The Bible is very detailed on a lot of things (ie salvation, sin, morality) but does the bible command us to pray three times a day or tell us how many times a day we should pray?

Is it not true that the place of this book in the Jewish bible was not established until sometime in the early Christian era? If that is so, is it not presumptuous to deem it as being among the so-called "Writings" and so equate it with Ecclesiastes, Job, Proverbs and Psalms? Is it not an incoherent erotic poem? What is inspired about that?

> No one who knowingly and deliberately rejects the truth will be saved. It doesn’t matter how good of a Muslim, Jew, Baptist, or anything else he may be. If anyone rejects the truth of Christ and his Church—**even one definitive teaching**—they will be lost. - Catholic Answers This is summary point #1 in a Roman Catholic article explaining *extra ecclesiam nulla salus* which is an infallible statement meaning 'outside the Church there is no salvation'. The article talks, in part, about 'invincible ignorance ' regarding not just commission of material sins but also of salvific truth: > “Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation” (quoting, Lumen Gentium, 16). *Note: The article uses the terms 'Catholic Church' and 'Catholic Faith' frequently and reading it one assumes 'Roman Catholic' is intended rather than the older definition of catholic as 'universal'. Likewise, when 'Church' is used the assumption is that Roman Catholic Church is intended. If I am wrong in this assumption and Roman Catholic Church is not intended, please correct me in comments as it will drastically change and perhaps even invalidate this question. The article lays out that anyone who is knowledgeable of and in rejection of "even one definitive teaching" of Christ's Church will be lost. They will not be saved unless they repent and accept that teaching that they have previously rejected. I have always understood the 4 Marian Dogmas to be necessarily believed in order to be a member in good standing of the Roman Catholic Church: > Through the authority of His Church on earth, God has revealed to us four essential truths about Mary’s identity, otherwise known as “the Marian dogmas.” To be in full communion with Christ—the Church reminds us—we must believe in each of these dogmas. In other words, they aren’t optional beliefs. - Good Catholic But now, knowing that these Marian Dogmas are definitive, infallible teachings of the RCC and putting them in combination with the first quote (above), it appears that anyone who knowingly and deliberately rejects even one Marian Dogma will be lost. In other words, any member of any Protestant denomination or Church whatsoever who has what the RCC considers to be valid baptism and marriage sacraments are still completely and hopelessly lost if they knowingly and deliberately reject say, the 'Perpetual Virginity of Mary' for example. A Roman Catholic answer to a a previous question clearly stated that the perpetual virginity of Mary bestows no salvific benefit: > Even without the perpetual virginity of Mary, our salvation in Christ not lessened! Christ would still be Our Redeemer and Mary would still be the Mother of Jesus, the Church founded by Christ, and all mankind. However, it would be seen through the eyes of the Church in a totally different perspective! Perhaps for a Roman Catholic the perpetual virginity of Mary adds a depth of understanding to the entire plan of salvation, the nature of God, etc., and that is fine, but it seems a contradiction to declare that a person will be lost unless they believe a doctrine that has no salvific benefit. My question is: If salvation in Christ is not lessened without the perpetual virginity of Mary why must one believe the Dogma or be lost?

From Wikipedia: Hunolt's idea was to treat the entire field of morals in his sermons thoroughly and completely. Each of the six volumes contains seventy-two sermons, and the various divisions in each volume are indicated by sub-titles, such as "The Christian Attitude towards Life"; "The Wicked Christian"; "The Penitent Christian"; "The Good Christian"; "The Last End of Christians"; "The Christian's Model". This prodigious mass of material is distributed most appropriately over the entire ecclesiastical year. How popular, and at the same time profound, Hunolt's expositions are, is best proved by the fact that numerous excerpts are included in all anthologies and textbooks of religious rhetoric as standard. A competent critic *(Kraus)* has eulogized Hunolt's sermons in the following words: **"At a time when German pulpit oratory had degenerated into utter bad taste and brainless insipidity, these sermons are distinguished by noble simplicity, pure Christian sentiment, and genuine apostolic ideas no less than by the felicitous use of Holy Writ, abundance of thought and pregnant language."** The following provides 3 of the (apparently) 12 volumes: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Hunolt_Sermons QUESTION: Does anyone know of a more extensive (preferably complete) collection of Fr. Humolt's sermons (in English; German O.K.) that I may freely access online? Thank you.

I was listening to Father Rippergers online sermon about communion. He said, the demons force to receive communion even when you have not repented. He also said receiving communion if you have not repented will lead to more sin and that's what the demons want. I had believed that you can take communion only when it's the will of God. The holy ghost will guide you and let you receive communion. And Jesus had said " No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day". There are many children's who take communion, have they repented? Can demons force or misguide you into receiving communion?

Paul was a Pharisee: > 6 Now **when Paul** perceived that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, “**Brothers, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees**. It is with respect to the hope and the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial.” 7 And when he had said this, a dissension arose between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. 8 **For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, nor angel, nor spirit, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all**. 9 Then a great clamor arose, and some of the scribes of the Pharisees' party stood up and contended sharply, “We find nothing wrong in this man. What if a spirit or an angel spoke to him?” 10 And when the dissension became violent, the tribune, afraid that Paul would be torn to pieces by them, commanded the soldiers to go down and take him away from among them by force and bring him into the barracks. > [Acts 23:6-10 ESV] And as a Pharisee, he must have believed in [Sheol](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheol) , [Abraham's bosom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosom_of_Abraham) (a compartment within Sheol) and the post-mortal consciousness of the spirits of the dead. This is confirmed by the [Parable of Lazarus & the rich man](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_man_and_Lazarus) (Luke 16:19-31), which Jesus likely based on traditional Pharisaic afterlife beliefs. For example, the Wikipedia article on the parable [says](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_man_and_Lazarus#Lightfoot:_a_parable_against_the_Pharisees) : > **Lightfoot: a parable against the Pharisees** > > John Lightfoot (1602–1675) treated the parable as a parody of Pharisee > belief concerning the Bosom of Abraham, and from the connection of > Abraham saying the rich man's family would not believe even if the > parable Lazarus was raised, to the priests' failure to believe in the > resurrection of Christ: > > > Any one may see, how Christ points at the infidelity of the Jews, even after that himself shall have risen again. From whence it is easy > to judge what was the design and intention of this parable. (From the > Talmud and Hebraica, Volume 3) > > E. W. Bullinger in the Companion Bible cited Lightfoot's comment, > and expanded it to include coincidence to lack of belief in the > resurrection of the historical Lazarus (John 12:10). Bullinger > considered that Luke did not identify the passage as a "parable" > because it contains a parody of the view of the afterlife: > > > **It is not called a parable because it cites a notable example of the Pharisee's tradition which had been brought from Babylon**. **Question**: According to Soul Sleep advocates, if Paul, being a Pharisee, held Pharisaic beliefs about the afterlife, does that mean that he changed his mind about the state of the dead after his conversion? Did Paul ever embrace [Christian mortalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mortalism) ? _____________ Related BHSE questions: - [When Paul said that he would like to be "at home with the Lord" (2 Corinthians 5:8), was he referring to Abraham's bosom?](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/73501/38524) - [Did the Apostle Paul, as a Pharisee, believe in disembodied spirits? Acts 23:6-10](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/74130/38524)

Matthew 7:21-23 (ESV): > 21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 **On that day** many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 **And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.**’ *"On that day ..."* -- what day? Is Jesus talking about the day of his Second Coming / Judgement Day? If so, then it means that those individuals didn't know they weren't saved until *that* day. However, if there is an [intermediate state](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_state) in which both saved and lost go to intermediate forms of heaven and hell immediately upon death, then there is no need to wait for a Judgement Day. One would instantly know one's judgement as soon as one dies, depending on where one goes in the intermediate state (heaven or hell). **Questions** - Do people in the intermediate state already know whether they are saved or lost (i.e. their judgement)? - If they do, then how do proponents of an intermediate state make sense of the fact that Matthew 7:21-23 seems to convey a degree of surprise in the individuals on Judgement Day? How can they be puzzled by their judgement if they already knew what their judgement was, long ago, as soon as they entered the intermediate state (e.g. see [Rich man and Lazarus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_man_and_Lazarus)) ?

[This question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/19010/was-no-prophet-ever-came-out-of-galilee-sarcastic) talks about how in John 7:52, the Pharisees claimed that "no prophet comes out of Galilee." The accepted answer discusses how commentators often point out the Pharisees' mistake, and N.T. Wright points out that "both the prophets Jonah and Hosea came from Galilee." In addition, I found [this link](http://storage.cloversites.com/makinglifecountministriesinc/documents/Did%20Any%20Prophets%20Come%20Out%20of%20Galilee.pdf) , which says that 5 prophets came from Galilee: Jonah, Nahum, Hosea, Elijah, and Elisha. BibleStudyTools.org has an [article](https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Topical.show/RTD/cgg/ID/11824/Hosea-as-Native-Galilee.htm) with a discussion about how Micah, Elijah, and Jonah being from Galilee, and how Nahum and Hosea could possibly have come from Galilee. **Which prophets are from Galilee, and how do we know?** An associated question, what is the source of the uncertainty surrounding this question? Perhaps I could word the question, what is the (Biblical and archeological) basis for saying that these 5 prophets are from Galilee? 1. Jonah from Gath-hepher >2 Kings 14:25 "He was the one who restored the boundaries of Israel from Lebo Hamath to the Dead Sea, in accordance with the word of the Lord, the God of Israel, spoken through his servant **Jonah son of Amittai, the prophet from Gath Hepher**." [Wikipedia on Gath-hepher](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gath-hepher) says it is in modern-day Galilee (maybe that's what it is saying?). Joshua 29:13 describes more where this place is. 2. Micah from Moresheth >Micah 1:1 The word of the Lord that came to **Micah of Moresheth** during the reigns of Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, kings of Judah—the vision he saw concerning Samaria and Jerusalem. [BibleAtlas.org](https://bibleatlas.org/moresheth.htm) doesn't mention Galilee at all in the article on Moresheth, nor does [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moresheth-Gath) in their article on Moresheth-Gath. Wikipedia says Moresheth = Moresheth-Gath. 3. Elijah from Gilead > 1 Kings 17:1 "Now **Elijah the Tishbite, from Tishbe in Gilead**, said to Ahab, 'As the Lord, the God of Israel, lives, whom I serve, there will be neither dew nor rain in the next few years except at my word.'" 2 Kings 15:29 actually seems to differentiate between Gilead and Galilee, which suggests that Gilead is not contained within Galilee. [Wikipedia on Gilead](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilead) makes no mention of Galilee, and the [Bible Atlas](https://bibleatlas.org/gilead.htm) also seems to differentiate Gilead from Galilee by saying that in Gilead there is "the white chalk of the desert plateau, the same as that found in Samaria and Lower Galilee." 4. Elisha (I don't know the basis). 5. Hosea (I don't know the basis). I would like to see the basis for 4 and 5 (Elisha and Hosea) being from Galilee, and I would like to see how we can know 1-3 are actually from Galilee. I would also be interested if there are any other claims that additional prophets are from Galilee. My questions stems from the fact that none the verses say explicitly from Galilee, and I have seen almost nothing supporting the connection between the city mentioned and Galilee. Pardon my lack of knowledge in biblical geography. Perhaps it is obvious that these cities are contained in the region that is Galilee. There may also be a notable difference between the geographical boundaries in Galilee between the Old and New Testament timeframes or even within the Old Testament timeframe, which contains several thousand years of history on its own. I don't see how any denominational restriction will affect the answers, so I don't propose any.

The Book of Job indicates that angels were with God in the beginning, when the heavens and the earth were created > Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you > understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who > stretched a measuring line across it? On what were its footings set, > or who laid its cornerstone— while the morning stars sang together and > all the angels shouted for joy? (Job 38:4-7) Yet it is says elsewhere that angels were created during the six day creation week > Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, **and all the host of > them.** (Genesis 2:1) > > You alone are the LORD. You made the heavens, even the highest > heavens, **and all their starry host**, the earth and all that is on it, > the seas and all that is in them. You give life to everything, **and the > multitudes of heaven worship you.** (Nehemiah 9:6)

> “For this reason, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself first, and in this way let him eat the bread and drink of the cup. For the one who eats and drinks without careful regard for the body eats and drinks judgment against himself. That is why many of you are weak and sick, and quite a few are dead. But if we examined ourselves, we would not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned with the world.” ‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭11‬:‭27‬-‭32‬ ‭NET‬‬ Does this suggest that this sin is unforgivable since they are guilty of the blood and body of the lord?

I've heard many people state that it was the punishment inflicted by the Romans that allows God to forgive us. This just doesn't make any sense to me. How can a man suffer for a short while here on earth in order that a divine being have the right to forgive sin? What is the framework of [substitutionary atonement](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substitutionary_atonement) that makes Christ's death effective?

**Do we know how many bishops attending the Council of Nicaea were actual victims of the Roman perscutions?** The Council of Nicaea opened on May 20, 325 AD. > The First Council of Nicaea, the first general council in the history of the Church, was convened by the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great upon the recommendations of a synod led by Bishop Hosius of Corduba in the Eastertide of 325, or rather convened by Hosius and supported by Constantine. > > Constantine had invited all 1,800 bishops of the Christian church within the Roman Empire (about 1,000 in the East and 800 in the West), but a smaller and unknown number attended. Eusebius of Caesarea counted more than 250, Athanasius of Alexandria counted 318, and Eustathius of Antioch estimated "about 270" (all three were present at the Council). Later, Socrates Scholasticus recorded more than 300, and Evagrius, Hilary of Poitiers, Jerome, Dionysius Exiguus, and Rufinus each recorded 318. This number 318 is preserved in the liturgies of the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Coptic Orthodox Church. - [First Council of Nicaea](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea) The Roman perscutions ended with the Edict of Milan in February 313 AD. Do we know how many of the bishops, who attended the Council of Nicaea were persecuted by Roman authorities prior to 313 AD? Someone once told me that some of the bishops who attended the Council had been previously tortured and even mutilated in the Roman Persecutions. There is simply 12 years between the two!

I know it's maybe not the most important thing in Christianity but I still got curious. We know that Moses got from God two tablets with the Ten Commandments. So how many Commandments were on each tablet? I searched the internet and most answers are that there were 5 Commandments on the first tablet and 5 on the second one. I didn't find any good proof for it, however. And on some old art, there are actually 3 Commandments on the first tablet and 7 on the second one, for example: - [Moses holding the Ten Commandments](https://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photo-moses-holding-ten-commandments-painting-church-altar-image90219428) - [Why Is Counting the Ten Commandments So Difficult?](https://blog.lexhampress.com/2020/02/06/why-is-counting-the-ten-commandments-so-difficult/) What is the tradition and reason for depicting the tablets this way?

Required Bible reference that Jesus preached for three and a half years.

Acts 2:22-24 NET says: > 22 “Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man > clearly attested to you by God with powerful deeds, wonders, and > miraculous signs that God performed among you through him, just as you > yourselves know— 23 this man, who was handed over by the predetermined > plan and foreknowledge of God, you executed by nailing him to a cross > at the hands of Gentiles. 24 But God raised him up, having released > him from the pains of death because it was not possible for him to be > held in its power. 1 Peter 1:18-20 NET says > 18 You know that from your empty way of life inherited from your > ancestors you were ransomed—not by perishable things like silver or > gold, 19 but by precious blood like that of an unblemished and > spotless lamb, namely Christ. 20 He was foreknown before the > foundation of the world but was manifested in these last times for > your sake. 21 Through him you now trust in God, who raised him from > the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God. These passages and others clearly indicate that salvation through the crucifixion, death, and resurrection of Jesus was the plan from the beginning. I'm concerned specifically with the plan of salvation since it is defined explicitly as a detailed plan from the beginning. That means that the sin of those involved in enabling the crucifixion was a part of the plan from the beginning: Judas's betrayal, the condemnation by the Jewish elite, etc. Succinctly, this means that, from the beginning, sin was a part of the plan to save us from sin. What explanations are there for this that address the logical conclusion that God is the author of the sins included as part of his plan for salvation, via the crucifixion of Christ, from the beginning?

As a follow-up to previous questions, I'd like to know: **Do Christadelphians disagree with or "reinterpret" any phrases in the Apostles' Creed?** Here's the context: I'm listening to an audio series in which the [Apostles' Creed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles%27_Creed#English_translations) is used as the framework for "Christian theology," implying that those who believe the Apostles' Creed are orthodox. But in this series, non-trinitarians are not considered orthodox. This makes me wonder – how do certain non-trinitarian groups understand the Apostles' Creed? Do they accept it as written, or simply reject it? Or perhaps they accept it, but interpret particular phrases in ways that trinitarians don't? Here, I'm most interested in how early Christadelphian leaders, like [John Thomas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Thomas_(Christadelphian)) and [Robert Roberts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Roberts_(Christadelphian)) , viewed the creed. If they did not address the Apostles' Creed in their writings, I'd be interested in the analysis of more recent Christadelphian theologians (in overview style, if there is disagreement). Related: Same question for [Jehovah's Witnesses](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/62297/21576) , [Mormons](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/62297/21576) , [Oneness Pentecostals](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/62975/21576) , and [Swedenborgians](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/62395/21576) .

Joseph Fielding Smith wrote ( https://www.lds.org/study/ensign/1998/01/in-the-beginning-a-latter-day-perspective?lang=eng) : > In contrast to most readers of the Bible, we believe that Adam and Eve both should be commended for what they did to bring about the Fall. The Genesis account clearly shows God commanding the man not to eat of the fruit of one particular tree and assigning consequences for disobedience to this singular command: > And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. - Genesis 2:16-17 Later, when Adam and Eve are interrogated by God regarding their violation of God's command, God does not commend them in any way but rather pronounces curses: > Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. - Genesis 3:16-19 There is no biblical passage which commends Adam and Eve for disobeying the command of God. In 1 Timothy 2:14 Paul indicates that Eve was deceived and Adam was not, thus placing responsibility for the Fall upon the man but there is no commendation in Paul's theology of the Fall. Additionally, there is no biblical passage which commends any disobedience of God anywhere, ever. How can Joseph Fielding Smith's statement of commendation for Adam's disobedience be reconciled with the overwhelming testimony of the Bible pronouncing condemnation and not commendation for disobeying God?

During bible study I noticed that Acts 8:37 was missing from my bible. Verse 36 goes straight onto verse 38. Some cursory Google searches show that this happens in the NIV but not the KJV. Is there some controversy with the verse? A translation error? Hidden conspiracy? Are there other verses of the bible like this? What is the story here.

Daniel 11:36 KJV > And the king shall do according to his will; and **he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above *every* god**, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done. The author of Daniel is stating that the wilful king will exalt and magnify himself וְיִתְרוֹמֵ֤ם וְיִתְגַּדֵּל֙ **above** ***every*** god. Does this include YHWH? Can one exalt and magnify themselves **above** YHWH? Or can a Bible author believe one can exalt themselves above YHWH? Wouldn’t such a thing be challenging God’s omnipotence? I don’t see anywhere in scripture where the author describes someone exalting themselves *above* God.

Psalm 84:2 >My soul longs, yes, even faints For the courts of YHWH; My heart and my flesh cry out for ***the living God***. Matthew 16:16 >Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the ***Son of the living God***.” According to Trinitarians, which person/essence/being/substance/relation is the Living God spoken of throughout the Old and New Testament scriptures?