Some Christian groups and theologians teach that Christ’s redemptive work extends not only to humanity but also to angels, including fallen angels. However, Hebrews 2:16 says: >For surely it is not angels He helps, but the descendants of Abraham” (various translations). This seems to restrict Christ’s atonement to the descendants of Abraham rather than to angels. **How do traditions or theologians who believe that Christ died for angels interpret or reconcile their view with Hebrews 2:16?** I am not asking whether Christ did or did not die for angels, nor seeking debate, but specifically how those who hold this belief understand Hebrews 2:16.

This will be my first post on the Christianity Exchange. My question involves people who confront me on the basis that they were told by secular causes that certain Koine words like "arsenkoitoi", which historically has referred to a male-male coital relationship and also transliterates to "man-bedder", are now being told that the original meaning is misunderstood to mean things like "pedophile" or "sodomy" but not to same-sex attraction. I see the same attention to the Hebrew word "zakhur", which I've seen translated as "male", but others are trying to tie it to "boy", again to refer to Jewish teachings to prohibit only pedophilia and not homosexuality. Based on the translations I've seen and examples of these words in other texts, the context suggests that the original translations indicate the case that same-sex relations are not allowed. How do I better support the truth about this when people are tugging at doubt to allow for sin?

Are there degrees of punishment in hell as there are apparently degrees of reward in heaven? 2 Corinthians 3:12-15 seems to point pretty clearly to reward in heaven, but I find no parallel degree of punishment in hell, as described, for example, in Dante's *The Inferno*.

>Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you for so long a time and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on my own. The Father who dwells in me is doing his works." —John 14:9-10 Does Jesus teach her that he is a willing vessel for God, where He is in fact God through possession despite personally not being God? That is to say, Jesus is the spokesman of God as his Word/Logos, and he only says what God tells him to say, as a possession of God whose Spirit indwells him?

I'm reading the Bible through properly for the first time and I'm at the book of Nehemiah. So far there's been a few times were the Israelites repent and put effort into living according to the laws in the Book of Moses. That includes divorcing and sending away the non-Israel women that they've married and the children they had with these women. How is it that we're all the children of God? It seems a bit more of either you're born an Israelite or not and if you're not then you're not a part of it. It feels a bit more like there's a clear line between being an insider and being an outsider. And casting out their children because they're not pure born Israelites doesn't align with the message that we are all God's children. I guess I am just trying to understand how a religion that has this far into the Bible done a lot of effort to distinguish between the Israelites and everyone else link to us (everyone else). How are we, non-Israelites on the opposite of the world a part of it?

I have come across statements (including from some Orthodox clergy and theologians) suggesting that the Eastern Orthodox Church leaves open the possibility that even the devil could eventually repent and be restored. However, I struggle to reconcile this with passages that describe: The devil being “*tormented day and night forever and ever*” (Revelation 20:10) Some angels being *“kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness”* (Jude 1:6) Christ saying everlasting fire is “*prepared for the devil and his angels”* (Matthew 25:41) My questions are: 1. Is belief in the possible repentance/salvation of Satan an official teaching of the Eastern Orthodox Church, or only a theological opinion held by some within the tradition? 2. If it is a theological opinion within Orthodoxy, how do its proponents interpret the above biblical passages regarding eternal condemnation and chains of darkness?

In the Olivet Discourse, Jesus Christ says: >“But the one who endures to the end will be saved.” (Matthew 24 : 13) Many evangelical Christians believe in a pre-tribulation rapture, meaning believers will be caught up before the Great Tribulation begins and will thus avoid the persecution associated with the Mark of the Beast (Revelation 13). If that view is correct, then believers would not need to “endure” to the end of the Tribulation (or until the Mark is enforced) in order to be saved. If believers are raptured prior to the appearance of the Mark and the Tribulation, how is the “enduring” part satisfied in their theology?

Do souls in hell have any hope for the forgiveness of their sins? According to Catholic teachings, once a person died, there are 3 places where a soul can be placed: hell, purgatory and heaven. At the time of death, if a soul will be judged and damned to hell, is it possible to be in friendship or be reconciled with God again? What about the Final Judgement where there could be repentance and prayers for these souls in hell?

There is a song I like from a source that I trust, called ‘God of Wow ’ that has as its very first line ‘You have no birthday’ and that stops me from sharing or using it. My objection is that although it is true that God is eternal and birthday-less, but it seems to me that the external God did take on having a birthday because of the incarnation where Jesus was conceived and birthed. I understand what the song means, but is this a legitimate phrase? I am asking from a Nicene-Christian perspective.

I have read in Christianity.SE where some say that "YHWH" refers only to Jesus. Are there groups with this belief or only individuals? Which Christian groups believe that "YHWH" refers only to the Father and never to the Word?

When I ask this question I usually end up getting the response of: > “Well, that was just him giving us free will!” And then I ask why he would give us free will if he knew we would sin and would send us to Hell. Which gets the response of: > “Well, he didn’t want us to be robots! That would just be awful.” Then this goes on and on. What I’m trying to ask is: why did God give us the ability to sin if he would get so mad at us that he would send us to Hell? Why did God make Satan if he knew he would tempt Adam and Eve? Honestly why even make Satan in the first place?

Many individuals die never having heard the Gospel. Some illustrative examples are: pretty much everyone who was born before Jesus, individuals contemporary to Jesus but who were too far away at the time to hear about him (e.g. Native Americans and all tribes from the Pre-Columbian era during the first and many subsequent centuries), isolated jungle tribes in Africa and the Amazon, and [uncontacted peoples](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncontacted_peoples) in general. How do different denominations across Christianity view the problem of individuals dying without ever having heard the Gospel's salvation message? What is the biblical basis in each case? *Note that this is an overview question: answers must summarise the positions of several different major Christian branches, and if possible even some of the smaller ones as well.* EDIT: I recently realized there is a decent overview of Christian viewpoints in the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fate_of_the_unlearned . Just linking this to complement the already excellent answers to this question.

> Revelation 22:
(2) and flowing down the middle of the city's > street. On each side of the river was the tree of life, which bears > fruit twelve times a year, once each month; and its leaves are for the > healing of **the nations**. > > (3) Nothing that is under God's curse will be found in the city. The > throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and **his > servants** will worship him. > > (4) **They** will see his face, and his name will be written on > **their** foreheads. > > (5) There shall be no more night, and **they** will not need lamps or > sunlight, because the Lord God will be their light, and **they** will > rule as kings forever and ever As long as I understand (from reading the internet), it seems Revelation 22 is about a place (called heaven or kingdom of God) AFTER the Judgment Day. No more mortal human. Assuming that my understanding is correct, so the inhabitants of the heaven are all :
1. His servants (verse 3)
2. have His name on their foreheads and see His face (verse 4)
3. rule as kings forever and ever (verse 5) My questions are :
- are the inhabitants of heaven = the nations mentioned in verse 2 ?
- who are to be ruled and why ? are the inhabitants rule to each other ?
I realize that my questions are not valid if my understanding is not correct.

"Crossing the Tiber" / "Swimming the Tiber" have come to be the shorthand term for converting to Roman Catholicism, as well as "Swimming/Crossing the Thames" for converting to Anglicanism. (source [*Wikipedia*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiber#History)) I wonder whether there are swimming/crossing bodies of water related terms for conversion between other branches of Christianity, especially to/from Eastern Orthodoxy? How about for conversion among Protestant branches?

We hear that we are no longer under the law. It even says so in Galatians: >[Galatians 3:23-25](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galations%203:23-25&version=NIV)
> Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian. It seems [1 Corinthians 10:23](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2010:23&version=NIV) also supports this. But yet, Jesus said that he did not come to abolish the law: >[Matthew 5:17-18](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:17-18&version=NIV)
>“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." **What did Jesus mean that he did not come to abolish the law, but fulfill it**, especially since it seems from later in the Bible that he *did* abolish the law.

My friend is a Progressive Christian who says that the bible doesn't condemn or even mention sex outside of marriage in the bible. Is this true? If not, what is the Biblical basis for condemning sex outside of marriage?

In the post https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/109124/pope-leo-i-and-worshiping-towards-the-east-how-can-he-say-all-this-and-still-w , the OP makes reference to Sermon 27 of Pope St. Leo the Great. It links to the New Advent (Catholic Encyclopedia). The translator of sermons from Pope Leo I on that site is Philip Schaff, a Protestant theologian. After spending a considerable amount of time trying to locate online an English translation of Pope St. Leo's sermons (or even a sub-collection of them) by a Catholic translator and editor, I have come up empty-handed. So I ask--- QUESTION: Does anyone know where I may find a freely available English online collection of sermons by Pope St. Leo the Great by a Catholic translator? Thank you.

## Background The character of Satan appears very different in the New Testament as compared to the Hebrew Bible. Some of the apparent stark differences appear below: --- - **The idea that the snake in the garden was Satan** Revelation 12:9; 20:2 identify Satan as an "ancient serpent". Later Christians linked this allusion with the snake from Genesis. On the other hand, the Hebrew bible **never** identifies the snake as anything more than an animal, and certainly never teaches that Satan was disguised as or possessing a snake. --- - **The idea that Satan rules the world as god** Satan is called “the god of this age” in 2 Corinthians 4:4: > In their case **the god of this world** has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing clearly the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. and “the prince of this world” in John 12:31: > Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be driven out The Hebrew Bible no where supports the idea of a supernatural being besides YHVH ruling the world. It repeatedly says that YHVH will not share His power and dominion of the world with another: > I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not yield my glory to another or my praise to idols - Isaiah 42:8 --- - **The idea that Satan is a fallen angel working against God** The NT portrays Satan as a fallen angel in Luke 10:18, and portrays him as working at odds against God's plans of spreading the gospel in 1 Thessalonians 2:18. The Hebrew bible contains no references to 'Satan' falling from heaven or working against God's plans and it portrays Satan as one of many 'sons of God' who remains in God's presence in heaven and in fact does God's commands in Job 1:6-22. ## Question How do Protestants explain these differences? Why is Satan taught to be the "god of this world/age" in the New Testament while this theology is absent in the Hebrew Bible?

Romans 8:3 says that God sent His Son “in the likeness of sinful flesh.” How is this phrase interpreted in historic Christian theology regarding Christ’s humanity and sinlessness? I’m looking for one well-supported interpretation from any mainstream tradition (Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox), grounded in Scripture or established commentary.

> Isaiah 44:6, Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel And His Redeemer, the Lord of host; I am the first and I am the last, AND THERE IS NO GOD BESIDES ME. > > Isaiah 44:24, Thus says the Lord your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, I. the Lord, am the maker of all things BY MYSELF, And spreading out the heavens BY MYSELF. > > Isaiah 45:5, I am the Lord and THERE IS NO OTHER; BESIDES ME THERE IS NO GOD." Now that it’s established that there is no other God, then why do Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that Jesus Christ is "a god" according to their NWT of the Bible at John 1:1? They explain their position here: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1984647#h=18 So the specific question I'm asking is as follows: is Jesus Christ a true god, or a false god? > John 17:3, "And this is eternal life, that they may know Thee, THE ONLY TRUE GOD, and Jesus Christ whom Thou has sent." John 5:44, "How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another, and you do not seek the glory that is FROM THE ONLY GOD?" If there is only one true something, then everything else is false. The Apostle Paul speaks about this at 1 Corinthians 8:5-6: > For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth as indeed there are many gods and many lords, yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him. So in view of the following statement, "Jehovah’s Witnesses do not deny Jesus’ godship, or divinity" "Jesus himself said that he lived in heaven before being born as a human. As a spirit creature in heaven, Jesus had a special relationship with Jehovah." "He is called the firstborn of all creation, for he was God's first creation. "This means that Jesus is the only one directly created by God. Again, is this first spirit creature created by God and described as "a god" at John 1:1 a true god or a false god, and what is his nature? Galatians 4:8, "However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those WHICH BY NATURE ARE NO gods." Some of the information is from the following site. https://answersingenesis.org/jesus/jesus-is-god/is-jesus-the-creator-god/