This judgment is of individual Christians and addresses their actions and attitudes during their human life. The question concerns the result of the judgment. What will change in the believer’s future as a result of his judgment. Could this affect his position in the Millennial Kingdom?

What were John Calvin's counterarguments for iconoclasm aniconism against John of Damascus' arguments in favor of icon veneration?

Augustine allegorically interpreted the first creation account in Genesis 1 - 2:4 but seems to have literally interpreted the second creation account in Genesis 2:5-3:24. Origen allegorically interpreted both stories. > "The sacred writer was able to separate in the time of his narrative what God did not separate in time in His creative act." (St. Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, translated and annotated by John Hammond Taylor, S.J., 2 vols. (New York: Newman Press, 1982) (pg. 36) [The Contemporary Relevance of Augustine's View of Creation](https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1988/PSCF3-88Young.html) Did any other church fathers reject a literal interpretation of at least one of the creation accounts in Genesis, or were these two the only ones to do it?

We read in Lev 10:8-10 (NRSVCE): > And the Lord spoke to Aaron: Drink no wine or strong drink, neither you nor your sons, when you enter the tent of meeting, that you may not die; it is a statute forever throughout your generations. You are to distinguish between the holy and the common, and between the unclean and the clean We see the Lord categorizing the objects to be used for worship into holy/common and clean/unclean. The definitive instructions were preceded by the punishment imposed on Aaron's sons for violating them: > Now Aaron's sons, Nadab and Abihu, each took his censer, put fire in it, and laid incense on it; and they offered unholy fire before the Lord, such as he had not commanded them. And fire came out from the presence of the Lord and consumed them, and they died before the Lord (Lev 10:1-2) Now, see St Paul writing to Corinthians in 1 Cor 7:14: > For the unbelieving husband is made holy through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. Read with Lev 10, St Paul's mention of referring to 'unclean children' appears out of place. Is it that the Church considered children born out of marriages between two non-believers, as unclean? Going by Lev 10, they could at the most be called 'not-yet-holy'. **My question therefore is**: What is the significance of St Paul referring to 'unclean children' in 1 Cor 7:14 *vis a vis* God's instructions in Lev 10:8-10? Inputs from any denominations are welcome.

We know that the Tabernacle of Moses pointed to and was patterned after Christ or heavenly things (Ex 25:40, Heb 8:5). As part of the Tabernacle, we were shown seven feasts or holy convocations. Passover (Lev 23:5) Unleavened Bread (Lev 23:6-8) Firstfruits (Lev 23:11) Pentecost (Lev 23:15-16) (the Spring feasts) Trumpets (Lev 23:24) Atonement (Lev 23:27) Tabernacles (Lev 23:34, 36) (the Fall feasts) What is an overview from a Catholic or Protestant perspective on whether or not all of these have been fulfilled in Christ? For example, we know the exclamation of John the Baptist. >The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. (John 1:29) And its Passover fulfillment that led Paul to say this. >Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: (1 Cor 5:7) Likewise, with Firstfruits as the type of resurrection out from the dead. >But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. 1 Cor 15:20 So, which feasts have been fulfilled and which remain?

Regarding the existence of the evil side in every individual, Judaism and Christian Science teach two conflicting doctrines. Judaism teaches that the evil side (Heb. *yetzer hara*) is an essential and non-negotiable part of human makeup: > Rabbi Nahman bar Samuel bar Nachman said in the name of Rabbi Samuel bar Nachman: ... "And behold it was very good" (Genesis 1:31) - this refers to the *yetzer hara*. But is the *yetzer hara* indeed very good?! - Were it not for the *yetzer hara*, a man would not build a home, or marry a woman, or have children, or engage in business. Mary Baker Eddy, in *Science and Health with Key to the Scripture*, says that human nature is a logical system, and the presence of any sort of evil side in a human being will eventually lead to the entire human being becoming evil (*ex falso quodlibet*) Quote: > If man is constituted both good and evil, he will end in evil. An error in the premises must appear in the conclusion. To avail yourself of the power of the Spirit, you must depend on no human reliance. Which one is closer to traditional Christian doctrine?

Self-control, even though it is praised in the Bible as something wonderful, and even though Proverbs warns of the consequences of **not** having it (Proverbs 25:28) looks less and less like a foundation to build one's life. There are two things going against it: 1. Unlike Justice, Courage, and Wisdom, Self-Control is a contingent virtue: it is contingent on there being something bad in you that needs to be controlled in the first place. If there were nothing bad inside of you, self-control would not be a virtue at all. But that is illogical: why not ask, then, for that bad thing to be destroyed rather than for the grace to control it? 2. Self-control, when taken to its logical conclusion... doesn't get you very much. Let's suppose someone asks God for superabundant self-control and He gives it to him. What does he get? Rather, let's look at what he **doesn't** get. First of all, he doesn't get any new talents: an average person with superabundant self-control is still average. He doesn't get a better personality. And from a utilitarian perspective, he gets an improved ability to advance the welfare of others to the extent that he can force himself to work ("willpower"). Therefore, the end result of self-control is decency: the person is now decent, and that is not good enough. What is a better virtue to ask God for that will empower one's being?

How do churches expect for their people to memorize scriptures when there is such a large array of translations? How can you quote a scripture when there is no common text from which to quote? With the King James Version, any words added during the translating process are clearly in italics.

My pastor mentioned something called the "beatitudes" in the book of Matthew. What are they?

I understand that the catechism of the Catholic church is the authoritative teaching of the ordinaries of the church, and ultimately that of the Pope. However, it is a complex and voluminous body of statements, so inevitably I can see how some persons might find arguments to one thing or another in it. I am wondering what the doctrinal position is with regards to dissent from the catechism on minor points. In the English version of the current catechism, the prologue only says that the catechism serves as a "reference" for teaching and does not make clear if it is sinful (if at all) to dissent. For example, in the catechism it teaches the (Old Testament) commandment to honor one's father and mother, and concludes that it is a grave sin to fail to do so (thus preventing Communion). However, this commandment (which is not even a commandment of the Covenant) is contradicted by both the statements and actions of Jesus who said, "I have come to set a man against his father" (Matthew 10:35) and furthermore when his own mother came to see Him, he said "Who is My mother, and who are My brothers?" Pointing to His disciples, He said, “Here are My mother and My brothers." (Matthew 12:48). So, on this basis one could argue that is cannot be a grave sin (among Christians) to dishonor a parent, since Jesus Himself did so. [*Please do not start an argument about this; the question is not about this point and it is just given as a hypothetical example of minor dissent.*] What is the position of the Catholic Church on this kind of reasoned dissent? My general impression is that if the dissent is specious or obviously just convenient, then the Church considers it invalid and the dissenter to be unqualified for Communion if they commit the sin in question, but if the dissent is reasoned and not self-interested then it is tolerated, and the parishioner can still receive communion. However, it is not really clear to me if this is the case or not. Note that I am only asking about dissent on minor points, like the long list of grave and venial sins (of which there are dozens if not hundreds), not on major points such as the Credo and the Sacraments, which obviously cannot be dissented from without losing access to Communion.

I am struggling with Judaism and Christianity on the role of the Messiah. I have been taught that the Messiah is not some divine figure, but a righteous leader who will castigate nations for their treacherous ways and resolve their conflicts. (Isaiah 2:3-4). After studying the entire New Testament thrice, it is hard to see the compatibility of Jesus life with this role, as during the first century, no peace was acquired, nations continued to war against each other, and etc. The book of Matthew particularly makes claims that the Jewish prophets foretold of Jesus’ role. **What prophecies or scriptures do you guys think are the most evidently clear in order to help me resolve my “incompatibility” issue?** I am looking for scriptures ONLY from the Old Testament with reason as to how this applies ONLY to Jesus’ life. (I would appreciate even the most common scriptures such as Isaiah 7:14 and why you think these scriptures confirm that Jesus had to come, die, AND resurrect for us to have an eternal relationship with our Creator). I hope my question is clear, I have been fed too much information from both sides it’s hard to juggle it all. I will be researching similar questions on the Jewish stack exchange and conducting comparative analyses on the role of the Messiah.

Genesis 2:7 states the warning given to Adam that if he disobeyed God’s command, he would surely die. Since God spoke with him after he sinned, obviously his body didn’t die. I’m looking for clarity.

What is required to be called a Prophet? Can someone like Sr. Lucia of Fatima be called a prophet since she passed on a prophetic revelation from Our Lady? I understand she didn't have a "vocation" like Jeremiah or St. John the Baptist did but it seems to me quite similar. I'm looking for a definition in a pre-V2 book or something similar.

There are some strange numbers in Revelation. For example: - The seven Spirits of God (Rev 4:5); - Exactly 12,000 are sealed from each of the 12 tribes of Jerusalem (Rev 7:4). - The blood flows out of the wine press for a distance of 1600 furlongs (Rev 14:20). - The wall of the New Jerusalem is 144 cubits (Rev 21:17 - YLT). - The New Jerusalem itself is a square – 12,000 furlongs in length and in width (Rev 21:16 YLT). (A cube in the KJV) Are these numbers literal or symbolic? If they are symbolic, what do they mean? For example, what does it mean that God has seven Spirits?

In chapter 26 paragraph 4 of the 1689 LBC , the authors called the pope the antichrist: >neither can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof, but is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God; whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming What was the reasoning behind labeling a single man/office as **The** antichrist, when scripture itself does no such thing (and indeed says there will be more than one {1 John 2:18 })?

Book of Acts (ESV): - **Then the Spirit said to Philip**, “Go up and join this chariot.” Acts 8:29 - And when they came up out of the water, **the Spirit of the Lord carried Philip away**, and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing. Acts 8:39 - **While Peter was reflecting on the vision, the Spirit said to him**, “Behold, three men are looking for you. But get up, go downstairs and accompany them without misgivings, for I have sent them Myself.” Acts 10:19-20 - **The Spirit told me** to go with them without misgivings. These six brethren also went with me and we entered the man’s house. Acts 11:12 - While they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, **the Holy Spirit said**, “Set apart for Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” Acts 13:2 - **For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us** to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: Acts 15:28 - 6 And they went through the region of Phrygia and Galatia, **having been forbidden by the Holy Spirit** to speak the word in Asia. 7 And when they had come up to Mysia, they attempted to go into Bithynia, **but the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them**. 8 So, passing by Mysia, they went down to Troas. 9 **And a vision appeared to Paul in the night**: a man of Macedonia was standing there, urging him and saying, “Come over to Macedonia and help us.” 10 **And when Paul had seen the vision**, immediately we sought to go on into Macedonia, concluding that **God had called us** to preach the gospel to them. Acts 16:6-10 - 9 He had four unmarried daughters, who prophesied. 10 While we were staying for many days, a prophet named Agabus came down from Judea. 11 And coming to us, he took Paul's belt and bound his own feet and hands and said, “**Thus says the Holy Spirit**, ‘This is how the Jews at Jerusalem will bind the man who owns this belt and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.’” Acts 21:9-11 Other books (ESV): - **Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness** to be tempted by the devil. Matthew 4:1 - **And Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit**, returned from the Jordan and **was led by the Spirit in the wilderness** 2 for forty days, being tempted by the devil. And he ate nothing during those days. And when they were ended, he was hungry. Luke 4:1-2 - 14 **And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit** to Galilee, and a report about him went out through all the surrounding country. 15 And he taught in their synagogues, being glorified by all. Luke 4:14-15 - **For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God**. Romans 8:14 - **My sheep hear my voice**, and I know them, **and they follow me**. John 10:27 Question: - What denominations believe that a **Book of Acts** style of interaction with the Holy Spirit is still possible today?

1) What is the difference between soul and spirit? 2) When Jesus was made flesh he had human and divine natures. Being human, he had a human soul too. But In nature he is God. God is spirit. Does anyone have any idea about the existence of Jesus's Soul and Spirit? Or He had a human Spirit?

Angels have powers inherent to their nature. So why can't we just ask an angel to use his power to help us, instead of asking the angel to pray for us while we wait for God to grant the request? If it's not a sin here on Earth to ask a doctor to heal me, instead of asking him to pray to God to heal me, why can't I do something similar with an angel?

As a Catholic, can I baptize my own child after he is born? I am about to see my first child be born and was wondering if it would be sinful if I were to baptize him myself after his birth. I am aware that the sacrament can be validly administered without a priest as long as the sacrament is performed with the proper form. I can't see any reason why it would be a problem but for some reason my gut is telling me no. I'm wondering if there is anything to reference that would point to this being sinful despite being legitimate.

In my local community's Bible study last night I was surprised that the RSV's rendition of the Lord's Prayer did not include the phrase usually rendered as "for thine is the Kingdom and the Power and the Glory, for ever, Amen." Instead, the RSV indicates that only "some" early manuscripts include this part of the prayer. So the prayer in the RSV of Matt. 6 reads: "9 Our Father who art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. 10 Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, On earth as it is in heaven. 11 Give us this day our daily bread;[a] 12 And forgive us our debts, As we also have forgiven our debtors; 13 And lead us not into temptation, But deliver us from evil.[b]" The footnote [b] reads: *Or the evil one. Other authorities, some ancient, add, in some form, For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory, for ever. Amen.* Here is a link that shows how [various translators](https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Matthew%206:13) handle Matthew 6:13. Click on the specific translation to see any added footnotes. I am wondering which if any churches have updated their liturgical tradition based on modern textual criticism of this text. Or, more practically, which churches no longer include the phrase about God's Kingdom, Power and Glory in the Lord's prayer? (Answers from any tradition welcome, as well as survey answers if available.) https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Matthew%206:13