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?

Speaking from a mormon mentality. But not necessarily a member. Looking for ideas from all Christian denominations. The mormons preach in the pearl of great price, that in the pre earth life, all of humanity gathered to discuss the plan of salvation with god. Lucifer and Jesus came forward and shared their thoughts. Lucifers plan was ultimately shot down and it is said he became prideful and was cast out. Some of the other angels followed him etc etc. My question is this. If "all good things come from god" as said by mormon prophets, then how was an angel in heaven able to experience pride and turn away from god before being subject to the "natural man" state of temptation? And second, if in order for God's plan to work, Adam and eve had to partake of the apple and give into sin, then SATAN HAD TO BE PART OF THE PLAN. Therefore God orchestrated it. Which in turn makes god responsible for creating something evil right? Asking for answers from all views. Against mormonism for mormonism, whatver your thoughts are.

Is the *esse* that perfected the humanity of the Word, common to all three Persons of the Blessed Trinity or to only the Word? I ask because the divine *esse* is identical to the divine nature. And the term "divine nature" could be understood in two senses. In one sense, it refers to all three Persons of the Blessed Trinity. In another sense, it refers to a particular Person of the Blessed Trinity, which is in this case the Word. Or is it the case that it's both depending on which sense is used?

"Sanctified Unity Ecclesiology" was a phrase used in a couple of comments on Stack about seven years ago. One person asked what the O.P. meant by it. The response was that it is a name given for the pursuit of attaining Christian unity, while seeking to harmonize divergent views. In the OPs question there were answers with premillennial and dispensational views (which has nothing to do with this question here). The OP was happy to consider both them and amillennial and non-dispensational views. Sanctified Unity Ecclesiology was said to be one of “various tools of interpretation for understanding the scriptures.” Searching on-line only brought up links and books on the doctrine of ecclesiology and the doctrine of sanctification. I found nothing about “the pursuit of attaining Christian unity while seeking to harmonise divergent views.” Can anyone explain what this, as a title, has sprung from, and how it is used as a tool to interpret the Bible, plus whether there are any particular denominations involved in this? There is a p.d.f. with this link from a newsletter giving a review of a book on Early Holiness-Pentecostalism 1880-1909 by Joseph L. Thomas, "Perfect Harmony". The review gives that very phrase. https://urbanatheologicalseminary.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/201409-The-Flame.pdf Thanks to Grateful Disciple for providing this.

Here's a debate between Hugh Ross of "Reasons to Believe" and Ken Ham. These men are popular spokesmen for each of Old Earth and Young Earth Creationism, respectively. In the hour-long discussion, Ken repeatedly shuts down any use of passages other than Genesis to get information about the details of creation. For example, he didn't want to talk about how Job (9:8) or Psalms (104:2) speak of God "stretching the heavens" Setting aside the whole YEC/OEC debate for the moment, is there a biblical reason to limit creation-detail information to the book of Genesis?

The passage reads: > [Ephesians 5:18-21 NASB] 18 And do not get drunk with wine, in which there is debauchery, **but be filled with the Spirit**, 19 speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your hearts to the Lord; 20 always giving thanks for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to our God and Father; 21 and subject yourselves to one another in the fear of Christ. My modern-day interpretation of verse 18, *“And do not get drunk with wine, in which there is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit,”* would be this: Instead of chasing a dopamine rush or neurochemical high through alcohol, drugs, opioids, or any other addictive behavior (whether food, sex, pornography, gambling, or the like), seek to be filled with the Spirit. The one who is filled with the Spirit experiences a holy satisfaction that immeasurably surpasses alcohol, drugs, food, sex, psychedelics, or any combination of fleshly indulgences. In other words, I see Ephesians 5:18-21 as a spiritually challenging passage because it seems to urge the Christian to pursue a deep, Spirit-filled state, a profound transformation of affections and emotions that far exceeds any earthly intoxication. I personally picture this spiritual state as vastly superior to the strongest dopamine-driven highs of substances such as alcohol, cocaine, ecstasy, methamphetamines, or any other stimulant the world offers. Furthermore, in verses 19-21 the apostle sets forth several practices. What is not immediately clear, however, is whether these should be understood as *manifestations* (that is, consequences) of being filled with the Spirit, or rather as *means* (that is, practices that foster or open the way toward being filled). With this in mind, I am seeking an **overview of Protestant interpretations** of Ephesians 5:18-21 concerning the lived Christian experience of being filled with the Spirit. In particular, I am asking: - How do Protestants compare the experience of being filled with the Spirit to indulgence in alcohol, drugs, or other dopamine-releasing behaviors? - How do Protestants understand and seek to obey Paul’s command to be filled with the Spirit? ----------- NOTE. You can read parallel commentaries by Biblical scholars on Ephesians 5:18 here: https://biblehub.com/commentaries/ephesians/5-18.htm

Although the Eastern Orthodox Church does not maintain inherited guilt, as does the Roman Catholic Church, it does maintain that mankind bears the consequences of Adam’s sin, and that those consequences involve physical corruption and death. But does the Orthodox Church also maintain that man’s tendency to sin is worse post‐Fall than pre‐Fall, being inherited from Adam? Does the Eastern Orthodox Church believe that humans inherited an inward tendency to sin (sin nature) from Adam that Adam himself acquired only after the Fall? Or would the Eastern Orthodox Church believe that man’s inherent tendency to sin is roughly the same as that of Adam and Eve’s?

How did the Gift of the Holy Ghost operate before Christ came? In particular, I'm wondering how it operated among the ancient Jewish people, who only had the Aaronic priesthood, and therefore would not be able to give the gift of the holy ghost.

Two people in their 80s have fallen in love and are sexually attracted to each other. Both are widows and do not want to marry again.

1 Corinthians 8:9-13 (NIV): >Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not become a stumbling block to the weak. For if someone with a weak conscience sees you, with all your knowledge, eating in an idol’s temple, won’t that person be emboldened to eat what is sacrificed to idols? So this weak brother or sister, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. When you sin against them in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother or sister to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause them to fall. It is clear that eating meat sacrificed to idols is not a sin. But it could lead other Christians to do so too, and as a result they would be destroyed? Or fall into sin? Is Paul implying that it will lead them into other sins? Or just that they will think they are sinning (when in fact they are not) and will feel bad, and we should be mindful of this? That they think that they will be destroyed (when in fact they won't be)? Why did Paul say these people have a weak conscience? Don't they have an over active conscience?

I have the 2012 edition of the New American Bible published by Catholic Bible Press. It's rather interesting in that, the Old Testament, this translation doesn't use quotation marks when God speaks, but there are quotation marks for human speech. For instance Genesis 1:3 says > Then God said: Let there be light, and there was light. whereas Exodus 3:11 reads > But Moses said to God, "Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh and bring the Israelites out of Egypt?" The juxtaposition is especially striking in passages such as Exodus 3 wherein there is a dialogue between God and a man. As some have pointed out in comments, there are some translations that do not have quotations anywhere. But the NAB uses quotation marks for speech of humans and angels, only not for God. I'm curious what the reason for this is. In the New Testament however they do include quotation marks, for instance in John 12:28 > ...Then a voice came from heaven, "I have glorified it and will glorify it again."

Abraham lied about his wife, and Rahab told the soldiers that the Israel spies had already left, and *yet* they seemed to be blessed. But when Ananias and Sapphira lied about the price of sold property they were executed for it by God. God even told Gideon (in Judges 7:16-22) how to deceive the Midianites, sending them fleeing for their lives. **Is it inconsistent for God to punish some of us for lying, bless others, and even instruct Gideon to deceive the Midianites?**

The verse reads (KJV): > “And he shall stand and feed in the strength of the LORD, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God; and they shall abide: for now shall he be great unto the ends of the earth.” I understand this verse is tied to the prophecy of the Messiah being born in Bethlehem. However, the wording “**his** God” raises questions for me in the context of the Trinity. I am following Chuck Smith's Blue Letter Bible (verse by verse commentary) but he doesn’t address this phrasing. Matthew Henry's touches on it, suggesting that the Messiah “speaks with God’s authority,” referencing Matthew 7:28 (“because he was teaching them as one who had authority”). This seems related to other biblical patterns where God’s people or godly figures are “called by God’s name,” such as Daniel 1:19, Jeremiah 15:16, Jeremiah 14:9, Isaiah 43:6, and Acts 15:17. Another example is Exodus 23:21, where the angel (or Jesus, if seen as a Christophany) “carries God’s name.” I also understand that Jesus can address God as “My God” (Matthew 27:46), but in Micah, the author doesn’t seem concerned about drawing a strong distinction between the Messianic figure and God. I would greatly appreciate insight into this phrasing in Micah 5:4 — why does it say “His God”? What theological or textual reasons might explain it? Thank you in advance.

Some Christians identify as non-denominational and intentionally avoid affiliating with a specific church tradition or denomination. At the same time, Scripture speaks of the “fellowship of the Holy Spirit” (e.g., 2 Corinthians 13:14) and the unity of believers in Christ. How do non-denominational Christians understand and live out this fellowship of the Holy Spirit, given their rejection of denominational structures? Do they view fellowship as primarily spiritual and individual, or do they still see it as expressed in organized gatherings with other believers? I am particularly interested in perspectives from those who identify as non-denominational or have studied their theological approach.

I've been going to Latin Mass on and off for a while and noticed that some people have adopted as some sort of meme a habit of bowing when the priest passes by and genuflecting when the processional cross passes by. I am personally, an obstinate stubborn sort of fool who won't adopt any practice, no matter how pious, unless it is explained to me personally. (I never dipped my hand in holy water until I heard a homily about it in my teens.) So, I'd really like to know whether or not this is a good, true and beautiful practice or just some Latin LARPer accretion which I would be best to avoid. Furthermore, if it is a good thing to do for TLM, should I do this during the *Novus Ordo* Mass? Why or why not?

[Another user](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/123855) posted a link to a group calling themselves the "Voice of Elijah". On the surface, they appear to be a not-obviously-remarkable Christian group aside from frequently referring to something they call "The Apostolic Teaching", which they claim was "long since lost by the Church" but "is once again available to those with ears to hear". However, it is not at all obvious from their site what this teaching *is*. What is this teaching? Does it differ from mainstream Christianity, and if so, in what way?

2 Thessalonians 2:9-12 (ESV) says: >"The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deceptions for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. **Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness**." My question is: why would God want to send a strong delusion and why would he want people who do not believe to be led further astray? In my mind it doesn't make sense for it to be about simply being condemning the unbelieving because their unbelief already discredits them from heaven, why would they need to be led further astray? Does anybody know of any hypothesis as to why God would send such a strong delusion?

In North America (and possibly some other Western nations), fear and shame has to some extent prevailed because of the MeToo movement's fight against sexual harassment and assault. All the news stories about Jeffrey Epstein and Harvey Weinstein, and in the North American Christian church, Ravi Zacharias and Robert Morris have made fear-mongering and the weaponizing of shame far more worse. Therefore, is (2 Corinthians 13:12 and 1 Corinthians 16:20)".... Greet one another with a holy kiss," anachronistic in North America's 21st century time period? Related Postings: [What is the meaning of "a holy kiss" in "greet one another with a holy kiss,” in 1 Corinthians 16:20?](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/81739/what-is-the-meaning-of-a-holy-kiss-in-greet-one-another-with-a-holy-kiss-1)

If the Catholic Church acquired ChatGPT, could the chatbot hear confessions? Or does Catholic Doctrine mandate that a human priest must hear all confessions?