specifies that they aren't in a condition to pray effectively because having died they are beyond increasing their merit, which means they can't effectively do meritorious acts in the world like intercede. No, I don't get it either. An explanation of this would be welcome!] But the Catechism (CCC 958) shows a different view : > [T]he Church ... ‘because it is a holy and a wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from their sins’ she offers her suffrages for them.”500 Our prayer for them is capable not only of helping them, but also of making **their intercession** for us effective. > > 500 LG 50; cf. 2 *Macc* 12:45 Aquinas's stated reason that the souls are suffering doesn't make sense: people obviously can pray when suffering! The Catechism doesn't explain at all. What are the best reasons on either side?

A full preterist is someone who believes that all the prophecies in the Bible have been fulfilled. Then in Revelation 20:4 (RSV-2CE): >Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom judgement was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony to Jesus and for the word of God, and who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. **They came to life, and reigned with Christ a thousand years.** How does a full preterist interpret the Thousand-year reign of Christ?

Are there any genuine stigmatics alive today, approved by a representative of the Catholic Church?

Virtually all resources published these days make Biblical citations in the same way: "John 3:16" with the chapter and verse numbers in Arabic numerals, separated by a colon and with no other punctuation. However, when I read books printed a long time ago (maybe from 100 years ago or so), I find many other ways of referencing Biblical passages. As some examples: > "John iii. 16" - used in this 1885 translation of 1st Clement and throughout that collection of the Ante-Nicene fathers. > > "John 3. 16" - used in the 1917 printing of the Scofield Reference Bible . > > "John, iii, 16" - used in the 1912 printing of the Catholic Encyclopedia . However, there is not such diversity of citation styles among more recently published works. When and why did the modern convention become standard?

As stated for instance [here](https://christianpure.com/learn/protestant-christian-vs-reformed-christian/) and many other places, Reform Christianity has as one of its central precepts predestination, i.e. Gd has already chosen some of us for salvation and some for damnation. Logically, this would lead me to be a fatalist: nothing I can do will change my fate. How does Reform Christianity so vehemently argue against fatalism at the same time? This is not a smug rebuttal (which would be naive) but rather a genuine request for the details. The way I see it, this is all a side effect of the I suppose well meaning starting point of the sovereignty of Gd, logically leading to predestination - from here, there is either some nebulous cop-out or indeed an elaborate reconciliation of this and avoiding fatalism which I would find great intellectual satisfaction in learning.

Adam and Eve were never shown to have had a marriage ceremony, yet [God commanded them to multiply](https://www.bible.com/bible/59/gen.1.28) . What is the basis for the idea that God requires a ceremony to be performed for marriage, rather than being a spiritual commitment made by the husband and wife?

### Introduction The Hebrew Bible contains commands for several types of sacrifices. The sacrificial system encompasses a variety of offerings (Hebrew: korbanot) that serve different purposes. These sacrifices, described primarily in Leviticus and Numbers, includes animal sacrifices (bulls, goats, sheep, birds) as well as grain, oil, and wine offerings, all carried out by the priests at the altar of the Tabernacle/Temple. Each type of offering had specific requirements and a distinct purpose. Some were for atonement of sin, others for thanksgiving or purification: | **Sacrifice (Hebrew / English Name)** | **What Was Offered** | **Who Offered / Performed** | **Purpose of Sacrifice** | **How the Sacrifice Was Carried Out** | | ------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | **Olah (עולה) – Burnt Offering** | A male animal without blemish – could be a bull, ram, goat, or for the poor, a turtledove or pigeon. | Voluntarily by an individual, performed by a priest. | This is a general sacrifice, performed daily. It is also used as a sin sacrifice on the appointment of a priest. | The animal is slaughtered and its blood splashed on the altar by the priest. The entire carcass was completely **burned on the altar** (nothing eaten by anyone, symbolizing total surrender to God). The hide went to the priests. | | **Minchah (מנחה) – Grain / Meal Offering** | Fine flour or unleavened baked goods (loaves or cakes) made from wheat or barley, mixed with olive oil and frankincense, and seasoned with salt. No yeast or honey was used. | Usually a **voluntary** offering by an individual (often accompanying burnt or peace offerings); a priest handled it on the altar and ate the remainder. (If the priest himself offered it, it was entirely burned.) | **Thanksgiving and dedication** of one’s labor and produce to God. A non-blood offering symbolizing the dedication of daily sustenance and work. | A **handful** (with all the frankincense) was **burned on the altar** as a memorial portion. The rest was **eaten by the priests** in a holy place, unless it was a priest’s own offering, in which case it was fully burned. | | **Nesekh (נסך) – Drink Offering** | A libation of **wine** (usually undiluted) poured out on the altar; sometimes water (during festivals). | Performed by the **priest** as part of a larger sacrifice. The wine was brought by the offerer and poured out by the priest. | **Worship and devotion** – honoring God with the “fruit of the vine.” Symbolized joyful self-offering and blessing. | The priest **poured the wine** onto the altar (into special receptacles at its corners). Drink offerings were never offered alone but always alongside burnt and grain offerings. | | **Zevach Shelamim (זבח שלמים) – Peace / Fellowship Offering** | An unblemished animal from the herd or flock (male or female), often with **grains or breads** (both leavened and unleavened). | Offered **voluntarily** by an individual or family (as **thanksgiving**, **vow**, or **freewill** offering). The offerer slaughtered it; **priests** handled the blood and altar portions and received a share of the meat. | **Thanksgiving, fellowship, and celebration** of peace and blessing from God. Expressed gratitude and communion with Him. | The priest **splashed the blood on the altar**; the **fat portions** were **burned** as God’s share. The priest received the **breast** and **right thigh**; the rest was **eaten joyfully** by the offerer and family in a holy place. Leftovers were eaten within 1–2 days. | | **Chatat (חטאת) – Sin / Purification Offering** | Different animals based on the sinner’s status: **bull** (high priest/community), **male goat** (leader), **female goat or lamb** (individual), or **birds/flour** (poor). | **Mandatory** for unintentional sins or ritual impurities (e.g. after childbirth). The sinner laid hands on the animal; the **priest** performed the ritual and blood rites. | **Atonement for unintentional sin** and **purification from impurity**, reconciling the sinner with God. | The offerer **laid hands** on the animal, which was **slaughtered**. The priest **applied blood** to the altar (and sometimes within the Holy Place). The **fat** was burned; **priests ate** the remainder unless it was for the high priest/community, which was **burned outside the camp**. | | **Asham (אשם) – Guilt / Trespass Offering** | A **ram** without blemish (sometimes a lamb), often with a specified value in silver to ensure worthiness. | **Mandatory** for offenses involving **misuse of holy things**, **breach of trust**, **uncertainty of guilt**, or **restitution cases**. The **priest** sacrificed it after confession and repayment by the guilty party. | **Atonement for specific guilt** involving harm to others or desecration of holy things; emphasized **repentance and restitution**. | The offender **confessed and made restitution** (plus 20%) before the sacrifice. The **ram** was slaughtered, its **blood** splashed on the altar, **fat** burned, and the **meat eaten by priests**. Forgiveness was granted after restitution and offering. | | **Korban Pesach (קרבן פסח) – Passover Sacrifice** | A one-year-old **male lamb or goat**, without blemish. | **Mandatory** annual sacrifice for each household on the 14th of Nisan. The **head of household** slaughtered it; **priests** collected and sprinkled the blood. | **Commemoration of Israel’s deliverance from Egypt and the death of the first born**. | The **blood** was splashed on the altar. The lamb was **roasted whole** and **eaten that night** with **unleavened bread and bitter herbs**. Nothing left until morning; no bones broken. All leftovers were **burned**. | | **Parah Adumah (פרה אדומה) – Red Heifer Offering** | A **red heifer** without defect, never yoked. | Performed by a **priest** (e.g. Eleazar) **outside the camp**, on behalf of the whole community. | **Ritual purification from corpse defilement**; not for sin but to produce ashes for the **“water of purification.”** | The **heifer** was **slaughtered outside the camp**; the **priest sprinkled its blood** toward the Tabernacle seven times. The whole carcass was **burned to ashes** with **cedar wood, hyssop, and scarlet wool**. The ashes were stored and later mixed with water and **sprinkled** on those made unclean by contact with the dead. | | **Minchat Kena’ot (מנחת קנאות) – Jealousy / Ordeal Offering** | 1/10 ephah of **barley flour**, no oil or incense (plain). | Brought by a **husband** for a wife suspected of adultery (*sotah*); the **priest** conducted the ordeal and offering. | To **reveal hidden guilt or prove innocence** in suspected adultery; a **judgment ritual**, not atonement. | The priest prepared **bitter water** (holy water, dust, and ink of curses). The woman swore innocence, held the offering, and drank the water. The priest **waved the offering**, burned a **handful** on the altar, and disposed of the rest. If guilty, she was cursed; if innocent, she was unharmed and could conceive. | ### Question Each of these sacrifices has its own purpose and ritual in the Hebrew Bible (atonement for sin, thanksgiving, purification, etc.). Given this background, which specific sacrifice or offering does Jesus’s death on the cross correspond to or fulfill?

I've been told that it's rare to find someone who combines Dispensationalism and Reformed/Calvinistic doctrine (such as John MacArthur). Why is this? What ideas don't mesh well?