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.

I was looking up some stuff and noticed that multiple sources claim that the Catholics and Orthodox have a different view on the "first sin" or "original sin". - There is this answered question within the exchange. Which is what I've found through research as well. - As the Catechism says, “original sin is called ‘sin’ only in an analogical sense: it is a sin ‘contracted’ and not ‘committed’—a state and not an act” (CCC 404). - The Council of Carthage (418) is considered Ecumenical by the Orthodox Church, and it contained the doctrine of "Original Sin"... so no issue here. - Instead of original sin, which is used in Western Christianity, the Orthodox Church uses the term ancestral sin to describe the effect of Adam’s sin on mankind. We do this to make one key distinction; we didn’t sin in Adam (as the Latin mistranslation of Romans 5:12 implies). Rather we sin because Adam’s sin made us capable of doing so. The Greek word for sin, amartema, refers to an individual act, indicating that Adam and Eve alone assume full responsibility for the sin in the Garden of Eden. The Orthodox Church never speaks of Adam and Eve passing guilt on to their descendants, as did Augustine. Instead, each person bears the guilt of his or her own sins. (Saint John the evangelist orthodox church ) - The OCA website claims the "West" understand the doctrine of Original guilt. It is possible they meant the protestants and not the Catholics, but in my experience the Western Church is usually the catholics. - There is the OrthoCuban website who provides a summary, but perhaps it is just the authors flawed understanding of the words used? ------------- As the two churches appear to be still maintaining that there is a difference between Original Sin and Ancestral/First Sin... what exactly is the difference? Because as far as I can tell, there seems to be no difference. Both the catholics and orthodox churches say we suffer the consequences of the first sin, not the guilt. I think the difference is that the Catholic Church defines sin as a violation, and for the Orthodox sin is the separation from God. Is that the issue?

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 ?

As stated for instance [here](https://christianpure.com/learn/protestant-christian-vs-reformed-christian/) and many other places, Reform Christianity has as one of its central precepts predestination, i.e. Gd has already chosen some of us for salvation and some for damnation. Logically, this would lead me to be a fatalist: nothing I can do will change my fate. How does Reform Christianity so vehemently argue against fatalism at the same time? This is not a smug rebuttal (which would be naive) but rather a genuine request for the details. The way I see it, this is all a side effect of the I suppose well meaning starting point of the sovereignty of Gd, logically leading to predestination - from here, there is either some nebulous cop-out or indeed an elaborate reconciliation of this and avoiding fatalism which I would find great intellectual satisfaction in learning.

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?

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!

GotQuestions.org has an article entitled [*Why did Jesus say that the demon could only come out by prayer and fasting (Mark 9:29)?*](https://www.gotquestions.org/only-come-out-by-prayer-and-fasting.html) , which I’d like to quote to motivate this question: > Later, the disciples privately asked Jesus why they could not cast out the unclean spirit (Mark > 9:28), and Jesus replied that this particular kind could only come out > “by prayer and fasting” (Mark 9:29, KJV). It is only the King James > Version (and NKJV) that records Jesus saying the demon could only come > out by prayer and fasting. Other translations (ASV, NASB, ESV, NIV, et > al.) leave out *and fasting* and only mention prayer. The difference is > due to a textual variant. The two oldest and most reliable Greek > manuscripts omit *and fasting*. > > While there are many variants in the Greek manuscripts of the New > Testament, it is remarkable that none of the variants create any > significant doctrinal challenge—they are usually minor and don’t > impact the message of a passage at all. Mark 9:29 is one of the more > significant variants, as the differing translations make it unclear > whether the demon in Mark 9 could only come out by prayer and fasting, > or whether prayer alone would work. It is worth noting that in the New > Testament fasting was simply prayer so focused and intense that a > person did not give attention to things like eating or drinking—so > either way, Jesus is emphasizing that the demon in Mark 9 could only > come out by intensive prayer. > > As Jesus explains to the crowd, the key was the faith of those > involved (e.g., Mark 9:19, 23). So it is evident that prayer rooted in > faith in Jesus Christ is effective (see James’ assertion that the > prayer of a righteous [believing] person is effective, James 5:16b). > Jesus was challenging the crowd, the boy’s father, and the disciples > on the importance of believing in Him as the One who could accomplish > what would otherwise be impossible. Whether one accepts the *prayer and fasting* variant or the *prayer only* variant, it is clear that, in either case, a special kind or a higher degree of prayer is required before attempting difficult exorcisms. Unfortunately, Jesus’s recorded words are quite vague on this point, as He does not provide a more precise protocol, leaving several questions unanswered, such as: - How can one determine if an exorcism will be particularly difficult? - What factors contribute to the difficulty of an exorcism? - How much time should be devoted to prayer in preparation for a difficult exorcism? - Is fasting ever necessary, at least in extreme cases, and if so, for how long? Or is prayer alone always sufficient? Are there any Christian denominations or traditions that teach a more detailed protocol for preparing for difficult exorcisms?

If you want to be confused and stay confused, you've come to the right place. It seems that practically all the answers on any topic are answered as follows: Question- Should you come to a complete stop at a red light? Answer - It depends on whether you're translating from Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Latin or some other translation e.g. Substitutionary locomotion. Those sound good on paper, but they're just another way to say "I don't know". So if that's the truth, it won't hurt to just say so.

I know many American evangelical churches implicitly practice New thought movement concepts as evident from the prosperity gospel msg from Joel Osteen to Joseph Prince, and I know their positive message of self-image and gratitude is the source of healing and moral transformation (despite the ironic totally depravity self-image). However, I am looking for some Christian author or church which explicitly teach the meditation and visualization techniques as taught by Joe Dispenza which involves changing the habit of past thought pattern, hoping/visualizing a better self in present-tense with gratitude. The prosperity doctrine's prayers to God functions as the meditation and these concepts for receiving blessings, healing and elevated self-image is taught in the Bible. I am curious if there are books and churches that directly promote the approach of meditation as the way to manifest God's prosperity, and how exactly do they practice it, coz I know the popular prosperity preachers use "Name it and claim it" approach and the regular pray or faith. I am looking for examples of sources in favour of this approach, not against it. PS: As a Christian, I do not adhere to any particular sect or denomination.

I know that all Protestants consider prayer and Bible study to be important, but what about other spiritual disciplines, such as fasting, participating in an all-night vigil, practicing silence and solitude, or engaging in ascetic practices like giving up certain foods, refraining from entertainment, living simply, or voluntarily limiting material possessions, as is often seen in monastic life? For example, Jesus fasted for 40 days and often withdrew to solitary places to pray, such as when He spent the whole night in prayer on a mountain (Luke 6:12). Related to this, this question discusses the biblical basis of twelve spiritual disciplines: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/3469/117426 Do Protestants believe in spiritual principles or laws that make some or all spiritual disciplines effective or beneficial? I understand that Protestants value prayer as a way to communicate with God, and Bible study as a way to receive guidance from God (while not necessarily excluding the possibility of extra-biblical communication). This clearly explains the centrality of prayer and Bible study in Protestant practice. But do Protestants also have a theological or spiritual framework that sees fasting or other ascetic practices as spiritually useful? If someone does not practice fasting, for example, are they missing out on something important? Do Protestants believe that certain spiritual disciplines—beyond prayer and Bible study—can have specific spiritual effects, such as aiding in spiritual warfare or bringing about other spiritual benefits? I recognize that Protestantism encompasses a wide range of perspectives, so I am interested in an overview of them.

According to Catholic exegetes, were Mary Magdalen and Mary of Bethany the same person?