Reformed tradition teaches that human beings are [totally depraved](https://www.focusonthefamily.com/family-qa/the-fall-of-man-and-total-depravity/) , and cannot even come to faith without God's assistance. Their *reason* rejects God's supremacy, their *will* refuses God's invitation, and their *emotion* recoils against God's goodness. This is because human beings are born "in Adam", who "died" spiritually because of the Fall and we live under the power of sin. But once God "breathes" spiritual life into the elect, and the elect then comes to faith and becomes conscious of his/her new status in Christ, the elect is now in the *sanctification* stage working with the grace of the Holy Spirit to become more and more reformed in character. Then after death, in the elect's *glorification* stage I assume he/she will live eternally like the perfect human Jesus with *full functioning reason, will, and emotion as originally created in the image of God*, similar to how Jesus lived on earth without original sin (see [Nathaniel's answer to another question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/61910/10672)) . My question is: **since we are in the "*already, but not yet*" stage, how do we understand the causes and the nature of progressive recovery / healing in our reason, will, and emotion, considering that the *telos* of our redemption is to go back to the original design as exhibited in the perfect humanity of Jesus?** In other words, since the goal of God's redemptive work is to "Un-Fall" us, since we are *already* justified, and since the clarion call is to "imitate Jesus", wouldn't it make sense to expect *palpable* and *measurable* progress in our earthly experience of our reason, will, and emotion? If so, then naturally we seek to understand the *theological causes* and the *practices* that engender those effects. I would like a documented answer quoting a **21st century scholarly (published) work** of a Reformed theologian who **explicitly links** sanctification to *progressive restoration* in reason, will, and emotion, by describing how sanctification works toward the healing, in the Reformed tradition.

The subject of the "calvinist" Patriarch of the Orthodox Church comes up from time to time, with the 2 sides presenting conflicting versions of events. Here is what I am certain of already. 1. Lucaris was viewed as having heretical beliefs as viewed by the rest of the Orthodox Church at that time. 2. There was a tension between the Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant faiths. 3. There were other ottomans who didn't like Lucaris. The Execution was deceptive from the start, as Lucaris was taken away as if to be banished. But later out of sight of the majority of people they strangled him with a bowstring. --- #### Question: Are there any sources or evidence that indicate one of the 4 parties mentioned were directly involved? Reason: A common assertion is that the orthodox church was attempting to remove him at "any cost", though I can't find evidence to support that.

Revelation 13 speaks about the beast deceiving the world and causing people to receive the mark of the beast on their right hand or forehead. This raises the question of just how far-reaching Satan’s deception can be on a global scale. If the Bible warns that the entire world will be deceived into accepting the mark of the beast, does this imply that the devil can successfully promote widespread false beliefs and practices on a global level? How does Christian theology understand the devil’s power to deceive nations, especially considering the vast differences in cultures, languages, and political systems? How could Satan maneuver these differences to bring the whole world into unity under a single deception?

Genesis chapter 42 - 45 recount story of Joseph tricking his brothers who are in Egypt to buy grain, into going back and forth several times from Canaan to Egypt in an attempt exonerate themselves in the (feigned) accusation from Joseph of being a spy. Eventually Joesph reveals himself as their brother, and Jacob and his family move to Egypt as a result. Why did Joseph trick them in this way? I can think of only a few reasons: - He wanted to get all of his brothers and father back to Egypt before he revealed himself. - He distrusted his brothers, since they had tried to kill him, and sold him into slavery years prior to this event, he was trying to ascertain if his younger brother and father were in fact still alive. - He was punishing his brothers by making them suffer this way in an act of revenge. In any event the author of Genesis spends a lot of precipitous time and space recounting this deception, is there some cultural aspect to this that I am missing? Is there some context to the story that would reveal more about the characters involved or the nature of God or their relationship to him?

### Background Protestants believe that all scripture is infallible (that it is incapable of error) and that it is inspired by God (that it is God-breathed and the words of God). In 1st Corinthians 7:10-13 (NRSV) Paul gives two commands. In the first command, Paul says that it is "**from the Lord**". In the second command, Paul interestingly says that it comes from himself and "**not [from] the Lord**". > To the married **I give this command—not I but the Lord**—that the wife > should not separate from her husband 11 (but if she does separate, let > her remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband) and that > the husband should not divorce his wife. > > **To the rest I say—I and not the Lord**—that if any brother has a wife > who is an unbeliever and she consents to live with him, he should not > divorce her. And if any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever > and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce the husband. ### Question Do Protestants believe that the command that Paul explicitly says is "not from the Lord" is both infallible and inspired? Is this portion of 1st Corinthians considered scripture by Protestants?

About what ancient temples does Clement of Alexandria talk about in (Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 7.7.43–46) - (It sounds to be the pagan temples?) and additionally he mentions (facing the images) what are these images? - there seems to be similarity in the book - **De architectura Chapter V** As far as I know from what I have read it seems that God had only one temple - the Jerusalem Temple Deuteronomy 12:5-14; 1 Kings 9:3; 2 Chronicles 6:6; Psalm 132:13-14; 1 Kings 8:29-30; 2 Chronicles 6:20-21; and the Jewish prayed towards the Hollie of Holies in the temple, if I am not mistaken, this is towards the West when the person is in the Jerusalem Temple and pray towards the Hollie of Holies, this person may have faced West I think? The Jerusalem Temple had entrance from the East, so in the temple people may have prayed towards the West - towards the Hollie of Holies where I think was God's presence Leviticus 16:2; Exodus 25:22; Numbers 7:89; - I think that this was the reason the Jewish prayed towards the Jerusalem Temple - because of the Hollie of Holies where should have been God's presence? - if they turned to pray towards the East (Ezekiel 8:15-16) in the Jerusalem Temple they may have prayed turned with their backs to the Hollie of Holies (*Spiritually Jeremiah 32:31-33 and Physically Ezekiel 8:15-16*?) - where God's presence should have been? If I am wrong somewhere please let me know. (Clement here is talking about temples not single temple, so I assume that he is talking about the pagan temples. Also he says - "the most ancient temples looked towards the west" this is the opposite of the Jerusalem Temple that looked towards East since the entrance was from the East I think - if this is the case then why would any true Christian look to the pagan temples in order to be taught to pray towards the East facing the images ?) - ("the most ancient temples looked towards the west") - ("that people might be taught to turn to the east") - ("when facing the images") **(Comparing this with the pagan - De architectura CHAPTER V)** > CHapter V How the Temple should Face > > 1. **THE quarter toward which temples of the immortal gods ought to face** is to be determined on the principle that, if there is no reason to hinder and the choice is free, the temple and the statue placed in the cella **should face the western quarter of the sky**. This will enable those who approach the altar with offerings or sacrifices **to face the direction of the sunrise in facing the statue in the temple**, and thus those who are undertaking vows look **toward the quarter from which the sun comes forth,** and **likewise the statues themselves appear to be coming forth out of the east to look upon them as they pray and sacrifice.** > > 2. But if the nature of the site is such as to forbid this, then the principle of determining the quarter should be changed, so that the widest possible view of the city may be had from the sanctuaries of > the gods. > > - [The Ten Books of Architecture](https://www.chenarch.com/images/arch-texts/0000-Vitruvius-50BC-Ten-Books-of-Architecture.pdf) **Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 7.7.43–46;** > In correspondence with the manner of the sun's rising, prayers are > made looking towards the sunrise in the east. 2. Whence also the most > ancient temples looked towards the west,**(Pagan temples?)** **(Maybe - (De > architectura CHAPTER V))** 3. that people might be taught to turn to the > east when facing the images. Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 7.7.43–46; **The book:** [Clement of Alexandria *The Stromata*](https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/clement-stromata-book7.html) - [The Stromata (Book VII)](https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02107.htm) (Should I understand that Clement of Alexandria here is teaching that the Christian is taught to pray towards East by the orientation of the pagan temples?)(So the pagan temples are pointed as reason?) **If this is the case what could we say about** **2 Cor. 6:15-18** > **15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial?** or **what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?** > **16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols?** for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in > them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my > people. > **17 Wherefore come out from among them,** and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you. 18 > And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, > saith the Lord Almighty. How should we understand this. - is this practice pagan or Christian? - is it appropriate for a Christian to practice it or is it not? Having in mind Matthew 15:9; Matthew 15:13; Matthew 7:19. The most wide and accepted interpretation today I think is the second coming from East as reason for praying towards the East. But this interpretation seems to be not that ancient, I have yet not found ancient church father that mentions the second coming from East as reason for the worship towards the East - since Basil and the rest before him does not mention that Christ will come from East and that this is the reason to pray towards the East. It seems that this interpretation gets widespread after John Damascus, but I am not sure. Maybe he was influenced by the Didascalia from probably around 4c.AD. But I still can not find any ancient church father that points to the Didascalia or mentions this interpretation, the first that mentions this is I think John Damascus after the Didascalia.

Revelation 13:18 (KJV) — *“Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.”* Some Christians point to persistent physical and time-related patterns in creation and human measurement systems that seem to feature “666,” such as: - **Earth’s axial tilt: 90 ∘ − 23.4 ∘ ≈ 66.6 ∘ 90 ∘ −23.4 ∘ ≈66.6 ∘** - **Earth’s orbital speed: ≈ 66,600 mph (depending on units and rounding)** - **Calendar division: 6 × 60 × 60 seconds in a day’s time measurement pattern** - **Barcodes: The guard bars in UPC codes resemble the digit “6” in the barcode system, producing a “666” pattern** Since Revelation calls believers to “count” the number, could such existing patterns be indicators that we are already living in the “beast system”? Or should these be understood as coincidences or unrelated to the prophecy?

1. Why did they enlarge the ends of the crosses in early time from the time of Constantine, since we see coins with such cross? Thanks in advance. [Amazing colorful mosaics at the basilica of Almyrida, of the early byzantine era (6th century bC), in Apokoronas, Crete, Greece.](https://www.alamy.com/amazing-colorful-mosaics-at-the-basilica-of-almyrida-of-the-early-byzantine-era-6th-century-bc-in-apokoronas-crete-greece-image568479165.html) [Croix Christianisme (Wikipedia)](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croix_(christianisme)) [The Christogram in the mosaic may look like a cross, but it's actually more like a "chi rho" symbol, which puts together the first two captial letters in the Greek word for Christ.](https://www.livescience.com/42761-ancient-church-mosaics-uncovered-israel.html) https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/see-the-greek-biblical-inscription-embedded-in-an-ancient-mosaic-floor-discovered-in-israel-180985849/ https://wowcappadocia.com/aidesim-mosaic-basilica.html https://www.dailysabah.com/history/2017/03/03/1600-year-old-byzantine-mosaics-in-kilis-to-attract-tourists [A Church Beyond Compare - The Nea Church, or the Basilica of Saint Mary the New in Jerusalem (543-614)](https://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2017/11/a-church-beyond-compare-nea-church-or.html) https://www.wildwinds.com/coins/ric/constantine/t.html I mean this - the enlarged ends of the crosses. It looks like the ankh and the equal sided cross from the near east have enlarged ends, not exactly sure why, there is similarity. https://www.pinterest.com/pin/353884483203978736/ https://www.wildwinds.com/coins/ric/constantine/t.html How can there be sol invictus with Christian cross? [Ancient Numismatic Coins](http://numismatics.org/ocre/id/ric.7.tic.45?lang=hu)

I've heard that the Bible's division into verses was made later than the division into chapters. So, whose translation firstly came up with this system of chapter divisions that we have today?

In the following verse, did Jesus in fact say the word, the name of God, that no Jew would dare to say aloud at that time? > As soon then as he had said unto them, I am [he], they went backward, > and fell to the ground (John 18:6) If yes, why was He not tried for that before the high priest (there were so many witnesses after all)? If not, why then so many say that here He was quoting Exodus 3:14 (which means He DID pronounce the forbidden word)?

I just read https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/52081/117426 and felt inspired to ask the same question from a Protestant perspective, which also relates closely to my previous question [here](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/108199/117426) . According to Wikipedia, the *[Philokalia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philokalia)* is described as follows: > The Philokalia (Ancient Greek: φιλοκαλία, lit. 'love of the > beautiful', from φιλία philia "love" and κάλλος kallos "beauty") is "a > collection of texts written between the 4th and 15th centuries by > spiritual masters" of the mystical hesychast tradition of the Eastern Orthodox Church. They were originally written for the guidance and instruction of monks in "the practice of the contemplative life". The collection was compiled in the 18th century by Nicodemus the Hagiorite and Macarius of Corinth based on the codices 472 (12th century), 605 (13th century), 476 (14th century), 628 (14th century) and 629 (15th century) from the library of the monastery of Vatopedi, Mount Athos. > > Although these works were individually known in the monastic culture of Greek Orthodox Christianity before their inclusion in the Philokalia, their presence in this collection resulted in a much wider readership due to its translation into several languages. The earliest translations included a Church Slavonic language translation of selected texts by Paisius Velichkovsky (Dobrotolublye, Добротолю́бїе) in 1793, a Russian translation by Ignatius Bryanchaninov in 1857, and a five-volume translation into Russian (Dobrotolyubie) by Theophan the Recluse in 1877. There were subsequent Romanian, Italian, French, German, Spanish, Finnish and Arabic translations. OrthodoxWiki.org also has an [article](https://orthodoxwiki.org/Philokalia) on the *Philokalia*: > The Philokalia is a collection of writings, mostly centering on practicing the virtues and spiritual living in a monastery. In recent decades it has become an important resource for Orthodox Christians, laity and clergy alike, in personal living and in some ways has achieved status as a major secondary spiritual written resource (after the primary one, Holy Scripture) along with St. John Climacus' The Ladder of Divine Ascent. The original question aimed at Catholics says: > The absence of a "mysticism"-oriented text in Catholic Christianity > has always struck me. The *Philokalia* are an incredible source of > ascetic instructions for the believer who seeks communion with God. > > (1) In what consideration do Catholic Christians keep the Philokalia? > And, (2) is there a similar text in the Catholic tradition? I would like to ask similar questions of Protestants: 1. What do Protestants think of the spiritual teachings found in the *Philokalia*? 2. Are there Protestant traditions with teachings emphasizing ascetic practices and mystical spirituality?

I'm seeking to understand the theological distinctions between two significant concepts in Christianity: **Eastern Orthodox *theosis* (deification/divinization)** and **Protestant *sanctification***. While both terms describe a process of spiritual transformation and growth in the believer, my preliminary understanding suggests there are fundamental differences in their nature, scope, and the means by which they are understood to occur. Specifically, I'm interested in answers that address: 1. **Definitions:** A concise theological definition of both *theosis* and *sanctification* from within their respective traditions. 2. **Nature of the Process:** Is the transformation described by each tradition primarily ontological (a real change in being), forensic (a change in legal status before God), relational (a change in relationship with God), or some combination of these? 3. **Role of Grace and Human Effort:** How do grace and human effort (or synergy) factor into each process? 4. **Goal/Telos:** What is the ultimate aim or culmination of each process? What does a "theosified" or "sanctified" person look like from each perspective? 5. **Key Theological Differences:** What are the most crucial points of divergence between the two concepts? Are there areas of unexpected overlap? References to key theological sources or official teachings would be especially helpful.

We read in Mtt 16:13-16: > When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”. It is usual for people entering public life to introduce themselves , or to get the introduction done by someone else. We see John the Baptist introducing Jesus as the Lamb of God (Jn 1:29). We also see Jesus reading from Isiah and introducing himself as the Anointed One ( Lk 4:21). But Mtt 16 suggests that it was Peter who first acknowledged Jesus as Son of God, before which he had been known to the public by other attributes. My question therefore is : When did Jesus first introduce himself as Son of God ?

The GotQuestions article, [What is Hesychasm?](https://www.gotquestions.org/Hesychasm.html) , offers one Protestant perspective on the Eastern Orthodox practice: >Hesychasm is a form of [Christian mysticism](https://www.gotquestions.org/Christian-mysticism.html) found almost exclusively in [Eastern Orthodoxy](https://www.gotquestions.org/Eastern-Orthodox-church.html) , rising to popularity in Greece in the 1300s. Roman Catholicism and Protestant denominations have no meaningful equivalents to it. Hesychasm has many similarities to Buddhist concepts of meditation, but it maintains a Judeo-Christian framework, rather than a pantheistic one. The general idea in Hesychasm is to use contemplative prayer, particularly the repetition of “[the Jesus Prayer](https://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-Prayer.html),” as a means to **experience union with God**. This requires the Hesychast to block out all his senses and eliminate all his thoughts. > > Hesychasm is, supposedly, grounded in Jesus’ command in Matthew 6:6. There, Jesus refutes the ostentatious prayers of hypocrites who want to be seen praying in public. Instead, Jesus says, “Go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.” Hesychasts take Jesus’ reference to secret praying in an extreme and absolute sense. In particular, they believe that Jesus intended His followers to separate themselves from all sensory and intellectual inputs. In other words, “go into your room,” really means “go into yourself.” > > This withdrawal into oneself is accomplished by a form of repetitive [contemplative prayer](https://www.gotquestions.org/contemplative-prayer.html) . The Jesus Prayer is a short, liturgical chant very popular in Eastern Orthodoxy: Κύριε Ἰησοῦ Χριστέ, Υἱὲ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἐλέησόν με τὸν ἁμαρτωλόν (“Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner”). Hesychasts will repeat this prayer over and over, seeking to invoke the power of the name of God. As they do so, practitioners gradually cut off their perception of external stimuli and eliminate all stray thoughts. **The ultimate goal of this process is [theosis](https://www.gotquestions.org/theosis.html) , a personal unity with God**. > > ... > > Mysticism is based on the quest to “experience” God through the use of rituals or other techniques. All forms of mysticism are rooted in an assumption that God can only truly be “known” in some subjective or personal way. **Contrary to mysticism in general, and Hesychasm in particular, the Bible commands us to pray with a purpose and intent, not with a goal of washing out our own thoughts** (Philippians 4:6; John 16:23–24). Scripture also indicates that God can be known objectively—or else it would not be possible to “examine” or “test” our own faith (1 John 4:1; 2 Corinthians 13:5). > > **Jesus’ comment in Matthew 6:6 was never meant to be taken as a command to go “within ourselves.” It was and is simply a refutation of hypocritical and showy religious antics. While Hesychasm is not quite the same as Eastern meditative practices, it is neither biblical nor beneficial**. Does GotQuestions reflect the mainstream Protestant view on Hesychasm and the pursuit of union with God (theosis)? Is the idea of "experiencing" union with God, as understood in Eastern Orthodoxy, generally rejected by most Protestants? Are there branches of Protestantism that are more open to similar concepts of theosis or experiential union with God? Do any Protestant traditions embrace spiritual disciplines aimed at deepening one's experiential relationship with God?

A similar question has been asked here , but no details have been asked other than how Trinitarians interpret this verse. The top answer of the linked question talks about the Son being "eternally begotten" by the Father, and the Son *proceeding from the Father* (something I have not found in any of the Chalcedonian Creeds). My question is less about the Son's origin, but about the Father and the Son **sharing the same divine essence**. Thus, here is a more detailed question for this bible passage. Let me quote it first in its immediate context: > 24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and > believeth on him that sent me, hath **everlasting life**, and shall not > come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. > > 25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, > when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that > hear shall **live**. > > 26 *For* as **the Father hath life in himself**; so hath he ***given*** to the Son > to have life in himself; > > **John 5:24-26** (*KJV - emphasis mine*) **How is it that in light of John 5:26, the Father has "*everlasting life*" in Himself that has to be GIVEN (greek: edoken - other translations also say GRANTED) to the Son, so that the Son has that life in himself?** The type of life being talked about in John 5:26 is "everlasting life" (verse 24). So God the Father has this eternal life in Himself **inherently**, because he has no beginning and thus must have it inherently in Himself, otherwise He would not have been able to live for eternity past. Nobody gave the Father this life - he inherently has it in Himself! The Athanasian Creed says: > "The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. And > yet they are not three eternals; but **one eternal**. So likewise the > Father is Almighty; the Son Almighty; and the Holy Ghost Almighty... > The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is > of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten. The Holy > Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor > begotten; but proceeding... > And in this Trinity **none is before, or after another**; none is > greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are > **coeternal**, and **coequal**." It is hence clear that, according to the Chalcedonian Creeds, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit share the same essence of being, the same nature. In order to be an eternal living being (past, present and future), as God Almighty is, you have to have life in yourself, **always**. If you have to be GIVEN or GRANTED that life, it means you didn't have it. Life itself (being alive) is an inherent part of the nature of a living being! According to Philipp Schaff who analyzed the works of St. Augustin , John 5:26 is explained as follows in the light of the Trinity: > For it is not, as with the creature so with the Son of God before the > incarnation and before He took upon Him our flesh, the Only-begotten > by whom all things were made; that He is one thing, and has another: > but He is in such way as to be what He has. And this is said more > plainly, if any one is fit to receive it, in that place where He says: > “For as the Father hath life in Himself, so hath He given to the Son > to have life in Himself.”[John 5:26] For He did not give to Him, > already existing and not having life, that He should have life in > Himself; inasmuch as, in that He is, He is life. Therefore “He gave to > the Son to have life in Himself” means, He begat the Son to be > unchangeable life, which is life eternal" Put in simpler terms: God the Father gave the Son life in Himself, which is life eternal. It means that the Son is eternal life, because what he has been given is what he became - it has become part of his essence! God the Father is the cause and the source of life. All Christian denominations I know of, that believe in the creation by God agree to this. **How can it be maintained that Jesus shares the same divine essence with the Father, but had to be GIVEN "everlasting life" that was never given to the Father, who apparently inherently had it in Himself, whereas it had to be GRANTED/GIVEN to Jesus (the Son)?** The act of the Father having granted and/or given (greek: ἔδωκεν ) Jesus eternal life in Himself, is an act that has temporal implications - *in the 68 occurrences of this form of the verb "edoken" in the Aorist Indicative Active , which expresses the simple occurrence of an action in past time, none appear atemporal/eternal* - which means that there was a point in time where Jesus did NOT have this type of life in Himself, which would mean that he does not share exactly the same essence with God. **How do Trinitarians explain this apparent contradiction?**

I was reading about Renovaré and came across the "twelve spiritual disciplines": meditation, prayer, fasting, study, simplicity, solitude, submission, service, confession, worship, guidance, and celebration My first thought is that the list almost sounds contrived (being exactly 12). However, when I look at each one, I can see how each of these things *might* be able to help us grow spiritually. Is this list found in the Bible somewhere or was a contrived list? Is this the only twelve items that can help you grow (or even the "top twelve")? Are there any one of the twelve items that may be contentious or can they all truly be ways to grow in faith? [More info at their website](http://www.renovare.us/SPIRITUALRENEWAL/PracticingLikeJesus/WhyPracticeLikeJesus/tabid/2518/Default.aspx)

In Exodus, God commands Moses to strike a rock, and promises to make water flow in the desert for the people. > Behold, I will stand before you there on the rock at Horeb, and you > shall strike the rock, and water shall come out of it, and the people > will drink.” And Moses did so, in the sight of the elders of Israel. > (Exodus 17:6 ESV) Later on, God tells Moses to speak to a rock, promising to make water flow in the desert again. However, Moses strikes the rock again instead of speaking to it. Because of just this one thing, God tells Moses that he will no longer be permitted bring the people into the Promised Land. > “Take the staff, and assemble the congregation, you and Aaron your > brother, and **tell the rock before their eyes to yield its water**. > So you shall bring water out of the rock for them and give drink to > the congregation and their cattle.” 9 And Moses took the staff from > before the Lord, as he commanded him. 10 Then Moses and Aaron gathered > the assembly together before the rock, and he said to them, “Hear now, > you rebels: shall we bring water for you out of this rock?” 11 And > Moses lifted up his hand and **struck the rock** with his staff twice, > and water came out abundantly, and the congregation drank, and their > livestock. 12 And the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, “Because you did > not believe in me, to uphold me as holy in the eyes of the people of > Israel, therefore **you shall not bring this assembly into the land > that I have given them**.” (Numbers 20:8-12 ESV, emphasis added) Why was the punishment so harsh for what seems like a small infraction? Was there something greater or more symbolic going on here?

In my discussion with some Jehovah Witnesses, they claimed 1914 was the year referred to in revelation and that Satan came to earth. According to their belief, this is why from 1914 the world has never known peace: thus the world wars, famine escalated, and so on... > **Revelation 12:9-12** > > 9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the > Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out > into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. > > 12 Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to > the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down > unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a > short time Are there other traditions that agree with this claim? >1 October 1957 Watchtower: “Satan the Devil failed to prove his false accusation against the chief Son of God. ... That is why, when the kingdom was born in heaven in 1914 and war broke out in heaven and the victorious King Jesus Christ hurled Satan down from heaven to our earth, a loud voice in heaven said: “Now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ, because the accuser of our brothers has been hurled down, who accuses them day and night before our God!” (Rev. 12:7-10) https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1957725?q=satan+1914&p=par

Some traditional drawings of crucifixion of Jesus show him hanging on the cross with his feet at a man's height above the ground. That seems justified, as we read in Jn 19:28-29: > After this, when Jesus knew that all was now finished, he said (in order to fulfill the scripture), “I am thirsty.” A jar full of sour wine was standing there. So they put a sponge full of the wine **on a branch of hyssop and held it to his mouth.** Given that the convict was prone to give violent and painful jerks on the cross , it had to be positioned in a pre-dug hole say, of three feet on the ground. Let us presume that the vertical beam of Jesus' cross measured 12 feet, considering the portion that went to the ground, the position of his feet above ground and the top portion of vertical beam where INRI was placed. Now, Jesus was made to carry the entire cross, with the lowest end dragging on the path. In terms of geometry, the ideal length of the cross would be proportionate to his height so as to allow enough space between the shoulder and the vertical and horizontal beams built at 90 degree angle. The cross on which he was crucified appears too long for such a proportion. One is therefore, inclined to conclude that Jesus in fact carried a cross proportional to his height, and was crucified on a different cross vertically much longer. My question therefore is: Was Jesus crucified on the same cross he had carried to Calvary? Inputs from any denomination are welcome.

There is a [question about praying to Jesus](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/62358/what-is-the-biblical-basis-for-praying-to-jesus-as-opposed-to-praying-to-god-in) already, but I noticed there is no question about praying to the Holy Spirit. What is the biblical basis for praying to the third person of the trinity?