I wonder what the significance is of Jesus having died for our sins, considering that he is God, or at least having known to be God's son. To me right now, that act would have been more significant if Jesus did not believe in an afterlife, let alone believe that he had a significant position in heaven. I am imagining a boss of a company, that decided to also start an internship in that same company. He then lets himself be fired from the internship in order to cover for workers in that department. In the end, he is still the boss and could start another internship, or even fire the person that fired him, or undo the firing entirely. I hope my point is clear, and hope for insight.

In *A Grief Observed* ([pdf here](https://www.samizdat.qc.ca/arts/lit/PDFs/GriefObserved_CSL.pdf)) , Lewis makes reference to God as a clown (page 7): > And this separation, I suppose, waits for all. I have been thinking of H. and myself as peculiarly unfortunate in being torn apart. But presumably all lovers are. She once said to me, ‘Even if we both died at exactly the same moment, as we lie here side by side, it would be just as much a separation as the one you’re so afraid of.’ Of course she didn’t *know*, any more than *I* do. But she was near death; near enough to make a good shot. She used to quote ‘lone into the Alone.’ She said it felt like that. And how immensely improbable that it should be otherwise! Time and space and body were the very things that brought us together; the telephone wires by which we communicated. Cut one off, or cut both off simultaneously. Either way, mustn’t the conversation stop? > > Unless you assume that some other means of communication — utterly different, yet doing the same work, would be immediately substituted. But then, what conceivable point could there be in severing the old ones? Is God a clown who whips away your bowl of soup one moment in order, next moment, to replace it with another bowl of the same soup? Even nature isn't such a clown as that. She never plays exactly the same tune twice. C. S. Lewis describes the loss of his wife in terms of their communication being severed upon her death before he expresses his frustration with God and his apparent arbitrariness in his dealings with mankind. Lewis assumes another type of communication other than time, space, and physicality (body) which brought he and Joy together but what could he (Lewis) have been possibly thinking regarding another type of connection? The soup analogy throws me a bit in attempting to follow his reasoning here. Could someone unravel his logic for me?

I want to know what are arguments that singing national anthems do not count as worship. Public perception and interpretation is not an issue, if public perception equates murdering child in womb by mother as form of freedom, abortion does not loses it status of sin. So, without using public perception and secular interpretation or popularity as argument, can it be proven why singing national anthems does not count to worship as there are even idols representing countries like Germania, Motherland Russia, Marianne, etc. This practice of representing justice, freedom as idols is Pagan. Whether, its popular does not mean it would lose its Pagan origins. Even after this why would a state require praise by its subjects to sing its glory daily in some way or form. Basically, I am seeking for any Christian sect answer that has zero issues with singing national anthem. (So, not a sect directed question but still why?) **Does present acceptance of anthems also imply approval of anthems in past which involved praise of pagan gods in ancient times? Presently, they are of secular nature** (Not a slippery slope even in World War II there was anthem for worship of imperial Japanese emperor, ignorance to historic facts would not justify a cause despite its popularity)

There has historically been opposition by Fundamentalists to the "Social Gospel" presented by Liberal churches in the early 20th Century, and an emphasis placed on the "Gospel of Grace" by Conservative denominations in response. Since both the Old Testament and the New Testament spoke of "social activism", and both Testaments spoke of "Faith for pleasing God", are these two Gospels simply ***two sides of the same coin***? [Zechariah 7:9-10, James 1:27] Are they both two different facets of the grand Kingdom of God? Or are they mutually incompatible? One or the other being "a different Gospel" Paul warned about in Galatians 1? If compatible, how do they relate? [And by extension, how then can liberal and conservative churches relate?] Is the word "social" as referring to social reform in the Bible, to be only redefined in modern times, as synonymous with "secular"? Can there be a Christian social reform as well?

I feel silly asking this because I feel like it should be obvious. Why did Jesus need to die for our sins? I am asking because this part of Christianity still confuses me. I thought Judaism taught that we will go to heaven if we believe in Judaism, but after a purification (by fire??) of our earthly sins. So Jesus' dying also guaranteed that we would go to heaven, but weren't believers guaranteed entry into heaven to begin with? So does that mean that Jesus sacrificed himself on the cross so we would not have to go through the purification process? Is this the reason he died on the cross? Otherwise we all could have just become Jews and went through the purification process to go to heaven. Please help me understand what I am missing because I feel this can't be right.

In Apostles' Creed , the name of Pontius Pilate is forever associated with the infamy of being Jesus Christ's persecutor. >I believe in God, the Father almighty, >creator of heaven and earth. > >I believe in Jesus Christ, God’s only Son, our Lord, >who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, >born of the Virgin Mary, >**suffered under Pontius Pilate,** >was crucified, died, and was buried; >he descended into hell. >On the third day he rose again; >he ascended into heaven, >he is seated at the right hand of the Father, >and he will come to judge the living and the dead. > >I believe in the Holy Spirit, >the holy catholic and apostolic Church, >the communion of saints, >the forgiveness of sins, >the resurrection of the body, >and the life everlasting. Amen. My question is, why did the authors of the Apostles' Creed include Pontius Pilate as the one who killed Jesus, and not Judas Iscariot or the Pharisees? From this resource I found (which I am not sure presents a convincing argument), quoting Fr. Hardon, it is because > it has been “apostate Christians who have used the State to crucify > the martyrs of Christianity.” > > Pilate symbolizes the sufferings and persecution of the Church, which > is the Mystical Body of Christ. That doesn't seem to explain much. Even if this explanation is true, one can still ask why did the *Apostle's Creed use Pilate to symbolizes the sufferings and persecution of the Church? Why not use someone or the Roman Empire else*? So, why did the authors of the Apostle's Creed pen Pontius Pilate as the one who killed Jesus, and not Judas Iscariot or the Pharisees?

The phrase “May God save the Queen” (or “...the King,” depending on the reigning monarch) is famously part of the British national anthem and is regularly used in royal ceremonies and public prayers. It reflects a deep-rooted tradition in the United Kingdom, where the monarch also holds the title of Supreme Governor of the Church of England. According to Anglican theology, what is the basis for invoking God’s saving help on the monarch? How does this relate to Anglican understandings of divine providence, the God-ordained nature of civil authority (e.g., Romans 13:1–7), and the Church’s duty to intercede for rulers (e.g., 1 Timothy 2:1–2)? Does this phrase carry a spiritual significance regarding the monarch’s role, or is it mainly a formal civic expression? I’m looking for answers grounded in Anglican theological thought and liturgical practice, rather than purely historical or political explanations.

> **[John 20:29 ESV]** Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” > > **[Matthew 16:4 ESV]** An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah.” So he left them and departed. > > **[Romans 8:24–25 ESV]** 24 For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience. > > **[2 Corinthians 5:6-7 ESV]** 6 So we are always of good courage. We know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord, 7 **for we walk by faith, not by sight**. Some Christians cite passages like these to argue that we should not pursue experiences but should believe purely by faith, without seeing. Yet this raises the question of what exactly counts as "seeing" in the sense that Jesus seems to caution against. The Bible contains numerous examples that could easily be described as forms of "seeing," and yet there appears to be nothing wrong with those instances. For example: * The Apostle Paul's conversion, in which he saw Jesus on the road to Damascus (Acts 9) * The Apostle Paul's visit to the third heaven (2 Corinthians 12) * The transfiguration of Jesus, witnessed by Peter, James, and John (Matthew 17) * Stephen's vision of Jesus standing at the right hand of God, which led to his martyrdom (Acts 7:54–60) * Peter's vision of a great sheet descending with all kinds of animals (Acts 10) * Peter being rescued from jail by an angel (Acts 12:3–19) * The Apostle John's vision of the Son of Man (Revelation 1) * Jesus's response to John the Baptist, pointing to visible miracles as confirmation of his identity (Luke 7:22): *“Go and tell John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the poor have good news preached to them.”* * The early church's experiences of powerful outpourings of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2, Acts 4) * Joel's prophecy about dreams, visions, and the outpouring of the Spirit (Joel 2:28) * And others. There seems, then, to be a tension between two ideas. On one hand, some passages appear to warn against a kind of "seeing" that runs contrary to faith. On the other hand, the Bible includes many examples of "seeing" — visions, revelations, and experiences — especially among believers in the New Testament. **So my question is: is there any agreement or consensus among Christians about what kind of "seeing" Jesus warns against (i.e., the sort of "seeing" that undermines faith), and whether there are other forms of "seeing" or experience that are legitimate, valid, and even desirable to pursue?**

Hosea 3:4-5 says that there will be a period of time that the children of Israel will have no king, nor sacrifices, nor *efod* or *terafim*. It also promises a restoration of Israel after this period: > כִּ֣י ׀ יָמִ֣ים רַבִּ֗ים יֵֽשְׁבוּ֙ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל אֵ֥ין מֶ֙לֶךְ֙ וְאֵ֣ין שָׂ֔ר וְאֵ֥ין זֶ֖בַח וְאֵ֣ין מַצֵּבָ֑ה וְאֵ֥ין אֵפ֖וֹד וּתְרָפִֽים > אַחַ֗ר יָשֻׁ֙בוּ֙ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל וּבִקְשׁוּ֙ אֶת־יְהֹוָ֣ה אֱלֹהֵיהֶ֔ם וְאֵ֖ת דָּוִ֣יד מַלְכָּ֑ם וּפָחֲד֧וּ אֶל־יְהֹוָ֛ה וְאֶל־טוּב֖וֹ בְּאַחֲרִ֥ית הַיָּמִֽים > For the children of *Yisra᾽el* shall remain for many days, having no king, nor prince, nor sacrifice, nor pillar, nor *efod*, nor *terafim* > afterwards the children of *Yisra᾽el* shall return, and seek the Lord their G-d, and David their king; and shall come trembling to the Lord and his goodness in the latter days (Koren T'nakh) What time period is being mentioned here? There have been a few times where there has been no king of Israel, which is Hosea referring to according to Protestants?

In many ways, Dispensational and Lutheran theology are opposite to one another. For instance, Lutherans tend to revere church history while dispensationalists tend to disparage it; dispensationalists clearly divide the spiritual and physical, while Lutherans see them overlap in the sacraments, etc. So my question might seem absurd on the face of it. However, I have noticed one interesting similarity: in discussions with other Protestants, both groups commonly make as a core point to their argument the accusation that their opponent is not sufficiently *literal* in their interpretation of Scripture. For Dispensationalists, their main difference with other Christians is in their interpretation of the prophecies and covenants in the Bible. They take the prophecies and covenant promises literally and accuse others of unnecessarily spiritualizing. For Lutherans, their main difference from other Protestants is in their understanding of the Sacraments. They take what the Bible says about Baptism and Communion literally, while accusing other Christians of unnecessarily spiritualizing. **The similarity in the kind of argument is striking to me, which is why I'm curious if anyone holds to a Dispensational interpretation of prophecy but a Lutheran interpretation of Sacraments.** I haven't heard of it, but it seems like someone who really sticks to their guns on the "we must take all things literally" might have no other choice. Or alternatively, someone who finds that argument persuasive in one context might find it persuasive in the other too. Of course, this kind of argument is fairly run-of-the-mill in Christian disagreements, but it's orders of magnitude more common in these two contexts. I have not seen it so heavily used for any other distinctive opinion, except Young Earth Creationism, and I already know there's a lot of YEC in both Dispensationalism and in Lutheranism. (And to be perfectly clear, I'm not asking whether Lutherans or Dispensationalists are correct on either issue.)

## Background: It has been a Christian belief that Jesus would return to Earth since the earliest days of the religion. The 1st century Pauline epistle to the Thessalonians says: > For the Lord himself **will descend from heaven** with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God *- 1 Thessalonians 4:16–17* The 4th century Nicene Creed contains the second coming as a creed of belief: > **He will come again in glory** to judge the living and the dead, > and his kingdom will have no end. Christians have also taught that this second coming will be when several as of yet unfulfilled messianic prophecies will be fulfilled by Jesus. Justin Martyr makes this point in the 2nd century *Dialogue with Trypho*: > And it was prophesied by Jacob the patriarch that there would be **two advents** of Christ, and that in the first He would suffer, and that after He came there would be neither prophet nor king in your nation (I proceeded), and that the nations who believed in the suffering Christ would look for His future appearance ... (*- Ch. 52 Dialog with Trypho*, emphasis added) > But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there **will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, [as] the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare** ... (*- Ch. 80 Dialog with Trypho*, emphasis added) ## Unfulfilled prophecies: *Dialogue* cites one of these. These unfulfilled messianic prophecies generally (since not all Christians agree that these will occur in the future, but breezing through Christian literature indicates most believe one or more of these will occur post second-coming) include: - Building the Third Temple, restoration of temple services (Ezekiel 37:26–28, Ezekiel 46) - Ingathering of the Jews to Israel (Isaiah 43:5–6) - World peace and end of war (Isaiah 2:4) - Universal knowledge of the God of Israel, cessation of religious teaching (Zechariah 14:9, Jeremiah 31:34) ## Second coming? What are the indicators in the unfulfilled prophecies that they will occur in a 'second coming'? How do second coming believers (specifically those who believe some messianic prophecies will be fulfilled in the second coming) differentiate the second coming from a failure to fulfill these prophecies?

My father passed away this week after a long illness. His faith would be described from a distance as a Sedevacanist which you would describe some of my siblings as as well. However up close I believe there to be quite a divergence in their beliefs. For example the church where my siblings pray, my father refused to even walk into it and has not attended any of his grandchildrens' Christenings or Confirmations. My father prayed by himself and had a altar in his room. I dont think he attended a Mass (apart from weddings, funerals) this century. Then the grave that he bought a few years ago is in a humanist graveyard - it's a field, there is no consecrated ground. His funeral wishes are a small service which he said could be at the funeral home, followed by prayers read by a friend as he is buried. My siblings have said that this is an absolute no to all of his wishes and that he has to have a Catholic funeral with Mass (probably at the church he refused to even step foot in) and buried in consecrated ground. They are saying because he received the last rites from their siblings' priest, that was his way at the end of ripping up his prior plans. So here is the question: **Is there a branch of Sedevacanists that would reject the need for the low Mass funeral and consecrated ground?** Was he dying with a clear conscience in regards to his funeral arrangements? I ask this as an agnostic who just wants to follow his father's wishes. Even though I don't believe them myself I want to respect his beliefs.

Until now I have found the following end times Bible passages: - Daniel 7,8,10,11,12 - Joel 2:28-32 - Matthew 24 - Mark 13 - Luke 21:5-36 - 2 Peter 3:1-13 - 1 Corinthians 15:12-58 - 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 - 1 Thessalonians 5:1-11 - 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12 - 1 Timothy 4:1-5 - 2 Timothy 3:1-9 - Revelation 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 Are there any others?

### Introduction In the Hebrew Bible, the prophet Elijah is described as being taken bodily into heaven: 2 Kings 2:11: > “As they continued walking and talking, suddenly a chariot of fire appeared with horses of fire, and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.” Later prophecy anticipates his return before the coming of the day of the LORD: Malachi 3:23–24 (Hebrew numbering; 4:5–6 in most English translations): > “Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and dreadful day of the LORD comes. He will turn the hearts of fathers to their children, and the hearts of children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the land with a curse.” In Jewish tradition, this verse gave rise to the belief that Elijah would return as a forerunner of the Messiah. This is reflected in classical sources such as *Mishnah Eduyot* 8:7 (“Elijah will come to make peace in the world”) and *Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer* 43, which depicts Elijah announcing the coming redemption. The New Testament also seems to contain this expectation. Jesus identifies John the Baptist as one who “is Elijah who was to come” (Matthew 11:14; cf. 17:10–13), though John himself denies being Elijah (John 1:21). Christian traditions have variously interpreted this tension. ### Question How do Protestant theological traditions understand the prophecy of Elijah’s return in Malachi 4:5–6? Specifically: - Do mainstream Protestant interpretations hold that the prophecy was fulfilled in John the Baptist (a typological or spiritual fulfillment)? - Do some view it as partially fulfilled, expecting a future literal return of Elijah before the Second Coming of Christ? - Is it regarded as entirely future, awaiting a physical reappearance of Elijah in eschatological events (e.g., linked to the “two witnesses” of Revelation 11)? - Or something else?

What does the Bible teach about lying to protect people's feelings? If a loved one asks you a question and you know the truth would hurt him/her, what does the Bible say you should do in this situation? The truth, said cruelly, cuts just as deeply as a lie. When does the truth stop being an ideal worth striving for and just become an excuse to be mean?

Full disclosure: I am not a Christian. It occurred to me that one of the symbols used to represent Christian belief is that of Jesus depicted suffocating to death on a cross. I suspect that Bible does not describe Jesus explaining that the apparatus of execution by suffocation in Rome should be used by his followers as an idol to represent belief in Jesus. When, where, why, how, and who came up with the practice of Christians adopting and wearing the symbol of death by suffocation on a cross as a banner or jewelry or images to represent belief in Christianity? Did Jesus ever instruct people to wear a symbol of death by suffocation to represent belief in Jesus?

How long were East and West united after the Council of Florence (1439)?

1. [Anastasis • Resurrection](https://dzen.ru/a/ZXNFALUrMW9CfeYc) https://www.pravenc.ru/text/2459015.html 2. I am not really sure if this is Christian. Some say it is. https://herculaneum.uk/Ins%205/Herculaneum%205%2015%20p4.htm 3. https://www.livescience.com/42761-ancient-church-mosaics-uncovered-israel.html 3. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croix_(christianisme) 4. https://www.pravenc.ru/text/2459015.html 5. [Mosaics of the Basilica, mid-6th century CE, inside the Memorial Church of Moses, Mount Nebo, Jordan](https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mosaics_of_the_Basilica,_mid-6th_century_CE,_inside_the_Memorial_Church_of_Moses,_Mount_Nebo,_Jordan.jpg) Why are there so many cross variants, and are there ancient writers that describes them? Why do we see so rare in the early time the standard latin cross without enlarged ends? But instead we see with enlarged ends. Thanks in advance.

Both men prayed together (not separately) in a public service of worship in the Sistine Chapel. Buckingham Palace said this is "a significant moment" in relations between the Catholic Church and the Church of England, of which Charles is Supreme Governor. My question is, **“In what way(s) will this event be significant for both religious groups?”** This question is about how this one-off event, where two world leaders of two religious groups pray together in a public service of worship might mark something “significant”, either with respect to the past, or looking to the future.

Is **Hebron** referred to **Hebrew**? In **Genesis 39:17** → *The Hebrew Servant* → Here Joseph is called as a Hebrew. So this is my understanding that → Joseph's great grandfather Abraham was from Hebron → referred to Hebrews → often used with Israelites. It's usually refers to the descents of Abraham. **Hebrew** is → geographical reference whereas **Israelite** is → lineage reference Please correct me if I am wrong.