James Fodor released a new video on the Resurrection of Jesus Christ saying that the disciple hallucinated and the hallucinations were part of a shared social process that has been shown among faith and non-faith contexts, Jesus's body was reburied, the disciples were biased to believing His Resurrection and socialisation factors may explain the existence of belief despite counter evidence. From a Christian perspective how would you respond to his claims?

Mainstream Christians believe that Jesus was the son of God the Father and Mary, a virgin. So my question is, have any Christian theologians discussed whether Jesus only resemble his mother Mary, or whether he also resembled his adopted father Joseph? God could easily have arranged it so that Jesus resembled Joseph, even if Joseph played no role in the conception of Jesus.

I came across a blog post by a platonist in which he critiqued the traditional Christian understanding of God and evil given God's omnibenevolence and omniscience, saying: > Augustine's claim that evil is not a substance but a privation of good > was designed to absolve God of direct responsibility for evil's > existence. However, this position does not escape the more profound > paradox that God created beings who could lapse into privation and did > so with full foreknowledge of the consequences. The free will defense > only complicates the issue: if God grants free will knowing it will be > misused, the divine act of creation becomes entangled with the > emergence of moral evil. Moreover, if the will can remain oriented > toward the good only through divine grace, then free will itself seems > limited or dependent in a way that undermines its explanatory value. > The paradox intensifies when considering the role of Satan, whose > rebellious agency destabilizes the coherence of monotheistic > sovereignty. If Satan undermines God's purposes, divine omnipotence is > weakened; if Satan acts only with God's permission, then divine > benevolence is compromised. Either interpretation raises problems that > the privation theory cannot reconcile. These tensions reveal a more > profound structural paradox at the heart of Christian theodicy. In a > cosmos created ex nihilo by an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God, > nothing can exist independently of divine will or permission. > Consequently, all conditions that make evil possible, creaturely > freedom, vulnerability, corruptibility, and the existence of tempters > are ultimately grounded in God's creative act. Christian theodicy thus > attempts to balance divine goodness with divine sovereignty, but the > metaphysical architecture of monotheism forces a contradiction: either > God is powerful enough to prevent evil but chooses not to, or God > wills a world in which evil inevitably emerges, making evil indirectly > a by-product of divine creative intention. Augustine's partial > incorporation of Neoplatonic ideas helps articulate evil as a > metaphysical deficiency. Yet, even this philosophical refinement > cannot compensate for a more fundamental issue: Christian theology's > consolidation of causality in a single omnipotent agent ensures that > God remains tied to every aspect of cosmic order and disorder alike. > The result is a system in which the existence of evil perpetually > threatens either the goodness or the sovereignty of the creator, and > the tradition's attempts to resolve this tension never entirely > eliminate its underlying contradictions. > > (Flavius Julianus Mithridaticus, *Evil as Shadow, Heroism as Form: An > Indo-European View of Theodicy*, The New Platonic Academy) To restate his critiques: - God created people with the ability to be evil and knew of the consequences because of his foreknowledge. He created people knowing they would use their free will for evil which makes evil a by-product of his creation. This seems to bring his omnibenevolence into question. If I created a simulation with the parameters allowing for characters in it to be evil then I'm responsible, at least partly, for evil existing in my simulation. - If Satan can thwart God's purposes [such as his desire for everyone to have faith in Him and live according to His moral law (my comment)], then it calls his omnipotence into question. And if Satan only acts with God's permission, then God's benevolence is compromised. If someone is stealing something or hurting someone and I allow it to happen when I have the ability to stop it, then I'm being evil. In Catholicism, being able to prevent or stop something evil and not doing it is the sin of omission. A more accurate allegory with regards to Satan's acts that are permitted by God: I'm standing in the way of an assailant and their victim and when the assailant asks if they can attack their victim, I nod and step aside, allowing the evil to take place. Maybe my allegory is off, but I'm having difficulty seeing his omnibenevolence given this. My allegory somewhat reminded me of the book of Job where Job, who is a holy man has his life and loved ones destroyed after God gives Satan permission and if I'm remembering correctly, God didn't give Job an explanation and instead told him about the world He created. - In a world created by God as understood by Christians, nothing exists apart from God's will or permission. Either God is powerful enough to prevent evil, but chooses not to or God willed a world where evil would inevitably exist, making evil a by-product of his creation. He presents a sound critique of the traditional Christian understanding of God and evil and it completely stumped me so if you have any thoughts, please share them because I don't know how to rebut him. Thank you in advance to anyone who tries to tackle this.

Their 15 March 2005 *Watchtower* said that on pages 5 to 6, and I fully agree with that point, so this question is not meant to stir up any ‘for’ or ‘against’ answers. Let us please all take it as understood that only those in the New Covenant Jesus inaugurated the night before he died are invited by him to eat bread and drink wine every time they “do this in remembrance of me” – Mark 14:2-24 & Luke 22:19. Nor is this question questioning how often this act of remembrance should be done. The Jehovah’s Witnesses believe it should be no more than once a year, with 2025 seeing their global event on 12 April, after sunset. Please be assured, I am not questioning that either. **It is the number of people attending their annual memorial event this year who partook that I am interested in learning about**. Granted, it may be a couple of months before the world-wide total of partakers is collated, so I will keep this question open. However, it would likely be possible for every Jehovah’s Witness reading this, and who attended themselves, to say if a single person partook, or two, three or four, etc, as ***in the vast majority of congregations nobody partakes. Or has this changed in recent years?*** The tiny percentage of all memorial attenders who do partake is tied up with the belief that only 144,000 people will ever have ‘the heavenly calling’, to be part of the kingdom of heaven. As stated here: > “The same spirit is operating on Jesus’ ‘other sheep,’ but it is not > arousing in them the hope and desire for heavenly life.” *The > Watchtower*, 15 February 1998 page 19 para. 6 Again, I’m not wanting any answers disputing that. I understand that to be the reason why less than 1% of attenders partake, but ***if the numbers have gone up somewhat, I would like to know why.*** **Hence the request to first obtain the number of those partaking this year**.

It's a common trope among craedobaptists that the purpose of baptism is in order to make a public commitment to the Christian faith. For example, here's an excerpt from a *GotQuestions.org* article on baptism: > Christian baptism is the means by which a person makes a public profession of faith and discipleship. In the waters of baptism, a person says, wordlessly, “I confess faith in Christ; Jesus has cleansed my soul from sin, and I now have a new life of sanctification.” It's the only paragraph on the article without a Biblical citation (other than the summary paragraph at the end). I'm curious what the Biblical basis for the idea of "public profession" being associated with Baptism. *Please note I am specifically asking about the association of **public** profession with baptism, not about craedobaptism generally.* (As context, I recently returned to Lutheranism after several years as a Baptist. Even while I was a Baptist, I never felt like I understood the basis for connection of public profession of faith to baptism.)

[Alien abductions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_abduction) , [close encounters](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close_encounter) and [UFO sightings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_reported_UFO_sightings) have been widely reported by many individuals around the world. Many self-proclaimed alien abductees and first-hand eyewitnesses of close encounters have testified to this effect. For instance, the YouTube Channel [UFO HUB](https://www.youtube.com/c/UFOHub/videos) hosts multiple interviews with such people. But beyond eyewitness accounts and anecdotes, on a more serious note, the UFO phenomenon in particular has been deemed worthy of a more rigorous evaluation, as evidenced by the [Pentagon UFO videos](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_UFO_videos) and the [U.S. Intelligence UFO Report](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFO_Report_(U.S._Intelligence)) . What is an overview of Christian views on alien appearances and abductions? Do most Christian denominations and organizations tend to take an official position on this issue?

In light of ongoing global events—such as wars (e.g., the conflict involving Russia), geopolitical instability, and widespread moral and social upheaval—many Christians interpret these as signs that the “end times” are approaching. My questions are twofold: Imminence of Christ’s return: Within mainstream Christian theology, do these kinds of events meaningfully support the belief that Christ’s return is near? How have passages such as Matthew 24; Luke 21; 1 Thessalonians 5:1–6; and Revelation 6–16 traditionally been understood in relation to historical events versus recurring patterns throughout history? Christ’s presence before the Parousia: Is there any biblical basis for the idea that Christ is presently “walking the earth” prior to His return, possibly until all believe in Him as the Christ? How do texts like Matthew 28:20 (“I am with you always”), John 14–16 (the coming of the Holy Spirit), Acts 1:9–11, and Revelation 1:12–18 inform orthodox interpretations of Christ’s presence now versus His future, visible return? I am seeking answers grounded in Scripture and recognized Christian interpretive traditions (e.g., patristic, Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant), rather than speculative or purely contemporary prophetic claims.

Does a Christian apologist aiming to uphold the accuracy and reliability of modern Bibles require a strong understanding of textual criticism? Put differently, when making a comprehensive argument supporting the truthfulness of various claims within the Bible—such as the Genesis creation story or the historical account of Jesus's resurrection in the Gospels and Acts—would the Christian apologist need to rely on arguments from textual criticism to substantiate the claim that the content in our contemporary Bibles is indeed accurate and reliable, despite thousands of years of transcription, translation, and potential manipulation since the writing of the original manuscripts? If possible, I would appreciate answers referencing books that have been published at the intersection of Christian apologetics and textual criticism. --- *Food for thought for those who think apologetics is an irrelevant or unnecessary discipline* These are some of my previous questions on this topic. Some of the answers are quite insightful and worth the read: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/99924/61679 https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/100436/61679 https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/100928/61679

### Introduction The Law of Moses/Torah of Moses are a body of commandments and laws which were given to the nation of Israel at Mount Sinai by God. Observant Jews continue to follow these laws as understood through rabbinic traditions and interpretations, while most major Christian denominations more or less do not. The Old Testament/Hebrew Bible contains many scriptures which seem to indicate that the Mosaic law is eternal and uses the same word used elsewhere that describes God being eternal: **Exodus 31:16–17 (NRSV)** indicates observance of the Sabbath is an eternal activity: > Therefore the Israelites shall keep the Sabbath, observing the Sabbath throughout their generations, as a **perpetual covenant**. It is a sign **forever** between me and the Israelites that in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed. **Leviticus 16:29-34** indicates Yom Kippur should be observed forever: > This shall be a statute to you **forever**: In the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you shall humble yourselves ... This shall be an **everlasting statute** for you, to make atonement for the Israelites once in the year for all their sins. And Moses did as the Lord had commanded him. **Deuteronomy 29:29** seems to indicate that all the words of the law should be followed for all time by the children of Israel: > The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the revealed things belong to us and to our children **forever**, to observe all the words of this law. **Jeremiah 31:31** makes a promise that the Jews will have the Mosaic law written on their heart in the future: > The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant that I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt—a covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, says the Lord. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: **I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts**, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. No longer shall they teach one another or say to each other, “Know the Lord,” for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the Lord, for I will forgive their iniquity and remember their sin no more. ### Question Do Christians believe that the Hebrew Bible prophesied that the commandments it called eternal would one day end? Is there an Old Testament basis for believing observance of the Mosaic law would not be forever? Views from all denominations welcome.

Notable examples include: - [Does God Exist? William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens - Full Debate [HD]](https://youtu.be/0tYm41hb48o) - [The God Debate II: Harris vs. Craig](https://youtu.be/yqaHXKLRKzg) - [Does Math Point to God? William Lane Craig + Graham Oppy](https://youtu.be/8WE1y00bwCU) - [Is the Kalam Sound? Graham Oppy vs. Andrew Loke](https://youtu.be/a8NrTv-Durc) - [Are There Any Good Arguments for God? Ed Feser vs Graham Oppy](https://youtu.be/m-80lQOlNOs) - [William Lane Craig and Sean Carroll | "God and Cosmology" | 2014 Greer Heard Forum](https://youtu.be/X0qKZqPy9T8) - [DEBATE: Theism vs Atheism | Jonathan McLatchie vs Alex O’Connor](https://youtu.be/rnIQFI1pYLM) - [DEBATE Matt Dillahunty Vs Cliffe Knechtle | Is Christianity True? | Podcast](https://youtu.be/aAg3H1LU1Yw) - [Is Belief in the Resurrection Unreasonable? Mike Winger vs. Matt Dillahunty](https://youtu.be/Z2FGgkubhZM) - [Is belief in the Resurrection reasonable? Trent Horn Vs Matt Dillahunty Debate](https://youtu.be/7V6UNSvHVDM) Given the well-established practice among (some) Christians of engaging in formal intellectual debates with atheists and skeptics to defend core tenets of the Christian faith, such as the existence of God and the resurrection of Jesus, through philosophical arguments, reason, and evidence (as the examples above illustrate), what is the biblical basis for this? The New Testament enumerates various spiritual gifts and ministries (1 Corinthians 12:4-11, Ephesians 4:11-13, Romans 12:6-8), but I am unaware of any ministry fitting the role of a "professional intellectual debater." --- **Note**: there is some overlap with my previous question *https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/100436/61679* , although the focus here is on the debate aspect, and the scope is broader in terms of what can be defended (resurrection of Jesus, miracles, etc.)

The first mention in the Bible of the devil or Satan being judged is in Genesis 3, on the occasion of the fall of Adam and Eve, with the serpent generally accepted as either being Satan or being controlled by him. This Genesis 3 judgment may be eternal condemnation and imprisonment in hell or lesser punishment. What is the earliest prophecy (chronologically, according to traditional dating) in the Bible that states unequivocally that Satan will be cast into hell for eternity with no chance of repentance and forgiveness? I ask this so as to get closer to the answer to a larger question: was deceiving Adam and Eve or a prior rebellion in heaven the occasion of Satan's prison sentence without possibility of parole, or is it something that Satan did or will do later in history?

**Luke 2:34–35**: > (KJV) **34**And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against; > **35**(Yea, **a sword shall pierce through thy own soul** also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed. > > (NLT) **34**Then Simeon blessed them, and he said to Mary, the baby’s mother, “This child is destined to cause many in Israel to fall, but he will be a joy to many others. He has been sent as a sign from God, but many will oppose him. > **35**As a result, the deepest thoughts of many hearts will be revealed. And **a sword will pierce your very soul**.” Do any *non-Catholic* denominations (i.e. those that don't venerate Mary) attach any special significance to Luke 2:35, "a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also"?
(Other than of course the trivial obvious fact of having to watch one's son's being tortured and executed.)

The Book of Enoch mentions Gadreel as one of the Watchers, but the specific claim that Gadreel led Eve astray appears in 1 Enoch 69:6. Here's the passage from the Book of Enoch that mentions Gadreel: #### 1 Enoch 69:6 (from the Ethiopic text): >"And the third was named Gadreel: he it is who showed the children of men all the blows of death, and he led astray Eve, and showed the weapons of death to the sons of men." This passage suggests that Gadreel was responsible for leading Eve astray, which contrasts with the Genesis account where the serpent is the one who tempts Eve. #### Context of the Passage - In 1 Enoch, the Watchers are fallen angels who descended to Earth and corrupted humanity. They taught forbidden knowledge to humans, including how to make weapons of war, astrology, and the "secrets" of the heavens. - The reference to Gadreel is part of a broader narrative that associates the Watchers with the downfall of humankind, which includes the temptation of Eve. This is a key divergence from the canonical Genesis story where it is explicitly the serpent (often identified with Satan) who deceives Eve. The role of Gadreel in this context highlights the Book of Enoch's unique interpretation of the fall, is this the reason why it was excluded from the Bible, as it conflicts with the established narrative in canonical texts.

I have just read **Oct 15,2022 at 3:36** and it reminded me of oil I asked a priest to bless. He read the rite word for word except that he did not sprinkle it with holy water. Is it still as efficacious? Thank you. God bless!

>Although in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first cause, all things come to pass immutably and infallibly, yet by the same providence he ordereth them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently. - Westminster Confession of Faith 5.2 Please give an example of a secondary cause that is contingent and tell on what it is contingent.

Acts 15:19-21 (NIV, Emph mine) > 19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. **21 For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.**” This verse is used for and against observing law. Seems like this could mean either, "There are enough people following Moses and observing the law, so no need for more people to follow the law." or "The law is repeated in synagogues and new believers will go to synagogues, so they'll learn and follow them later."

Joshua 24:31 (ESV) states: > Israel served the LORD all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders who outlived Joshua and had known all the work that the LORD did for Israel. However, based on evidence from Judges 18 (where the tribe of Dan took up Micah's idolatry), events in the previously mentioned chapter may have occurred during Joshua’s lifetime (Judges 18:1/Joshua 18:2, Judges 18:27/Joshua 19:47, and Judges 18:31/Joshua 19:51). Is it possible that these events occurred after Joshua’s death, and before Dan took possession of their inheritance? Or does the parallel explanation of the Laish takeover rule that out? How can the two, seemingly contradictory, passages be reconciled?

How do the references to ‘son’ or ‘sons of God(s)’ in Job 1–2, Job 38:4–7, Psalm 29:1, Psalm 89:6–7, and Daniel 3:25, 28 interrelate to convey angels, heavenly assembly, or hierarchy?

If we define perfection as ["complete beyond practical or theoretical improvement"](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/perfect) then the answer may that God is not yet perfect because humans have not always responded as God intended. There seems to be some scriptural basis for this. For example, 2 Peter 3:9 says: > The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is > patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come > to repentance. Logically, if God wishes all to come to repentance but all do not respond, then God's wish is unfulfilled. Proverbs 13:12 says "Hope deferred makes the heart sick, But desire fulfilled is a tree of life." If we apply this to the situation described in 2 Peter, then God's heart is sick, because His desire has not been fulfilled (that all come to repentance). We also get a sense of God's heart being broken elsewhere in scripture, as the prophets speak of Him as feeling like a husband whose wife has betrayed him, or as a father whose children have gone astray. The argument for God not being perfect boils down the idea that God desires a relationship with His children and that He suffers when we do not respond to His love. Is this idea heretical, or may Christians accept it without falling into serious error? (Note: the question does not seek arguments in favor of God's perfection/completeness, but is concerned primarily with the issue of whether or not belief in God's perfection is necessary to Christian faith.) ---------- Addendum: I hope readers will understand the question as I have defined it (the issue of God's "completeness" as opposed to the issue of His moral perfection). I've edited the title accordingly.

In Matthew 11, Jesus is questioned about whether he is the messiah. Instead of answering directly, in Matthew 11:45 Jesus points to his deeds. The deeds he lists are messianic signs according to passages in Isaiah 26:19, 35:5-6 and 61:1. However, one evidence that Jesus offers is not named in Isaiah or in any other prophet as a messianic sign (as far as I can tell). That miracle is the cleansing of lepers. In my research, I found sources that say that it was a Rabbinical tradition of that time that only the messiah could cleanse a leper. Yet in studying one messianic passage more closely, I wonder if I have found indirect Biblical evidence for that being a messianic sign. > And a highway shall be there, and it shall be called the Way of > Holiness; **the unclean shall not pass over it**. It shall belong to those > who walk on the way; even if they are fools, they shall not go astray. > > - Isaiah 35:8 The “unclean” above could mean only the morally wicked, but in the Old Testament it would seem to also include anyone who was ritually unclean. If the promise of a safe highway, a safe passage through the terrors of life, was denied the ritually unclean like lepers, then they would be excluded from the blessings of the messianic age. To fully participate, they would need to be cleansed. Have any theologians proposed Isaiah 35:8 as supplying the prophetic basis to Jesus’ statement in Matthew 11 concerning the cleansing of lepers, making it a messianic sign?