It is generally accepted that Abraham lived 175 years . However, the dates when he lived are rather fuzzy and hotly debated. When was he alive and what reasons would you give for your conclusion? What methods have gone into determining the dates in which Abraham (and perhaps other early biblical figures) lived and died?

I was reading a 1952 missal and wondering about some of the customs, one notable one I saw was that there was a particular commemoration that is supposed to be celebrated on the 3rd, 7th and 30th day after a funeral. Is there any particular significance in these days in Scripture or Tradition? How would someone go about getting a Mass said like this? Assuming there are funerals every other week in an active parish, wouldn't every other Mass wind up being this kind of commemoration?

On 28th December the church commemorates the Sacrifice of the Holy Innocents As per Matthew 2:16 > When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was > furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its > vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time > he had learned from the Magi. However we celebrate the Feast of the 3 Kings on January 6th - which means by the date of Dec 28th Herod would not have known the Magi were not going to return to inform him the location of the baby Jesus. 1. What is the chronology of these two events - is it a fair assumption that the Visit took place prior to the massacre ? 2. Is there an explanation as to why these events are commemorated by the Church in a different order ?

I see that the JW website contains the text of a few different Bible translations: KJV, ASV, Byington, New World Translation and The Kingdom Interlinear Translation. From articles such as "The Bible Really Is God’s Inspired Word" (here ) I can see that their view is that Bible is inspired by God. Do Jehovah's Witnesses have any other books, besides the Bible, that they view as "canon" (e.g. a separate/additional message from God) on the same level as (or higher than) the Bible?

Are we going all round the houses debating whether it was autumn, winter, or spring when Jesus was born, when it’s what the Bible does ***not*** say about the date of his birth that should speak volumes to us? Are we apparently deaf to that? What I mean is that if the date of Jesus’ birth was important, would it not have been clear, in scripture? If God wanted us to note the date of Jesus’ birth, the Bible surely would have stated it? Further, if God wanted us to annually celebrate that birth-date, would there not have been a command to do that, in the Bible? After all, Jesus expressly told his followers to remember his death, even though the exact date of it is debatable, given that the year of his death depends on knowing the year of his birth, and that’s not known as a fact. Yet the omission in the Bible as to any kind of celebration of Christ’s birth stands in stark contrast to the command to remember his death. I'm ***not*** wanting this question to turn into reasons as to why we should celebrate Jesus' birth every year, or not. I just want to know if anyone else has pondered the absence of information about this, in the Bible, and your thoughts. I look for answers from Christians who believe that Jesus Christ “became flesh and dwelt among us” as stated in John 1:1-14, obtaining his human nature from the virgin Mary.

I'm relatively new to attending a Baptist church and one key difference is the idea of the Church Meeting, whereby members vote on important issues including appointment of a minister/elder. My understanding is that this is an expression on Congregationalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congregationalist_polity , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congregational_church) Does this mean that in real terms, a church's leadership (pastors, ministers, elders) are not the main authority - if we drew a hierarchy diagram we would see the congregation at the top, directly above the church leaders? Does this in turn have any implications for the role of women in the church - assuming the church holds to traditional complementarian views of course? For instance, one common view of "a woman should not have authority over men" allows a woman to preach under the authority of the (male) elders (I do not know if this idea has a specific name?) If the congregation is actually the highest authority, then logically it sounds like this argument could be extended to allow female elders because actually, even the elders are under the authority of the congregation.

Lately it seems many are rejecting Saul/Paul as a legitimate apostle of Lord Jesus. I guess I'm trying to figure out if this is a new concept or a fairly old one.

Lelio Sozzini (uncle of Socinus) wrote *Brevis explicatio in primum Johannis caput*, a commentary on the meaning of the Logos in John 1:1–15, and it was published in 1562. Sozzini held that the 'beginning' of John 1:1 was the same as 1 John 1:1, and both were about a new creation, not a Genesis creation. His nephew (Socinus) then also wrote a longer *Brevis explicatio* which expanded on the original. Have either of these works been translated into English?

Can Spirit-filled Christians be found in non-JW denominations, according to Jehovah's Witnesses? ___ Related: - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/87038/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/86632/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/84049/50422

Are there any statements in JW literature that indicate that they do not dogmatically believe that they are the only channel of God's truth and direction *today*, or that *today*, one does not have to be a JW to be saved? (By salvation I mean being reconciled to God, not merely being resuscitated to be given a chance to be taught by a JW in the millennium if they didn't receive that chance before they died.) My emphasis on the word *today* is because JWs believe prior to the existence of their organization, people could obviously be saved without becoming a JW, or will be given that opportunity in the millennium. However, what about after their organization came into existence? A JW might attempt to diplomatically respond that they are not to judge who will be saved (as I have seen from other responses from JWs on this forum). This is, of course, techically a correct response, yet begs the question, as JWs implicitly seem to believe a fellow JW will be saved if he stays loyal and obedient to their organization (which I assume to a JW this is equivalent to being obedient to God) throughout all eschatological trials such as Armageddon, whereas they believe others need to become JWs in order to be saved. However, my understanding of their beliefs might be inaccurate. I'm looking for official statements from JW literature.

**My previous questions were kind of wrong**: - [Why is it harder for Filipino Catholics to get a church annulment?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/66154/why-is-it-harder-for-filipino-catholics-to-get-a-church-annulment) - [Marriage invalid. Would a church annulment require a state annulment or state divorce?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/63820/marriage-invalid-would-a-church-annulment-require-a-state-annulment-or-state-di) - [Why is it not that a state divorce is actually an argument AGAINST a church annulment petition rather than a necessary condition for such petition?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/64089/why-is-it-not-that-a-state-divorce-is-actually-an-argument-against-a-church-annu) **Why they were kind of wrong**: - I supposed that in both cases, namely the case for Filipino Catholics and the case for German Catholics, where both church marriages were of course invalid, that both of the state marriages were invalid as well, and then I asked about the financial aspect of state annulments which supposedly cost more than state divorces. - I believe I should have been asking about what would happen if while both church marriages were invalid, both state were marriages were valid. **Let me start over**: --- Case 1: Suppose I am Catholic, my church marriage is invalid, and my state marriage is invalid too. - Then I could get a state annulment or state divorce and then, if successful in either, I could start church annulment proceedings. Case 2: Suppose I am Catholic, my church marriage is invalid, but my state marriage is valid, a common occurrence by this . - By this , it seems I would have to first get a state divorce before I start a church annulment. (*) Case 2.1: (*) is wrong to think that I would have to first get a state divorce because a state separation is an alternative requirement to a state divorce. - Therefore, in countries that have no state divorce (THERE'S ONLY ONE: THE PHILIPPINES), there's no issue because those countries (THE PHILIPPINES) have state separation. Case 2.2: (*) is right, so a state separation does not satisfy the necessary requirement to begin a church annulment in the way that a state divorce or state annulment does. - Before, I ask the question, let me recap to say that there is no issue in Case 1 and Case 2.1. Then, the following question is on Case 2.2. Of course, if Case 2.2 is wrong and Case 2.1 is right, then please just say so and cite a source. > **Now the Question**: How do Filipino Catholics get a church annulment when their state marriage is valid? **Let me be concrete with examples**: Let Jack and Jill be a Catholic couple married in the Philippines, and let Romeo and Juliet be a Catholic couple married in Germany. Suppose both couples have *valid* state marriages but *invalid* church marriages. Then neither can get a state annulment to start a church annulment petition. - Romeo and Juliet don't care because they can get a state divorce and then start a church annulment petition. - However, this is a nightmare for Jack and Jill, both of whom hope to remarry (well, actually 'marry' because they were never validly 'married' in the first place) outside the Philippines and both of whom are already living separately outside the Philippines. From the church's point of view, it's okay for Jack and Jill to remarry, but bound by the Philippine state's laws, Jack and Jill cannot begin a Philippine Catholic Church annulment petition. And yet 1. This is supposedly a very common occurrence easily remedies by the possibility of state divorce. 2. The impossibility of state divorce is one that the Catholic Church is in favour of throughout the world, in particular, the Philippines. 3. By the 2 statements above, if state separation does not substitute for the requirement of state divorce or state annulment, then it seems the Catholic Church is self-contradictory: The Catholic Church's desire to not have state divorce in the world, in particular, the Philippines, is hindering the invalidly church married Filipino Catholics from getting an annulment, effectively penalising Filipino Catholics because the Philippines is doing what the Church wants. I believe ecclesiastical judicial economy does not apply because these kinds of situations, namely when a church marriage is invalid while a state marriage is valid is common (If it's common around the world, I don't see how it's less common in the Philippines). - **Let me clarify**: 1. The Church wants the Philippines to continue to not have state divorce. 2. The Church would want its invalidly church married Filipino Catholics Jack and Jill to have annulments, even if Jack and Jill have valid state marriages. 3. The above statements seem to contradict if state separation does not substitute for the requirement of state divorce or state annulment. How they do not contradict is the answer to the question. # **The following is how I imagine things**: The Church: 'Wow, the situation you described is indeed a church invalid marriage that you beyond reasonable doubt and not merely beyond balance of probabilities . Fine, just get a state divorce and then we can start a church annulment.' Jack and Jill: 'Um, we live in the Philippines.' The Church: 'Oh, that country's great! Predominantly Roman Catholic, has no divorce, has great beaches and food, etc. Cool people. Cool country. It's more fun in the Philippines . Anyway, just get a state annulment then.' Jack and Jill: 'Um, our state marriage is valid.' The Church: 'Wait, your state marriage is valid, but your church marriage is invalid ?' Jack and Jill: 'Well yeah, based on the situation we just described to you.' The Church: 'Hmmm...I don't know. Can you prove it beyond reasonable doubt?' Jack and Jill: 'You just said we did.' The Church: 'Oh right. Then get a state separation.' Jack and Jill: 'Oh, a state separation substitutes for a state annulment or state divorce and is not "an abomination of the moral order "?' The Church: '_ _ [so what's the answer?] _ _'

Why did God choose the nation of Israel to be established within the boundaries of Canaan? Was this planned from the beginning and was it possible that before Noah cursed Canaan in Genesis 9 and the Table of Nations in Genesis 10, this was something that Noah and his family knew about? Could this explain why the curse of Canaan was so scandalous? After all, God knew which sacrifice Cain and Abel made was the "right" sacrifice even before the OT laws about sacrifices were established or officially revealed to human beings.

When reading the appointment of Matthias, you come across very specific actions and precise language. Consider, of course: **Acts 1:21-26** ESV > 21 So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.” 23 And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also called Justus, and Matthias. 24 And they prayed and said, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen 25 to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.” 26 And **they cast lots** for them, and the lot fell on Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles. Here we see the apostles themselves (namely Peter) create a criteria for the position of apostle, narrow down candidates, then cast lots in order to decide upon the right suitor. Now let us consider a succession of texts from Paul, who uses his own peculiarly specific word choice: **Romans 1** ESV > 1 Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, **called to be an apostle**, set apart > for the gospel of God, 2which he promised beforehand through his > prophets in the holy Scriptures, Nothing too extraordinary there other than Paul saying he was *called* to be an apostle. Called by whom? It isn't quite clear here yet, but let's read on, shall we? **1 Corinthians 1** ESV > 1 Paul, **called by the will of God to be an apostle of Christ > Jesus**, and our brother Sosthenes, Here, I think, we can begin to see Paul making a statement about his election / calling to be an apostle, by God Himself, rather than by men as Matthias was chosen. **2 Corinthians 1** ESV > 1 Paul, **an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God**, and Timothy our > brother, Once again, Paul makes mention of "the will of God." **Galatians 1** ESV > 1 Paul, **an apostle—*not from men nor through man*, but through Jesus > Christ and God the Father**, who raised him from the dead— 2and all > the brothers who are with me, This is where I see Paul drawing the biggest distinction in the appointments of Matthias and of himself. He outright states, "no man chose me, I was chosen by God Himself." So my question simply follows on the natural reading of the texts: Did the early church fathers see the appointment of Matthias, perhaps, to be hasty and contrary to God's will, especially when considered in the light of Saul's election, conversion, and choice of words? Do we have any thoughts from the fathers regarding the election of these two apostles? Of course, as an aside, we also have the Lord's words recorded in **Acts 9:15** > 15 But the Lord said to Ananias, “Go! **This man (Paul) is my chosen instrument** > to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people > of Israel. 16 I will show him how much he must suffer for my name.”

According to Genesis 1:25, > God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds on the 6th day. It then says at Genesis 1:26 > Then God said, “Let Us make man According to Young Earth Creationists, were all land animals that now exist, such as gorillas, or ones we have fossils for, like dinosaurs, created at Genesis 1:25, or were there animals that were created after humans?

Dr. Steven Nemes writes in the article *The revelation which God gave Jesus *, after quoting the opening line of Revelation > The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his > servants what must soon take place, and he made it known by sending > his angel to his servant John. > > Ἀποκάλυψις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἣν ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ ὁ θεὸς δεῖξαι τοῖς δούλοις > αὐτοῦ, ἃ δεῖ γενέσθαι ἐν τάχει, καὶ ἐσήμανεν ἀποστείλας διὰ τοῦ > ἀγγέλου αὐτοῦ τῷ δούλῳ αὐτοῦ Ἰωάννῃ. that > **One of the arguments that non-trinitarians often make in favor of > their position is that God and Jesus are clearly distinguished in the > Bible from one another—not only as Father and Son, but also as God and > Christ.** Because they are clearly distinguished, they cannot be > consubstantial as the catholic tradition says. One can see the same > thing happening in this opening verse. As Nemes continues > There is a long chain of mediation taking place here. **God gives > something to Jesus, who then gives it to an angel**, who then gives it > to John, who then writes it down. There are consequently four actors > involved here, namely God, Jesus, the angel, and John, and each actor > does something different. Furthermore, > **Because there are four actions taking place here, each of which is > such that it is only performed by one of the four actors in involved, > it follows that none of the actors are consubstantial with each other.** > In the catholic tradition, the consubstantiality of Father, Son, and > Holy Spirit means that there is only a single operation or act of > which each is equally its subject. In the words of John of Damascus, > there is in God “one essence, one divinity, one power, one will, one > energy” (*An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 1.8 *). But there cannot be > one “energy” or one activity in the situation being described in Rev. > 1:1 because there is something God does which Jesus does not (namely, > initiate the passing on of the revelation) and there is something > Jesus does which God does not (namely, receive the revelation from God > and pass it on to the angel). There are two energies here, i.e. two > actions or activities, and not one. **Therefore, Jesus is not > consubstantial with the Father.** At this point, a Trinitarian who holds to consubstantiality might appeal to Jesus' dual-nature to account for this. > Jesus would therefore be said to have received the revelation of God > as regards his human nature, but not as regards his divine nature. In response to this, Nemes argues > On the one hand, in the catholic tradition it is believed that Christ > did not cease to be God in becoming human. This means that everything > that would be true of him as God by nature remains true of him even > after he assumes a human nature in addition. But **it would be true of > Jesus in virtue of his divine nature that he knows all the things** that > are revealed to John by the angel. And **one cannot be given a > revelation if one already possesses knowledge of the relevant mystery**, > just as a person who is already dead cannot be killed, just as a > soaked garment cannot be made wet. **Consequently, the catholic > principle that Christ does not cease to be God in becoming human makes > it impossible for him to have been given a revelation by God.** > > On the other hand, **suppose one proposes that Christ did give up some > of some his divine qualities in becoming human**. Previously he was > omniscient, but upon incarnating he no longer knew everything. **This > still does not provide a solution to the problem at hand, because > Revelation refers to Christ after his resurrection**. If one tries to > justify the possibility of Christ’s receiving revelation from God by > suggesting that he gives up some of his divine qualities upon becoming > incarnate, this text would force the conclusion that this condition > continues even after his resurrection and exaltation into heaven. > **Christ then would have ceased to be fully God in becoming human, not > only for a time, but rather for all time! I am not sure that many > people will find this proposal very satisfactory.** How do Trinitarians who hold to both consubstantiality and a dual-nature theory of Jesus respond to the sorts of points Nemes is making here? That if Jesus is fully God in his ascended state then Jesus can't be given revelation as Jesus knows all things, or if you hold to a limiting of knowledge with respect to Jesus similar to his incarnation but now in an ascended state, Jesus apparently then would cease to be fully God not just temporarily but eternally?

Why does my brother in law tell us that we have to accept Jesus every time he talks to me, my children or his brother? He has known me for 36 years. He knows that I am saved, that I brought the children up to believe, and that they also accepted Jesus as their savior. When he talks to my children (35, 34 and 32) he makes them accept Jesus every time. He has not done this to me in the 36 years that I have been married to his brother. But his brother my husband passed away in October. I continually have a relationship with Jesus and pray every day that if he would talk to me or ask me, I would tell him even though he should already know. This Christmas he sent me a letter and pamphlets to accept Jesus as my savior. I was talking to my children as I couldn't believe that after 36 years, and being included in all the children's accepting Jesus in the church, he would say that. My children think that because he is an evangelist he believes that you have to be saved every day. That when he talks to them he makes them recite that they are asking Jesus to come into their life. They said he has always done this ever since they could remember. I know we are sinners and Jesus knows too. I confess and ask for forgiveness in my own relationship with Jesus. **Are evangelicals supposed to be saved every day or more than 1 time a day?**

I've caught the tail end of a great lecture by a priest but have not been able to identify him or the venue. What I recall clearly is the very interesting point he brought up about the importance in understanding the mystery cults (Dionysus, Tammuz, Mithra, ect) which were the competing faiths at the time. The priest seemed to be speaking to the point of how Paul used his knowledge of these mystery cults to "speak the language" of the peoples and regions he sought to evangelize. I followed the logic of the larger arc of that narrative, in that, Christianity was a fulfillment or solution to all these legacy faiths. The priest conceded that it wasn't a perfect overlap; Paul would cherry pick certain aspects from the mystery cults to serve as a vehicle for his message. Clearly, a blanket comparison would be incompatible. Tammuz is Tammuz, one would have to let go of the notion that Tammuz governs ones crops. But perhaps the priest meant certain subsets of ideas within these cults were able to be re-purposed.

Question

What kind of mystery cult ideas did Paul appear to focus on when evangelizing Rome and/or the Near East? **Note:** Will leave the answer open to any/all sources, scripture, letters or other.

>“We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.” ‭‭Romans‬ ‭8‬:‭22‬ ‭NIV‬‬ > “For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now.” ‭‭Romans‬ ‭8‬:‭22‬ ‭ESV‬‬ Which translation fits better with the context? It seems that for the groans to stop the inner groans of the Christian should also stop too as in verse 23: > “And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.” ‭‭Romans‬ ‭8‬:‭23‬ ‭ESV‬‬

Contained in *[The Maxims and Sayings of St. Philip Neri](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_maxims_and_sayings_of_St_Philip_Neri)* are two quotes on humility which I have never fully understood: >To obtain perfectly the gift of humility, four things are required: to despise the world, to despise no person, to despise one's self, to despise being despised. and >He is perfect in the school of Christ who despises being despised, rejoices in self-contempt, and accounts himself to be very nothingness. QUESTION: Is it possible to interpret, in the context of humility, the meanings of "to despise being despised" and "despises being despised"? It almost sounds to me as if St. Philip Neri is indicating that a humble person ought to care if the world despises him; but, this would seem to be a contradiction with his own personal humility and the humility of every other Saint who cared not what the world thought of them. I have often wondered if this could be some sort of translational error, since, in my (perhaps erroneous) way of thinking, "not to despise being despised" and "despises not being despised" would be more suitable to convey the thought that the humble cared not if they were hated by the world.

We read in Lk 2:21 , how Jesus was named : > After eight days had passed, it was time to circumcise the child; and he was called Jesus, the name given by the angel before he was conceived in the womb. As for the case of John the Baptist, there was difference of opinion on how he should be named, as we see in Lk 1: 59-63: > On the eighth day they came to circumcise the child, and they were going to name him after his father Zechariah, but his mother spoke up and said, “No! He is to be called John.” They said to her, “There is no one among your relatives who has that name.” Then they made signs to his father, to find out what he would like to name the child. He asked for a writing tablet, and to everyone’s astonishment he wrote, “His name is John.” Now, the formal naming ceremony of a baby does not in any way take away the right of the parents in calling it by the name they like most, just to strike a chord of communication with the new-born child. Such a name could also derive from the names of objects like honey, pearl, amber etc. varying from culture to culture. It is also possible that Joseph and Mary addressed the Infant as Jesus from the very day of his birth, without ever giving him a pet name. (On the contrary, they could have given him a pet name and kept using it even after the formal naming ceremony). My question therefore is: Are there any traditional/apocryphal teachings on by what name Jesus was called until the 8th day after his birth? Inputs from any denomination are welcome.