>“As therefore,” I say, “while Moses was still among men, God took of the spirit which was in Moses and put it on Joshua, even so God was able to cause [the spirit] of Elijah to come upon John; in order that, as Christ at His first coming appeared inglorious, even so the first coming of the spirit, which remained always pure in Elijah like that of Christ, might be perceived to be inglorious. For the Lord said He would wage war against Amalek with concealed hand; and you will not deny that Amalek fell. But if it is said that only in the glorious advent of Christ war will be waged with Amalek, how great will the fulfilment of Scripture be which says, ‘God will wage war against Amalek with concealed hand!’ You can perceive that the concealed power of God was in Christ the crucified, before whom demons, and all the principalities and powers of the earth, tremble.”… A sign of Him that was to be crucified was made… in the type of the extending of the hands of Moses, and of Oshea being named Jesus (Joshua); when you fought against Amalek: concerning which God enjoined that the incident be recorded, **and the name of Jesus laid up in your understandings; saying that this is He who would blot out the memorial of Amalek from under heaven.** Now it is clear that the memorial of Amalek remained after the son of Nave (Nun): but He makes it manifest through Jesus, who was crucified, of whom also those symbols were fore-announcements of all that would happen to Him, the demons would be destroyed, and would dread His name, and that all principalities and kingdoms would fear Him; and that they who believe in Him out of all nations would be shown as God-fearing and peaceful men. > >Justin Martyr >And in the Apocalypse the same exhortation of divine preaching speaks, saying, “Hold fast that which thou hast, lest another take thy crown;” which example of perseverance and persistence is pointed out in Exodus, when Moses, for the overthrow of Amalek, who bore the type of the devil, raised up his open hands in the sign and sacrament of the cross, and could not conquer his adversary unless when he had stedfastly persevered in the sign with hands continually lifted up. “And it came to pass,” says he, “when Moses raised up his hands, Israel prevailed; but when he let down his hands, Amalek grew mighty. And they took a stone and placed it under him, and he sate thereon. And Aaron and Hur held up his hands on the one side and on the other side, and Moses’ hands were made steady even to the going down of the sun. **And Jesus routed Amalek and all his people.** And the Lord said unto Moses, Write this, and let it be a memorial in a book, and tell it in the ears of Jesus; because in destroying I will destroy the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven.” > >Cyprian

Who is the last person regarded as a true prophet in Catholicism? What was his time frame when he was declared prophet by the Catholic church?

Ok the book is apocryphal. https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/84245/what-is-the-catholic-view-of-the-book-of-enoch But apparently a canonical book, the Epistle of Jude, refers to an apocryphal book . So what, if anything, does this mean for either Jude or the Epistle of Jude ? Eg for the Epistle: Why isn't it like fruit of the poisonous tree where Epistle of Jude becomes apocryphal too? Maybe it's not a substantial reference ? Eg for Jude: Why doesn't this affect the credibility of Jude? Like Jude ... what made a mistake or something? Or Jude didn't have the means at the time to decide if the Book of Epoch is legit or not? Or what?

Eh just something I thought of re movies / series like The Last Man on Planet Earth or Y: The Last Man . Case 1: 99% of males die. Then what? Case 2: Or idk doesn't have to be scifi: There could just be like a 90% drop for incoming priests sometime in the future. No males die. People are still Catholic. Just less interest in becoming priests. Then what?

It is taken that Psalms 2 is speaking about Jesus. Christ is considered to be the “King upon Zion.” Spoken in Psalms 2:6. He is shown to be the “anointed” in Psalms 2:2 which is quoted in Acts 4:26 and the “son” from Psalms 2:7 which is quoted in Hebrews 2:7. I’m trying to connect how Zion, God’s holy mountain connects with the historical Jesus. Barnes’ Notes: > Upon my holy hill of Zion - Zion was the southern hill in the city of Jerusalem. See the notes at Isaiah 1:8. It was the highest of the hills on which the city was built. It was made by David the capital of his kingdom, and was hence called the city of David, 2 Chronicles 5:2. By the poets and prophets it is often put for Jerusalem itself, Isaiah 2:3; Isaiah 8:18; Isaiah 10:24; Isaiah 33:14, et al. It did not obtain this distinction until it was taken by David from the Jebusites, 2 Samuel 5:5-9; 1 Chronicles 11:4-8. To that place David removed the ark of the covenant, and there he built an altar to the Lord in the threshing-floor of Araunah the Jebusite, 2 Samuel 24:15-25. Zion became thenceforward the metropolis of the kingdom, and the name was transferred to the entire city. It is to this that the passage here refers; and the meaning is, that in that metropolis or capital God had constituted his Messiah king, or had appointed him to reign over his people. It seems that Christ is the King that is mentioned here, however I struggle to see how Zion, God’s holy **mountain** fits in the picture. In Revelation 14:1 is says "Then I looked, and behold, the Lamb was standing on Mount Zion,..." Though he was called a king (Matthew 27:37), Lamb of God (John 1:29), and ministered in Jerusalem, Jesus was never set on a mountain. Is this mountain supposed to be a type/symbols relating to Jesus in someway or is this to be taken in some metaphorical sense? [StudyLight Commentaries for Psalms 2:6](https://www.studylight.org/commentary/psalms/2-6.html)

Consider these two incidents: > — Then it happened, as they continued on and talked, that suddenly a chariot of fire appeared with horses of fire, and separated the two of them; and **Elijah went up** by a whirlwind into heaven [*the sky*]. (*2 Kings 2:11*) > — [*A few years later*] And a letter came to him from Elijah the prophet, saying, … (*2 Chronicles 21:12*) > — [*Nearly 900 years later*] No one has ascended to heaven [*God's spiritual home*] but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven. (*John 3:13*) and: > — Now when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of **the Lord caught Philip away**, so that the eunuch saw him no more; and he went on his way rejoicing. But Philip was found at Azotus. And passing through, he preached in all the cities till he came to Caesarea. (*Acts 8:39,40*) In both cases the person is taken away by God only to appear again later. How do those denominations that claim that Elijah went to God's heaven (the "third heaven") explain why they interpret the incident with Philip as exactly what it says, but not the incident with Elijah? --- ### Timeline Kings of Israel: - 852 Ahab (I7) dies. - 852 son Ahaziah (I8) becomes King of Israel. - 849 Ahaziah dies. - 850 Brother Johoram (I9) becomes king. - 840 Johoram dies. - 841 Jehu (I10), son of Jehoshaphat (not J4), becomes king. Kings of Judah: - 911 - Asa becomes (J3) king of Judah. - 870 - Asa dies. Son Jehoshaphat (J4) becomes king. - 853 - Son Jehoram (J5) becomes co-regent of Judah. - 849 - Jehoshaphat dies, Jehoram becomes king (and kills his brothers). - 842 - Jehoram dies. Son Ahaziah (J6 - AKA Jehoahaz) becomes king. - 841 - Ahaziah dies. Events: - 2 Kings 1 - Ahaziah (I8) is injured and dies in 849 B.C. as foretold by Elijah. - 2 Kings 2 - Elijah visits Jericho, crosses the Jordan, and is taken by a whirlwind. - 2 Kings 3 - Jehoshaphat (J4) meets with Jehoram (I9), and then visits Elijah. - 2 Chronicles 21 - After Jehoshaphat (J4) dies, Jehoram (J5) becomes king and later receives a letter from Elijah.

From a Catholic perspective: 1. The Catholic Church considers Protestant baptisms valid. 2. Baptism removes all penalty of sin, so whoever is validly baptized is saved. 3. There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Therefore, baptized Protestants are saved, and consequently Catholic. I'm sure I'm missing something, what is it? Thanks!

What does the Bible say about taking drugs like heroin and marijuana? Does the Bible say anything about that or not?

Evangelicals believe that salvation is by grace alone through faith, that Christ's death and resurrection alone is the basis of their Salvation. Is this comparable to the Catholic concept of salvation?

According to these sources, source 1 , source 2 , source 3 , source 4 , the Genesis account was narrated from the viewpoint of an observer on the earth's surface. > *from source 1 :* > As in any scientific experiment, you make observations of what is > occurring. It is extremely important to consider your “frame of > reference” when interpreting any observation. In other words, where > are you observing these events from. For the entire creation event, > the key to this is in verse 2. To an observer, standing on the > surface of the earth, God was hovering over the earth. The rest of > the creation events **must be interpreted as if the observer were > standing on the surface of the earth**. Only with this “frame of > reference” will you reach the right conclusions. > > *from source 2 :* It is narrated from the viewpoint of an observer on the earth's surface. This is the most important key to understanding > Genesis 1. Most people view the creation account from the opposite > direction: of someone in outer space looking down on the earth. > Misunderstanding the proper frame of reference causes most of the > confusion over this portion of Scripture. As per this view, the sun was not created on the fourth day but rather was created prior to it (Day 1 or before) and became clearly visible from that day on wards. This can solve the problem of *the sun, moon and stars seem to have been created after the earth*, which is not in harmony with science facts. In this question and here and here also , it looks like most of the people agree that the sun was created only on the fourth day. > *Genesis 1:16-19 (NIV)* God made two great lights—the **greater light to > govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night**. He also made > the stars. God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the > earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from > darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and > there was morning—the fourth day. Looking closely at this passage, there is no mention of sun and moon explicitly but many readers conclude it as implicitly mentioned. source 1 says, "*Here the atmosphere is finally clear enough for the observer on the surface of earth to observe the sun and the moon*". **Question:** Is it a common view among Creationists(OEC & YEC), to assume that Genesis account was narrated as if the observer were standing on the surface of the earth? Or, this view is not common at all?

Russel wrote... > "It seems clear that His Divinity was retained in humanity because He > repeatedly spoke of Himself as having come down from heaven, and > because He, though passing through trial and sorrow as a man, was yet > possessed of the authority and exercised the prerogatives of a God. He > was the object of unreproved worship even when a babe, by the wise men > who came to see the new-born King. Matt. 2:2-11. Even the angels > delighted to do Him honor. "When He bringeth the first-begotten into > the world, He saith, "And let all the angels of God worship Him." Heb. > 1:6. He never reproved any one for acts of worship offered to Himself, > but when Cornelius offered such service to Peter--the leading > apostle-- "he took him up, saying, stand up; I myself also am a man." > .... Had Christ not been more than a man the same reason would have > prevented from receiving worship...." Zion's Watch Tower 1880 Oct > pp.2-3 "It is undoubtedly proper enough for us to address petitions to > our Redeemer and Advocate, who loved us and gave himself for > us....Although we are nowhere instructed to make petitions to him, it > evidently could not be improper so to do; for such a course is nowhere > prohibited, and the disciples worshiped him." Zion's Watch Tower 1892 > May 15 p.157 "Question. The fact that our Lord received worship is > claimed by some to be an evidence that while on earth he was God the > Father disguised in a body of flesh and not really a man. Was he > really worshiped, or is the translation faulty? Answer. Yes, we > believe our Lord Jesus while on earth was really worshiped, and > properly so. It was proper for our Lord to receive worship in view of > his having been the only begotten of the Father and his agent in the > creation of all things, including man." Zion's Watch Tower 1898 Jul 15 > p.216 "In one respect many of Christendom could learn numerous > important lessons from these wise Gentiles....They worshiped him in > three senses of the word: (1) They fell before him, prostrated > themselves, thus physically expressing their reverence. (2) They > worshiped him in their hearts and with the tongue gave expression to > their rejoicing and confidence. (3) They opened their treasure-box and > presented to him three gifts appropriate to royalty: the myrrh > representing submission, frankincense representing praise, gold > representing obedience." Zion's Watch Tower 1906 Jan 1 p.15 Rutherford continued this teaching. > "Jehovah God commands all to worship Christ Jesus because Christ Jesus > is the express image of his Father, Jehovah, and because he is the > Executive Officer of Jehovah always carrying out Jehovah's purpose > (Heb.:3-6)." Watchtower 1939 Nov 15 p.339 "During the Millennium, "the > princes will lead the people in their worship of Jehovah and of > Christ." Vindication Volume 3 (J. F. Rutherford, 1932) p.295 "The > people of all nations who obtain salvation must come to the house of > the Lord to worship there; that is to say, they must believe on and > worship Jehovah God and the Lord Jesus Christ, his chief instrument > (Philippians 2:10, 11)." Salvation (J. F. Rutherford, 1939) p.151 Even Knorr taught the above doctrine about Christ writing > "Now, at Christ's coming to reign as king in Jehovah's capital > organization Zion, to bring in a righteous new world, Jehovah makes > him infinitely higher than the godly angels or messengers and > accordingly commands them to worship him. Since Jehovah God now reigns > as King by means of his capital organization Zion, then whosoever > would worship Him must also worship and bow down to Jehovah's Chief > One in that capital organization, namely, Christ Jesus, his Co-regent > on the throne of The Theocracy." Watchtower 1945 Oct 15 p.313 After 1954 change in the above belief began, however, it was not until 1999 that the worship of Jesus was completely removed and the certificate of incorpration 2003 amended to reflect the new belief: Do the JW's concede that perhaps their hierarchy are not in fact led by God given that it would be highly problematic for an all-knowing God to give them false information about Christian worship. Is is not unblibical for Jehovah to intentionally lead his people astray? How do Jehovah's Witnesses reconcile that, for more than 70 years beginning with their church founder and at least 2 of his successors, they had been unwittingly worshipping a false god under the guise of divine guidance?

There is a question listing out the Beatitudes in the link below. I'm interested in these because according to the Bible, these eight things will make everyone happy! Can you help me interpret these in layman's terms, so they are easily understood? Please look at my interpretations below each and make any corrections and/or expand on what I have. The more answers the better, because, in life, there isn't just one correct answer. https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/61188/what-are-the-beatitudes Please be very specific about which ones are from the first person, second person or third person, or a combination thereof. I did not put this much thought into it yet, because I was afraid of getting it wrong. The first person is the I/we perspective. The second person is the you perspective. The third person is the he/she/it/they perspective. For people with empathy, they feel what the other person they are with is feeling. So in a sense, they both share the same feeling. But in order to achieve the feeling (either when together or in prayer or thought), I need to know which person the beatitude is happening to, and which person the beatitude is being observed from. The Beatitudes (Matthew 5:3-12) >**3** Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. - people who recognise their own spiritual poverty, their need for God >**4** Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted. - feel regret or sadness about someone else, but not ourselves >**5** Blessed are the meek: for they shall possess the land. - quiet, gentle, and easily imposed on; submissive to others >**6** Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice: for they shall have their fill. - fairness in the way that people are treated >**7** Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. - being compassionate and forgiving when someone else does not deserve it >**8** Blessed are the clean of heart: for they shall see God. - speaks of our motivation, our desires that move us to act and seek a place and purpose in the world >**9** Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called children of God. - a person who brings about peace, especially by reconciling adversaries >**10** Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. - if someone is harassed or punished in a manner designed to injure, grieve, or afflict, then heaven is on the way soon for them >**11** Blessed are ye when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against - you, untruly, for my sake: **12** Be glad and rejoice, for your reward is very great in heaven. - to express disappointment; to harass or punish;

My question arises from a preacher's Facebook post condemning the practice of being a "prayer squirrel" (i.e., getting distracted while praying). He offers the following as an example of what prayers by such a person might look like: > Dear God, heal brother James of ... i need a coffee, I wonder who will win the hockey game tonite ... God heal brother James of his heart condition, and Lord... sister Jennifer really could use a blessing from you because she ... I forgot to take out the roast for dinner ... the kids are late coming home from school ... bless sister Jennifer because she needs encouragement. Amen. In support of this being sinful, the preacher translates Colossians 4:2 thusly (emphasis added): > Devote yourselves to prayer **without distraction** as you pray Is this an accurate translation of Colossians 4:2? Does the verse prohibit being a "prayer squirrel"? While it certainly makes sense that we should be focused when praying, are we specifically commanded such by Colossians 4:2 or other verses, meaning that distraction while praying is sinful, or do verses such as Colossians 4:2 have a different application in mind?

According to Catholicism, an act of heresy is a mortal sin. > "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same ... Catechism of the Catholic Church #2089 In particular, dogmatic statements end with warnings that not accepting the dogma results in falling away from the Catholic faith. For example, > Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith. Munificentissimus Deus #45 Why is this the case? Why do matters of doctrine result in loss of salvation?

In Isaiah 48:11 we see that the Father YHWH does not share his Glory/Honor with anybody. > For mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it: for how should my name be polluted? and I will not give my glory unto another. (Isa 48:11) And also ... > I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images. (Isa 42:8) But Yeshua claims, that he shall be honored the same way as the father. > That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him. (John 5:23) For me it may be a contradiction. How do Unitarians or Arians see this contradiction? The Father YHWH says, he shares his honor with nobody, but the Son demands the same honor as the father.

The death penalty is clearly supported in the scriptures (Genesis 9:6, Exodus 21:12, Numbers 35:30-31, Deuteronomy 17:6, Job 19:29, Romans 13:1-4) but was there any Early Church Fathers between 80 AD to 900 AD who believed and affirmed the concept of the death penalty? > Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the > image of God made he man. **Genesis 9:6** > He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death. **Exodus 21:12** > Whoso killeth any person, the murderer shall be put to death by the > mouth of witnesses: but one witness shall not testify against any > person to cause him to die. > > Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, > which is guilty of death: but he shall be surely put to death **Numbers 35:30-31** > At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is > worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he > shall not be put to death **Deuteronomy 17:6** > Be ye afraid of the sword: for wrath bringeth the punishments of the > sword, that ye may know there is a judgment **Job 19:29** Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. **Romans 13:1-4**

I am a Christian wrestling with some doubts lately, and this is one of the most difficult questions I have. I have seen related questions like "Why does God desire glorification?" and "Does God need us?" but I'm not concerned with the why. The commonly given answers to these types of questions are usually some sort of denial of need on God's behalf, and that he "wants" something. He created because he wanted to be glorified, to love us, for his pleasure, etc. I cannot reconcile that a good, perfect, self-sufficient being would have want or desire. Desires imply something lacking, that when obtained, would add something. If I do not need something but want it, it still indicates there is lack, just not necessary lack. If there is something lacking, then there is not perfection. Is there a Christian Doctrine that satisfies this quandary?

I simply can't reason about it. When let's say 1 month old child gets killed and dies in horrible pain, there was nothing for him to learn from this "lesson". He also had no possibility to commit any sin to be punished with pain for his sins. This is plain not right. If there's an omnipotent, all knowing , good being, then that being should intervene. In the end most of us - sinful humans - would try to help as much as we can in such situation.

The [Wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creatio_ex_nihilo) on *creatio ex nihilo* indicates that this theology is part of Christianity, but it is unclear whether it is universally accepted or not. Reading the questions on this site about *creatio ex nihilo*, I get the impression that mainstream Christians accept the doctrine, while some non-mainstream Christian denominations reject it. The purpose of this question is to explicitly confirm whether my impression is accurate. **Do all mainstream Christian denominations (Protestant sects, Catholicism, etc) accept the doctrine of *creatio ex nihilo*?**

The 10/40 window term is used by Christian missionaries to loosely define areas of the world with the "highest level of socioeconomic challenges and least access to the Christian message and Christian resources on the planet" (Source: Wikipedia entry ["10/40 window"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10/40_window)) . However, is the 10/40 window term sort of quaint and grossly oversimplified? The reason for asking the said question is because apart from the glaring error of the 10/40 window not including the nation with the highest population of Muslims which is Indonesia, it also does not include very poor Central American and some South American nations. Furthermore, the computer internet technology advancements that started around 1995 have led to smartphones and rapid growth of the internet so a lot of poor nations even have access to the internet. Finally, it really seems like is it a gross oversimplification because a lot of European nations that are culturally Christian like France, Sweden, Germany, Norway, Denmark, Eastern European nations, etc. have a lot of nominal Christians and atheists but said nations are not in the 10/40 window.