I'm curious about the relationship between those who adhere to young-earth creationism, and those who adhere to Rapture theology (as expressed in the *Left Behind* series, for example, and similar related belief systems most commonly associated with fundamentalism and dispensationalism). Are these, generally, the same people? Or is there a large divergence between these two groups? I know a good many Christians who believe in both. I know a few who reject both. I don't know specifically of anyone who accepts one view, but rejects the other, although they may exist and I just don't know because the discussion topic hasn't come up. And at least superficially, they both appear to have their roots in fundamentalism. But I wonder how substantial this similarity is. To be a bit more specific, 1. Are there any theological foundations on which both views are built? Or does one view depend in any way on the other? (Does Rapture theology depend on an literal Adam, for instance.) 2. What is the cultural relationship between the two theologies? If we were to, for example, draw a Venn diagram of these two theologies, what would it look like? Have any polls or studies been done on this topic?

Some Christian media projects (like [*Superbook* on the Christian Broadcasting Network](https://us-en.superbook.cbn.com/videos)) retell Bible stories but add science fiction elements such as time travel, futuristic gadgets, or fictional characters who interact with biblical events. From a biblical and theological standpoint, is it acceptable to use such storytelling methods to teach the Bible? Does this risk distorting Scripture by mixing truth with fiction?

Greek and Latin are sacred liturgical languages, but has Hebrew ever been used in a Christian liturgy? By liturgy, I mean the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. By Hebrew, I mean ancient Hebrew, the (non-vernacular) liturgical language used in Jesus's time.

### Introduction The NT presents Jesus of Nazareth as the **unique Son of God** in John 3:16: > For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son (**μονογενης υιος, monogenēs huios**), that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. The concept of a single 'son of God' is seemingly not found in the Hebrew bible. The phrase **bene-elohim/בְּנֵי־הָאֱלֹהִים** (sons of God) are referenced several times in different contexts. Several named characters such as Satan are called **bene-elohim**, such as in Job 1:6: > "One day the **sons of God** (**בְּנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים, bene-elohim**) came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them." ### Question What is the Old Testament basis for believing that God has a single, unique son?

This question arose in the context of arguments about extraterrestrial intelligent species. Some Christians, especially among Young Earth Creationists, believe that we can rule out the possibility of ETs on the basis of Scripture. Anyway, my intention here is not to prove or disprove that, but rather on some ideas which have appeared within the discussion. This article by Gary Bates makes many arguments for that conclusion, and I'm wondering about one specific part of the argument, namely the assumption throughout that ETs must have immortal souls, just as we do (I know some schools of thought dispute this; those are outside the scope of the question). They bring up an idea from Michael Heiser that "Just like ‘bunny rabbits’ on the earth, they do not need salvation—even though they will die, they are going to neither heaven nor hell." The respond thus: > And Heiser’s ETs in spaceships require a level of intelligence not found in rabbits. This acutely highlights the injustice of their suffering the effects of the Curse, including death and ultimately extinction when the heavens are ‘rolled up like a scroll’ (Revelation 6:14). It also seems bizarre to assign no moral responsibility for the actions of highly intelligent beings. But this response is somewhat oblique - Heiser's argument isn't that they aren't morally accountable (at least not as presented by Bates), but rather that they don't go to heaven or hell. Bates seems to be a tacit assumption here that an immortal soul is a prerequisite either for intelligence or for moral responsibility. It isn't clear which, but in either case, I'd like to understand the philosophical underpinnings here a little better. **Have some Christian philosophers made the case that moral accountability and/or rational intelligence require an immortal soul?** If so, what reasoning is used to argue for that conclusion?

When the Israelites attacked Jericho, God commanded them not spare the residents of Jericho, or Canaanites generally. Two spies went into the city, and were protected by a harlot named Rahab, who asked them to spare her life and those of her family in return. The spies were able to honor the deal and she became an Israelite. What made her the exception to the "kill all" command? Was it her faith that saved her?

Christian theology generally teaches that only God is omnipresent, while Satan is a created being with limited power and presence. Yet, believers around the world often experience temptations or trials that they attribute to Satan’s influence. How do Christian theologians explain Satan’s ability to seemingly affect or test many people in different locations at once, if he cannot be everywhere? - Does Scripture suggest he works through a network of demons? I’m asking specifically from a biblical and theological standpoint, not from personal opinion.

The concluding prayer of [Litany of Divine Mercy](https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/devotions/litany-to-the-divine-mercy-263) goes like this: >Eternal God, in whom mercy is endless and the treasury of compassion inexhaustible, look kindly upon us and increase Your mercy in us, .... When we say that God's mercy is endless, it implies that we require sufficient capacity to absorb from the boundless ocean of mercy. But then, what is the significance of praying that God may increase his mercy on us? How do Catholic scholars explain the prayer?

I keep coming upon the phrase **"in the Spirit"** in the NT. One search result of that phrase is here: https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/search.cfm?Criteria=%22in+the+spirit%22&t=NKJV#s=s_primary_0_1 A few examples are (NKJV): - Acts 19:21, **"Paul purposed in the Spirit"** - Romans 2:29, **"circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter"** - Romans 8:9, **"But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit"** - Galatians 5:16, **"I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh"** It's possible that the phrase has different shades of meaning depending on the verse context. How are we to understand this phrase in a believer's life? I am asking for an answer from the Christian community that conforms to the Nicene Creed of 381 AD. A Pentecostal/charismatic viewpoint is welcome. Also, the tenor of some of these verses indicate that one is in the Spirit or in the flesh, so answers which adhere to this duality are preferred (answers that reflect grace under law to Christ rather than adherence to OT laws for righteousness).

This image of an ex-Mormon woman published by the Wall Street Journal has caused a stir since the garments are supposed to be a secret: Why are Mormon Temple clothes protected as a secret?

In Exodus 4:22, God tells Pharaoh: >“Israel is my firstborn son.” Later, in the New Testament, believers in Christ (the Church) are described as being adopted into God’s family and as the bride of Christ (Romans 8:15–17, Ephesians 5:25–27). My question is: if Israel is explicitly called God’s firstborn, how should Christians understand the place of the Church? Does the term “firstborn” imply that the Church is “another child” of God, perhaps a “later-born,”? How do different traditions reconcile Israel’s “firstborn” status with the identity of the Church in salvation history?

**Mary Makes An Entrance in The Gospel of St. Luke.** This is how Mary is introduced in the Gospel of St Luke: > **Luke 1:26-28 (RSVCE) ** > > **The Birth of Jesus Foretold** > > 26 In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of > Galilee named Nazareth, 27 to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name > was Joseph, of the house of David; and **the virgin’s name was Mary.** > 28 And he came to her and said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with > you!” **Today** Today, Friday, September 12, 2025, is the Optional Memorial of **the Most Holy Name of Mary** **Names in Scripture** Names in Scripture are highly significant, conveying character, destiny, and identity, serving as more than mere labels but as expressions of **God's message, prophetic meaning, and divine purpose.** A person's name could reveal parental hopes, **God's intended path, or signify a new beginning and transformation, like Jacob becoming Israel.** **God's own name, particularly "I AM," holds immense power and is considered holy, a concept explored through various divine names throughout the Bible.** **The Name "Mary" of The Blessed Virgin Mary The Mother of Jesus, What Does It Mean?** **Clearly then, Mary has a significant meaning. What does it mean?**

Looking for answers from all denominations of Christianity. Morality. Did God create a universal law of good and evil and humans have the freedom to choose good from bad. Did God create humans inherently good according to his universal law of morality? Therefore when sin is committed it goes against man and God? Is man responsible for his own idea of good and evil, therefore it becomes shaped by humanities developement and the overall acceptance by society about what is good and bad. Or are humans inherently bad natured and we have to choose good based on a universal law of morality. Or am I just overcomplicating this idea? I've had this conversation with lots of peers. I will admit I dont know too much on where the bible stands on this issue. And I am hopeful to hear what answers come from this.

Are there any legends about what happened to Jesus's clothes after they were distributed? Any legends about the people that received them?

Why did God said to Rebecca that the **elder shall serve the younger?**

The [free-will defense](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Plantinga%27s_free-will_defense) is an argument commonly attributed to Alvin Plantinga, who developed it as a response to the [logical problem of evil](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil#Logical_problem_of_evil) . However, in developing this argument Plantinga unwittingly ended up reinventing/rediscovering the [Molinist doctrine of middle knowledge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Plantinga%27s_free-will_defense#Molinism) , so the key ideas of the argument are not entirely novel, and people have certainly come up with similar defenses independently more than once. The Wikipedia article includes a summary of the argument: > A world containing creatures who are significantly free (and freely perform more good than evil actions) is more valuable, all else being equal, than a world containing no free creatures at all. Now God can create free creatures, but He can't cause or determine them to do only what is right. For if He does so, then they aren't significantly free after all; they do not do what is right freely. To create creatures capable of moral good, therefore, He must create creatures capable of moral evil; and He can't give these creatures the freedom to perform evil and at the same time prevent them from doing so. As it turned out, sadly enough, some of the free creatures God created went wrong in the exercise of their freedom; this is the source of moral evil. The fact that free creatures sometimes go wrong, however, counts neither against God's omnipotence nor against His goodness; for He could have forestalled the occurrence of moral evil only by removing the possibility of moral good. I have the following objection to this argument: - If human beings were created in the image of God and have free will, then it follows that **God also has free will**. - Likewise, if human beings, in virtue of having free will, are capable of moral evil, **then God, in virtue of having free will, must also be capable of moral evil**. - However, **if God is omnibenevolent, He is not capable of moral evil**. - So it looks like we have a contradiction between the last two points. Said in another way, if God can have free will and be incapable of moral evil at the same time, then why would God create human beings that have free will and yet are ***not*** incapable of moral evil at the same time? In other words, God is a counterexample to the claim that free will necessarily entails being vulnerable to moral evil, since God has free will and yet is not vulnerable to it, and so one wonders why God would create free creatures that are not immune to moral evil, just like He is. How do proponents of the free will defense against the problem of evil resolve this conundrum? --- --- Based on some of the comments received, I will try to write a more formal and rigorous version of the objection: **Premises** - P1: God is omnibenevolent - P2: God is omnibenevolent => God is *not* capable of moral evil - P3: God has free will - P4: God has free will => God is capable of moral evil **Deductions** - D1: God is *not* capable of moral evil (from P1 & P2) - D2: God is capable of moral evil (from P3 & P4) - Contradiction between D1 & D2 (=> God is not capable of moral evil*) should be uncontroversial as well. God cannot do evil. It's impossible/unfeasible for Him. It just won't happen. - P3 (*God has free will*) is based on the intuition that if humans (and angels) have free will, it would be very strange for God not to have free will as well. One could reject this premise and claim that, perhaps, God is a deterministic being who created free creatures. Sure, one could hold such a view, but it would be a very novel (and strange) one, wouldn't it? - P4 (*God has free will => God is capable of moral evil*) is based on the same intuition used by the *free-will defense against the problem of evil*. If evil is explained as an undesired price of having creatures with free will (which God was willing to pay because of how valuable free will is), then what the defense is basically saying is that *free will => capable of moral evil*. So P4 is just a particular application of that rule to God, if we concede that God has free will. --- If anyone is interested in further objections to the *free-will defense against the problem of evil*, feel free (no pun intended) to pay a visit to [this question](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/99881/66156) on Philosophy Stack Exchange.

I _am not_ a Christian. In fact I go in on my own family who are ordained preachers and Christians who _believe_ in Christian stories that make absolutely no sense to me. It occurred to me that if Jesus were to actually do the "second coming" story thing, *all* preachers and churches would immediately go out of business. There wouldn't be any need for third-party _interpretations_ of this or that story, which is what Christianity is all about anyway, because the alleged guy Jesus never wrote anything himself, anyway. Jesus could start a podcast, and *all* preachers, including the pope guy, all bishops, and all run of the mill preachers, and even this Web site, would be completely out of business - you could hear the stories right from the horses mouth, so to speak? Or, would those same preachers, and folks on these boards, and the pope, still throw around their own _interpretations_ of Jesus's podcast, and even try to get rid of the guy Jesus himself, if only to keep their hustle going?

My question is this: Is Paul alluding to the tree of knowledge of good and evil in Romans 1 (and related passages) to support the idea of universal moral awareness? (no I am not arguing for humanism). Romans 1:20 declares: "For His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen since the creation of the world, being understood through what He has made. As a result, people are without excuse" (HCSB). While much of Romans 1 addresses the condemnation of sinful humanity and how God “delivered them over in the cravings of their hearts", the subjects of this statement are those "who by their unrighteousness suppress the true" (Romans 1:18). Verse 20 stands out with its emphatic declaration that people are without excuse. This suggests that God’s morality has been revealed to all humanity in some foundational way. Micah 6:8 seems to echo this truth: "Mankind, He has told you what is good and what it is the Lord requires of you: to act justly, to love faithfulness, and to walk humbly with your God." Although spoken directly to Judah, the wording implies something broader—that this truth applies to all of mankind. Genesis 2:9 introduces a crucial element: "The Lord God caused to grow out of the ground every tree pleasing in appearance and good for food, including the tree of life in the middle of the garden, as well as the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." I take the phrase "caused to grow" here to mean that God caused to exist, or that he made it. Genesis 3:22 compounds: "The LORD God said, "Since man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil, he must not reach out, take from the tree of life, eat, and live forever." Thus, eating from the tree is part of the fall. Gaining knowledge of good and evil is part of the fall. This raises the question: when humanity ate from the tree, did the tree of knowledge of good and evil impart in all of us some of understanding of good and evil? In other words, does every person—regardless of exposure to Scripture—carry an innate understanding of good derived from this event? This still implies that the knowledge of good and evil can only be known through God and/or His creation (*NOT HUMANLY DERIVED*). Paul adds another layer in Romans 3:20: “the knowledge of sin comes through the law.” This does not mean that good and evil were unknown before the Mosaic law, but rather that the law defined and revealed sin for what it is. Yet Romans 5:13 complicates matters: “In fact, sin was in the world before the law, but sin is not charged to a person’s account when there is no law.” The Jews had the law and could identify sin through it; the Gentiles did not, yet this implies that they seemed to know what was good. Scripture also makes clear that God’s concern extends to all people. Ezekiel 18:23 declares: “Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? This is the declaration of the Lord God. ‘Instead, don’t I take pleasure when he turns from his ways and lives?’” Similarly, in Jonah 3:10 God relented when Nineveh repented, and Ezekiel 18:32 reaffirms: “I take no pleasure in anyone’s death.” Thus, while the law was given to Israel to expose evil as sin, the implication remains that gentiles retained some knowledge of good. Abimelech provides an example, insisting, “I did this with a clean conscience and clean hands” (Genesis 20:5). If all humanity carries knowledge of good from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, then even those who have never heard the gospel still possess some measure of moral awareness. Thank you for your time. *Clarification* There seems to be a misunderstanding of my question. Please note that: 1. I am not a humanist. We would not know good or evil if it wast for God's perfect judgement or intervention. 2. I don't think knowing good and evil makes you righteous. Only God can do that through Jesus Christ. 3. Morality (good moral standing before God) exists whether you have faith in God or not. You may know that stealing is bad without being a believer. Again, knowing this does not make you righteous. 4. God can make something that has a good purpose, an man can corrupt it. For example, God has made rocks, and men can use those rocks to commit murder or the like. This does not mean that God made something evil, but that man corrupted something meant for good.

I don't understand the following counter argument by Jesus. > And if I by Beelzebul cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? Luke 11:19 One viewpoint is that the Pharisees' students (which I believe is what Jesus meant when he said sons) did try to cast out demons, but that would mean that I would be assuming that the Pharisees' student did actually cast out demons during that time. 1) Would the aforementioned argument be valid? 2) Are there any other ways of understanding Luke 11:19? If yes, could someone please explain them?

In John 8:19 (NIV), the Jews ask Jesus: >“Where is your father?” But instead of giving a direct answer to where, Jesus replies: >“You do not know me or my Father. If you knew me, you would know my Father also.” Why did Jesus respond with who (about identity/relationship) rather than answering the where they asked? Was this a deliberate redirection of their misunderstanding, or is there a deeper theological reason for this shift in focus?