During his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said > "It is better for you to lose one member of your body that causes you to sin than have your whole body thrown into hell" (Matt 5:30b) From the above it can be concluded that it is the body that receives life (enters heaven) or is condemned to hell. Then the preacher Ecclesiastes said that > "who knows whether the soul of an animal goes down into the earth when it dies or the soul of a man goes upwards into the heavens when he dies" (Eccl 3:21) Then there is the narrative of the thief on the right at the crucifixion who was told by Jesus that > "Believe me I tell you, you shall be with me in paradise today" (Luke 23:43) Because the body of the thief was left on the cross, it is evident that it is the soul of the thief that met Jesus in paradise in addition to what was written by Ecclesiastes. **Is it the body or the soul that enters into heaven or hell?**

How many wives can a Christian have is it allowed to have 4 or 3 wives? Can I have marriage of multiple women as a believing christian?

***Kyrie Eleison*** is a term that is used in the Latin Mass of the Catholic Church. However, I've been told that the phrase is entirely Greek and not Latin at all! So is the phrase Latin or Greek? Is it transliterated from Greek and therefore Latin?

In John 20:23, it stands written: > If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you > withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.” I've noticed in the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges commentary that it's stated this power is given to everyone in the room. Which they say, it's not just the 10 apostles alone (11 - Thomas who was initially missing), but to the entire people present, which is implied it's more than the apostles. How did they deduced from the text that there where more people present there?

For convenience, assume that this also applies with the male/female roles reversed: > But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery. — [Matthew 5:32](https://www.blueletterbible.org/nkjv/mat/5/32/s_934032) How would those denominations that forbid remarriage under these circumstances consider the following situation: - A chaste (sex only within marriage) couple divorces. - The one that forced the divorce marries someone else (thereby committing adultery). - Later, the other wants to marry someone. Would the second person's re-marriage be allowed, as technically the divorced spouse *has* committed adultery.

Roman Catholics have a hierarchical system within their church with cardinals, then archbishops, then bishops, then priests and then deacons (as i have shown below) but where in the Bible do we see the hierarchical system of the Roman Catholic Church?

Genesis 16:10, "Moreover, the angel of the Lord said to her, "I will greatly multiply your descendants so that they shall be too many to count." Vs11, "The angel of the Lord said to her further, Behold, you are with child, and you shall bear a son; and you shall call him Ishmael, because the Lord has given heed to your affliction." At vs13, "Then she called the name of the Lord who spoke to her, "Thou are a God who sees", for she said, "Have I even remained alive here after seeing Him?" Genesis 17:1-2, "Now when Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to Abram and send to him, I am God Almighty; Walk before Me, and be blameless. Vs2, And I will establish MY covenant between Me and you, And I will multiply you exceedingly." Vs3, "And Abraham fell on his face, and God talked with him, saying," Verses 4-7 God reiterates His everlasting covenant with Abram, who is now called "Abraham." So again, here's my question? Is the angel of the Lord who multiplied Hagar's descendants the same being who appeared as God Almighty at Genesis 17:1-2 who multiplied Abraham's descendants? Please provide Biblical evidence for you position.

Jesus claimed a lot of times that he was God and am going to quote some verses inexplicitly in the Holy Bible where he claimed that title. John 8:57: >He was with the Pharisees and the Sadducees and they asked Jesus, "You are not yet fifty years old and you have seen Abraham", and Jesus replied, "before Abraham was, I am !" From this verse, Jesus said he had seen the days of Abraham and he could only do that if he were God. It is very clear that Jesus and God are separate entities or personalities because Jesus says: >I am going to the Father >The Father and I are one Then, according to Trinitarian theology, why does he sit at the right hand of God if he is God already?

Regarding the Quran (Surah al-Ma'idah) 5:17 > They have certainly disbelieved who say that Allāh is Christ, the son of Mary. Say, "Then who could prevent Allāh at all if He had intended to destroy Christ, the son of Mary, or his mother or everyone on the earth?" And to Allāh belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth and whatever is between them. He creates what He wills, and Allāh is over all things competent. A Christian missionary [wrote](https://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/quran_trinity.htm) > Fifth, the Quran also distorts Christian beliefs regarding the Person > of Christ when it accuses Christians of saying that God, or Allah, is > the Christ. The historic Christian position is that Jesus is God, > which is not the same as saying that God is Jesus. The former implies > that Christ is fully God in essence; that he has the entire essential > attributes of Deity and is all that God is, whereas the latter > suggests that Christ is the only one that is God. In other words, > saying that God is Jesus means that the entire Godhead is instantiated > in Christ alone to the exclusion of the Father and the Holy Spirit, or > that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are nothing more than > manifestations of a single Divine Person. This latter understanding > would imply that Christ is all three manifestations, which is a form > of an ancient heresy known as Sabellianism which was condemned by the > early Church, why would it still be the problem for the Quran But don't the Christians say God became Jesus, regardless of how it is believed whether in the form of Triune God intervening into human history or Sabellianism (their outcome is same that God himself is Christ in that context)? Isn’t the quran right that Christians believe "God" is the Messiah? Also, some Christians in trinity do believe God is Christ and Christ is God i.e. they are one in essence. Then what's the problem?

Orthodox Christians have a much larger canon than both Roman Catholic and Protestant Christians, this includes books such as 3 Maccabees. During the time of Jesus there were different sects of Jews. Did any Jewish sect have the same canon as the Orthodox Christians? Did any of the Early Church Fathers quote from the orthodox canon?

> There is no other Head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ (Eph > 1:22; Col 1:18): nor 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 (Mat 23:8-10; 2 Thes 2:3-4, 8-9; Rev 13:6). > > WCF 25:6 > [Antichrist] shall be a master of sin and all iniquity, and yet will > retain the name and appearance of Christ and call himself “most holy > one; vicar of God; head of the Church,” and persecute all who will not > obey him… the pope more than fits this description. — Martin > Luther Do still protestants believe that the pope is the antichrist?

I remember reading a while back about how the ages in the Old Testaments first genealogy (leading up to Noah) were not representative of the actual ages of the individuals, but rather that this practice of high age was meant to show their level of greatness or honor. However I am unable to find any such article or paper, though I have heard the claim repeated on some YouTube videos. Can anyone help me find a well-sourced article or paper that talks about this idea? Thanks.

If my interpretation of the ultimate purpose of human existence according to the Bible is correct, humanity exists to glorify the existence of God. In Isaiah 43:7, it is stated "everyone who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made.” This outlines humanity's purpose as a device to glorify God. But if God is a perfect being, why does he desire to be glorified? Normally, this characteristic would be associated with a being that is insecure or narcissistic, which are not to my understanding perfect traits. Surely this is a pretty fundamental attribute of God for which Christianity surely has a doctrine. In there a specific theological term used for this topic? And what do different Christian theological traditions teach about this issue? Is there there a general explanation that is broadly agreed on explaining this attribute of God or are there different explanations?

How do Christians respond to a claim in the Qur'an that God can not be the father of Christians because God gives them bad things in life to endure? Here is the quote in question set into context: > We also took a covenant from those who said: 'We are Christians'; but they forgot a good portion of the teaching they had been imparted with. Wherefore We aroused enmity and spite between them till the Day of Resurrection, and ultimately Allah will tell them what they had contrived. People of the Book! Now Our Messenger has come to you: he makes clear to you a good many things of the Book which you were wont to conceal, and also passes over many things. There has now come to you a light from Allah, and a clear Book through which Allah shows to all who seek to please Him the paths leading to safety. He brings them out, by His leave, from darkness to light and directs them on to the straight way. Indeed those who said: 'Christ, the son of Mary, he is indeed God', disbelieved. Say (O Muhammad!): 'Who could have overruled Allah had He so willed to destroy Christ, the son of Mary, and his mother, and all those who are on earth?' For to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth and all that is between them; He creates what He wills. Allah is All-Powerful. **The Jews and the Christians say: 'We are Allah's children and His beloved ones.' Ask them: 'Why, then, does He chastise you for your sins?' You are the same as other men He has created. He forgives whom He wills and chastises whom He wills. And to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between them. To Him is the eventual return.** People of the Book! After a long interlude during which no Messengers have appeared there has come to you Our Messenger to elucidate the teaching of the true faith lest you say: 'No bearer of glad tidings and no warner has come to us.' For now there indeed has come to you a bearer of glad tidings and a warner, Allah is All-Power-ful. - Surah Al-Ma'idah 5:12-19 It seems to say that if he was a loving father he wouldn't make them suffer at times in their lives, i.e. that their circumstances would be different than others.

I found this quote in the book Martin Luther: Rebel in an Age of Upheaval by Prof. Heinz Schilling. > He made a promise of salvation to Christian soldiers that is > reminiscent of the fundamentalist vision of paradise held by Islamic > holy warriors: ‘If you die, you will never find for yourself a more > blessed death. For you die in obedience to the word of God and God’s > command (Romans 13:4ff) and in the service of love that saves your > neighbor from hell and from the shackles of the devil.’ Here too, > however, he distinguished between the earthly and heavenly kingdoms. > Force can be used only in the conflicts of this world and must be > directed against the pope or the Turks, so not against their religion > but only against their claims to authority in this world; the soldiers > who thus fight do so ‘not as Christians, but as servants and subjects > of the emperor’. This battle is a good and Christian work that can > secure the soldiers’ salvation, yet not because they are fighting for > the kingdom of God, but because as Christians they must be ‘upright, > obedient, and loyal subjects’ who ‘owe to their secular ruler . . . > obedience and such service’87 87 *D. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe (Weimarer Ausgabe) Schriften* [Writings]. 73 vols. Weimar, 1883–2009. Vol. 30/2 pg. 180 Where is the source of the quote in Luther's writing or any other place?

I recently read some very well-known gnostic writings that are under the name of "Gospel of Judah Iscariot" and "Gospel of Thomas", but they aren't written by Judah or Thomas. I don't really know what Gnosticism is. I read something about God having more "emanations", some "aeons", a "bad Demiurge" that created us. This doesn't make sense. I searched on Google about this. I understand that Gnosticism is a religion that add on top of Christianity 4000 years old Greek philosophy. I didn't really understands. What did those people that wrote those 2 gospels in the name of Judah and Thomas believe about Jesus. And the so called "Gospel of Judah Iscariot" seemed to me like a big heresy, but "Gospel of Thomas" didn't seem to be heretic or gnostic, in the text of it is presented a bit of the apostle's life like it is presented in the New Testament, there are presented some of Jesus's statements about loving enemies, helping poor. I didn't see anything about God "emanations", "aeons" and a "bad Demiurge", the "Gospel of Judah Iscariot" was full of those aberrations, so I don't understand why scholars call the "Gospel of Thomas" as being gnostic.

The Roman Catholic dogma of Papal Infallibility (P.I.) wasn't officially defined until 1870. This doctrine, defined dogmatically at the First Vatican Council of 1869–1870 in the document Pastor aeternus, is claimed to have existed in medieval theology and to have been the majority opinion at the time of the Counter-Reformation. Thus, Catholics can say that at the 4th Council of Trent the canon of Scripture was infallibly defined even though it took place 324 years prior to Vatican I. Indeed, I have found it declared that all Ecumenical councils derive their authority through the infallibility of the Pope who ratifies the council's documents. There are 19 councils recognized by the Catholic Church prior to the 1870 dogmatic definition of P.I. Of these, there are 4 that took place prior to the beginning of medieval times: 1) FIRST COUNCIL OF NICAEA - 325 2) FIRST COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE - 381 3) COUNCIL OF EPHESUS - 431 4) COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON - 451 While there is apparently some church history and debate as far back as 519 when the notion of the Bishop of Rome as the preserver of apostolic truth was set forth in the Formula of Hormisdas , most of the theological references that smack of P.I. come from much deeper into the medieval period; 1073 and beyond. Rather than challenge the claim that Papal Infallibility existed in common medieval theology, I am asking after proof that this doctrine existed prior to the beginning of the medieval period in 476. related: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/89471/how-is-the-claim-that-the-doctrine-of-papal-infallibility-has-always-existed-wit

Cardinal Manning , *The Eternal Priesthood* p. 175 claims: >In the beginning it was the Bishops alone who preached. The needs of the faith compelled them to delegate this, their chief office, to the priesthood. Did only bishops preach in the early Church?

Catholics, Orthodox, and other denominations hold that the definitions produced by accepted ecumenical councils are protected from error by the Holy Spirit. What is the manner of this inspiration? Does that mean these definitions should be treated with the same authority and reverence as accorded for Scripture?

As a Baptist, I've always had the understanding/teaching that Satan and many angels "rebelled" against God, so I'm going to go with that term. But the actual moment of sin that rendered them unqualified for heaven may have just been a spark of resentment or pride, who knows? But, given that there actually was a rebellion and banishment, You're an angel in heaven. It's obvious that God is God, and you were created. You've witnessed the creation of the universe. And yet, there's some argument or motivation strong enough to convince Satan and others that outright rebellion and rejection is the only way. Was it mankind? Did their creation and future/destiny stir some resentment among the angels and their bright place, to the extent that the angels questioned his decision making? Since the angels knew who God was and had a pretty good seat at the events where he demonstrated his power, and they knew he knew their thoughts, and he knew they knew he knew, was rebellion the only honest thing to do since they knew they couldn't hide their "issues"? If so, this would mean they were doomed the moment sin entered their heart, possibly even before creation occurred. The angels weren't dumb, they were in God's presence, and they were were aware of who He was. Since they had this knowledge, was there possibly something they were aware of they might actually give them "the upper hand" so to speak? Otherwise, surely the utter futility of any actions against him since them was obvious. And yet...everything shows they make a continual effort, as if there were some slight chance at avoiding their fates. I could understand pride taking hold in Satan, and a few others, but...a third of the angels in heaven (if that number is correct)? That's an awful big percentage to fall victim to pride, especially after having spent your entire existence in Heaven already.