In Genesis 11:4, the people said, *“Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves...”* God saw this as an act of pride and rebellion, and responded by confusing their language and scattering them. Today, space agencies and astronauts aim to explore or even colonize outer space—what the Bible might refer to as "the heavens." This raises a spiritual question: Are there theological or biblical interpretations that suggest modern space travel could be a continuation of the same spirit of pride or rebellion seen in Babel?

In [Matthew 25:1-12](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25%3A1-12&version=ESV) we read about ten young ladies (a bridal party) eagerly awaiting the arrival of the groom. Five of them run out of oil and have to go buy more, missing the groom's arrival and thus be excluded from the wedding feast. The groom is universally seen as representing Jesus, the women are seen as representing individual believers, and the oil is generally seen as representing God's grace. (See [my analysis](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/20227/10092) on the parable and especially the symbolism of the oil.) A surface reading would seem to indicate that all the women were nominally believers in Jesus, but someone of them did not properly prepare for his arrival (i.e. for their death or Jesus' Second Coming). This would suggest that there is more to salvation than faith alone - an aspect that can be "bought". How do *sola fide* adherents explain this passage? A good answer should cite published commentary by notable advocates of salvation by faith alone.

It was mentioned in Exodus that God has granted Moses abilities such as turning his staff into a snake and turning the water of the Nile into blood in order to make the people believe he was sent by God. Why had God not by himself saved the Israelites from slavery? Why did he not talk to them? “But I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and though I multiply my signs and wonders in Egypt,” why did God harden pharaohs heart and torment the Israelites more?

*I am aware of [this](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/28431/do-the-catholic-church-ex-cathedra-pronouncements-about-necessity-of-catholicism/28433#28433) previous question where the discussion centered on statements of Pope Francis and the catechism but that is not my interest here. [This](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/30898/has-the-church-stated-any-advantages-or-reasoning-or-prompting-to-re-formulating/30899#30899) question also asks about the reasoning behind these changes but that is also not my question.* From what I understand about Catholic teaching, it is not possible for infallible teachings, either from a pope or an ecumenical council, to contradict each other. However, there seems to be a clear incompatibility between medieval Catholic doctrine and that of Vatican II around the question of salvation outside the church: [Pope Boniface VII, Unam Sanctam (1302)](https://www.papalencyclicals.net/bon08/b8unam.htm) > Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. [Council of Florence, Session 11 (1442)](https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum17.htm) > It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives. Contrast this with two documents from Vatican II in 1964: [Vatican II, Decree on Ecumenism](https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html) > It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church. [Vatican II, Pope Paul VI, Lumen Gentium](https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html) > But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. To me it seems fairly clear that the "schismatics" from the council of Florence would correspond to the "separated churches and communities" from Vatican II. Unam Sanctam makes even clearer that the intent of the earlier documents is that "salvation outside the church" does mean communion with the Roman Pontiff, despite Vatican II's discussion of separated communities and Muslims. Admittedly I do not understand the intricacies of Catholic thought on many matters so my question is: How can all of these documents be read together consistently within a Catholic framework? In particular I'm interested in how this can be consistent with the infallibility of ecumenical councils and papal infallibility.

Is the injunction in the Benedictine rule “Deinde non occidere” interpreted to forbid the killing of brutes, or only humans?

There are a number of biblical texts that have been rejected by scholars as later additions to the text. This seems to be a legitimate attitude when there is a strong basis for it, such as that the passage is missing from the earliest manuscripts. It's also personally convenient if the passage is theologically controversial or politically incorrect, such as Paul's supposed writings against women speaking in church, or the famous [Johannine Comma](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannine_Comma) . But what if it is a beloved scripture, such as the story of the [Woman Taken in Adultery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery) , which apparently does not start appearing into relatively late in the manuscript tradition. Or, in the case of 1 Cor. 13, what if one becomes convinced that it is not actually a writing of Paul but that a later editor has inserted it. (See [this question](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/99098/is-i-cor-13-an-insertion-by-a-later-editor) for details.) Does the fact that a beloved scripture was not part of the original text mean that it is not holy scripture?

I recently watched the video ["My deliverance testimony: **warning this will trigger many christians**"](https://youtu.be/Lm9TcYmZjMs) which recounts a former New Age practitioner's conversion to Christianity and subsequent deliverance from demonic forces. These forces were legally allowed into her life through occult practices during her New Age days. She specifically mentioned a stubborn demon, allowed in through Kundalini Yoga, which only left her after eight months of her conversion. The "controversial" aspect of her testimony, depending on one's doctrinal commitments, is that she still required demonic deliverance well after her conversion and being filled with the Holy Spirit. Despite being "on fire for Jesus," this particular demon persisted until she was fully delivered. As expected, the video is causing some controversy in the comment section. For example (quoting some comments): > I believe demons can oppress a Christian. I do not believe that they can Indwell a Christian who is saved and sealed with the Holy Spirit. If that is the case, I immediately question if one was truly converted. The notion that a demon can indwell a Christian is a lie of note. The one who the son sets free is free indeed. You are sealed with the Spirit of God. > > Many make the claim that actual Christians can be indwelled by a demon and that is a lie. There is no record of that in scripture. It also diminishes the gospel which is the power of God unto salvation. I have seen deliverance and it is dramatic. The conclusion is that they were never saved to begin with. That is tough pill to swallow as many think they are when they are not. When you respond to the gospel, God himself seals you with his spirit. His spirit helps you live out your life through sanctification, he also helps you pray and he (the Spirit) intercedes on your behalf. That alone eviscerates any claim about Christians having a demon inside of them. Lies from the devil. If you believe that, you do not understand the gospel and you need some basic sound doctrine. Basic theology is important, it helps us get crystal clear on these matters, especially the gospel (which is everything). > Thank you for sharing about this, you are right - it's controversial in the church at large to say Christians can have demons. Sadly, it's very difficult for many of us to find a church where anyone (including the pastoral team) is willing to take on anyone as a disciple, let alone believe that anyone in a church setting would need deliverance from a demon. For encouragement to anyone who may happen to read this, after fifteen years of being saved (and told I was showing the fruit of the Spirit), I began listening to the book, Pigs In The Parlor (by Frank Hammond). Well, an hour or two later I started coughing uncontrollably. I wasn't sick, had no other symptoms of sickness, but experienced a coughing fit for five or ten minutes. Afterwards, I kept thinking, That was so weird; what was that? But over the following week, I realised a thought-pattern that had bothered me for decades was gone! So I've concluded that a demon left, simply after hearing (through earbuds, by the way) the prayers that were being spoken in the audio book I was listening to! Hallelujah, God is so good! God bless you and your family 🙂 > I had a very similar experience as you…having demons and then also > having the Holy Spirit…my full deliverance took almost 2 and a half > years. 🤯 > > People don’t understand your body becomes a battlefield as you learn > to submit and be sanctified in Jesus.🤍 > > Praise God for the miracle of your life!!!!🙌🏻 Derek Prince really > helped me too!!!❤ > > Thank you for inspiring me to share this truth on my channel. I > haven’t thought of covering this topic but the body of Christ needs to > hear that Believers can house demons. They stay until they are kicked > out. > > I, like you, was so desperate. You have to FIGHT and KILL the flesh > with the Truth of God’s word, prayer, fasting and never giving up on > God. > It happened with me too! I was Holy Spirit filled and I still had demons. It took obedience and sanctification in order for them to leave me (yes, they were inside me). Few months after I got freed I started a research about the occult in order to make a video and expose the lies. But I went soo far away into that investigation that I walked out of the narrow path of Jesus (by giving almost all of my focus on the darkness) and I once again got possessed by an unclean spirit. I cried, I repented, I fasted, but it really took time to solidify my commitment to walk in holiness and obedience with the Lord. Once the Lord saw that I was committed to walking with Him in purity the spirit left me in a split of a second. What biblical texts are cited to support the belief that Christians can have demons?

I'm reading Matt Perman's book [What's Best Next](http://www.amazon.com/Whats-Best-Next-Gospel-Transforms-ebook/dp/B006FP4PVY/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1394128758&sr=1-1&keywords=perman+what%27s+best+next) and found this interesting: >5. Knowing how to get things done enables us to fulfill God’s call to make plans for the good of others. This is one of the most exciting reasons to me. The biblical call on our lives is not to do good randomly and haphazardly. Rather, God calls us to be proactive in doing good — even to the point of making plans for the good of others. For example, Isaiah 32: 8 says that “he who is noble plans noble things, and on noble things he stands.” We often think of doing good simply as something we are to do when it crosses our path. But Isaiah shows us that we are also to take initiative to conceive, plan, and then execute endeavors for the good of others and the world. (And this requires, of course, actually knowing how to plan and actually make our plans happen!) >Perman, Matthew Aaron (2014-03-04). What's Best Next: How the Gospel Transforms the Way You Get Things Done (p. 23). Zondervan. Kindle Edition. In reading through Isaiah 32, there seems to be a kingdom of righteousness being described that sounds really good - but then it is almost immediately followed by a warning of destruction. Not really knowing Isaiah as well as I should, I'm trying to understand the context from which Perman is making this leap. Is this inference from Perman (that we should be actively planning noble things) directly drawn from the prophetic nature of what Isaiah is preaching here, or is there an eisegesis that is required to make the point?

Why was «کریسمس» (*kerismas*) loaned from English? Wasn't there an indigenous Christian presence which could of given a word of a differing etymology?

In Genesis, Abraham is chosen by God to be the father of many nations and the one through whom the covenant is established (Genesis 12:1–3; 17:1–8). However, at the same time, Genesis also introduces Melchizedek, king of Salem and "priest of God Most High" (Genesis 14:18–20), who is presented as a righteous and significant figure. Given that Melchizedek was already a priest of the true God, what does Scripture or Christian theology say about why God specifically chose Abraham—rather than Melchizedek or any other righteous men of that time—to make His covenant with? I'm looking for answers based on biblical evidence or theological reasoning, rather than speculation.

The second commandment in English reads (King James Version) > Thou shalt have no other gods before me. but in German it reads (Luther Bible) > Du sollst keine anderen Götter neben mir haben. This in translation means "You shall not have other Gods *beside / next to* me." The English version could be interpreted to permit other gods if they are not before but after / below God. I presume that the German text is more precise in this regard?

Abraxas is a well known anguiped (snake legged) figure, associated with Gnosticism and possibly with Alexandrian esoteric Judaism . It played a role at various points in the history of Christianity as a symbol of heresy, for example as a seal of certain Templar individuals and local chapters. The "Snake-Legged Goddess" or "Tendril-Legged Goddess" is another, earlier, anguiped divine figure associated with Scythian origin legends. Given that their respective followers co-existed within the context of Hellenistic religious culture before and during the Roman Empire, assuming a possible connection seems to make sense. However, I was not able to find any source making the connection explicitly. Are there any?

In the book of Genesis, Adam speaks directly with God—receiving commands, instructions, and even judgments. This kind of divine communication is often associated with the role of a prophet throughout the Bible. Yet, Adam is not explicitly called a prophet in Scripture, nor is he commonly regarded as one in most Christian traditions. Why is that the case? Does the biblical or theological definition of a prophet involve more than just direct communication with God—such as delivering God's message to others, foretelling future events, or leading a covenant community? I’d appreciate perspectives from Scripture, early Church Fathers, and major Christian traditions.

As stated above. I know the out-of-pocket answer is "pride", but I'm curious. The angels all had full knowledge of the choice and the resultant consequences, yet a third rebelled. Was it exclusively pride that led them to this decision, or something else? It seems a remarkably unwise decision for a being that knows unequivocally that it will result in eternal torment and separation from God. We can make the obvious argument that this is an awful lot like us, but the angels all had far more information than us. Angels don't need faith, they've all personally met God and know who He is without any doubt. They're timeless and never experienced moments of weakness. They made the decision in utterly ideal circumstances. Was it truly pride and pride alone that led to this?

I'm going to give an example. If my parents only met because of Hitler, would I not exist if not for the actions of Hitler. Or does God give the same souls life regardless of our parents? There are different verses in which some would say we have existed before birth (Jeremiah 1:5), and others claiming that we are created from nothing (Genesis 2:7).

Galatians 5:17 says, *"For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh."* This seems to suggest a deliberate opposition between the two. My question is: Was this opposition between the Spirit and the flesh part of God's original design from the beginning (before the Fall), or did it come about as a result of sin? In other words, did God will for this tension to exist under His authority, or is it a result of rebellion against that authority? I’m looking for answers from perspectives that explain how this dynamic fits into Christian theology — particularly with reference to Scripture and doctrinal traditions.

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?