As I understand neoplatonism within Christianity (from this answer ) all people are envisioned as being on a 'path', with a relationship with Christ at one end and the opposite at the other end. Where one is and what direction one is heading on that 'path' is indicated or determined somewhat by what one does and more so by why one does it. The foundation seems to be (as the answer explains) that > "In the neoplatonist tradition, all goodness comes from God, and to be good or do good, in any sense, is to participate in God's goodness" therefore "to do good is to serve Christ, whether or not you know you are doing it, and to do evil is to go against Christ, even if--or especially if--you do that evil in Christ's name.". Therefore there is, for the Christian neoplatonist, just one path and everyone is on it either serving Christ or opposing Christ whether they know it or not. At Matthew 7:13-14 Jesus says the following: > "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.", and He appears to be delineating two different 'ways' and two different entry points to those 'ways'. Way, here, is *hod-os'* (see [interlinear of Matt 7:13](https://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/7-13.htm)) which is the common Greek word for road or street. **How does Christian neoplatonism understand Jesus' apparent delineation of two different ways, or roads, or paths having two different entry points?**

In the Revelation chapter two verse thirteen Jesus refers to Antipas being martyred: Revelation 2:13 KJV >I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth. Mickelson lists the original Greek word as: Ἀντίπας Antipas (an-tee'-pas) n/p. Antipas, a Christian The Greek revised version also uses that same word αντιπας and is also defined as a Christian. So I am confused as to whether Jesus is referring to a specific person named Antipas or simply saying one of his followers, was slain among them.

There is a great set of answers that covers some of my question regarding the interpretation of this passage [over on the Biblical Hermeneutics site](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/223/36) , but it didn't answer all of my questions. Today I heard an old pastor speak about when he saw one of those gates for himself in Jerusalem. If I understand it right, the gate he saw was even labeled with "The eye of the needle" or something similar (though his interpretation was not the classic, because he was sure of that there was no way a camel could get through the gate he saw). 1. What gate (which obviously exists today) is this pastor speaking about? 2. Is there really any part of the Jerusalem walls left since Jesus time? Weren't all of the walls destroyed after the siege of Jerusalem 70 A.D? ## Update 1 Even since before asking this question, I never doubted that Jesus was speaking about a real "eye of the needle", and not a gate. Even though I marked one answer (which was really clarifying) as accepted, it would be really interesting to nail this myth and go down to the details. According to the New Bible Dictionary, third Edition, p. 562, there is one remaining ancient wall "at the present-day Damascus Gate". What does "ancient" mean in this context? Could it have survived since the days of Jesus? In that case, how big is this part? Are there other ancient walls that could be from the days of Jesus? And are there any "gates" in these ancient walls that have been suggested as the "needle eye gate"?

The Catholic Church, as well as many other Christians, believes that abortion is inherently immoral, based on the belief that life begins at conception. What is the biblical basis for this position? I'm interested in the perspective of those who are Biblical literalists, whether Protestant, Catholic, or others.

The Immortality of the Soul is "the doctrine that the human soul will survive death, continuing in the possession of an endless conscious existence." (source) . What is the biblical basis for the immortality of the soul?

In Genesis 1:28, God commands humanity to “be fruitful, multiply, and fill the earth.” This is a physical multiplication and filling of the world. In the New Testament, Jesus commissions His apostles to “go and make disciples of all nations” (Matthew 28:19), which seems like a spiritual multiplication—filling the world not biologically but with the gospel. Is this seen as a deliberate biblical pattern or typology? In what ways did the apostles fulfill this spiritual fruitfulness and multiplication, and do Christian traditions see a theological link between the original creation mandate and the Great Commission? I’m especially interested in perspectives that view the apostles as spiritually “fruitful” by preaching the gospel and establishing churches across the world.

### Background Hebrews 7:3 makes the following startling statement about a character called "Melchizedek": > Without father, without mother, without genealogy, **having neither beginning of days nor end of life**, but resembling the Son of God, he [Melchizedek] remains a priest forever Having no beginning nor end sounds similar to language the Bible uses about God: > Before the mountains were born or You brought forth the whole world, **from everlasting to everlasting** You are God. *Psalms 90:2* The author of Hebrews also compares him to the "Son of God". ### Question Do any Christians believe that since Melchizedek has no beginning nor end that he is a divine being in some way? If so, do any Christians worship him?

I ask this in Christianity (rather than in Hermeneutics), because I want answers to reflect the whole Bible, not Hebrews 11 in isolation. I am looking for responses from the point of view of those who believe that those who reject Jesus in this life will be condemned. I am not interested in whether or not these people would need to accept Christ after death. I am not interested in whether condemnation is eternal punishment or annihilation. > Instead, they were longing for a better country — a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them - Heb.11:16. > These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised, 40 since God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect - Heb.11:39-40.

We have a new member in our choir (Roman Catholic Church mass choir), who is a Jacobite. Can they sing the responsorial Psalm from the [ambo](https://www.saintbernadette.com/blog.php?month=202106&id=725398092&cat=&pg=5&title=Reflecting+Heaven+Part+10%3A+T) near the altar as they are not Catholic?

I'm doing an in-depth study on the kings of Judah and Israel. I'm familiar with Thiele and Young, and I've read a great deal of literature on the subject up to present. Where I am at the moment is Hezekiah and Manasseh. Relative to the Assyrian chronicles for Shalmaneser V and Sennacherib, Hezekiah's reign is a mess. I don't accept Thiele's conclusion to move his reign in its entirety. But none of the known starting points for Hezekiah pan out. In order to date his reign, I'm trying to work backwards from Josiah. We know that Josiah died in 609. He was preceeded by Amon, who was preceeded by Manasseh. From Hezekiah to Josiah, there is a gap of five or six years that can't be accounted for. This gap cannot be overcome by a Tishri/Nisan counting difference, or by accession-year versus non-accession-year counting. It's just a gap with no explanation. My suspicion is that Manasseh's total reign is a cumulative total, not a sequential one. We know that Manasseh was taken captive, and that he suffered at the hands of the Assyrians/Babylonians badly enough that he came to a full state of humility and repentance. My suspicion is that his captivity lasted something to the extent of five or six years, which is what causes the sequential gap in the reigns from Hezekiah to Josiah. So, what I'm looking for are solid sources that might help pinpoint when Manasseh was taken captive, by which king, whether Sennacherib, Esarhaddon, or Ashurbanipal, and maybe even an event; a rebellion, or similar. Perhaps the event compared to the remaining years of the Assyrian king will help shine some light on his captivity.

In many ethical and philosophical systems, a morally good action—such as a doctor inventing a cure for tuberculosis and saving countless lives—is considered unquestionably good. However, in Christian theology, particularly within Protestant and Catholic traditions, I’ve read that "good works" are not just about doing good things, but also involve faith, grace, and the right intention before God. Ephesians 2:8–10 speaks of salvation by grace through faith, followed by a calling to do “good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.” Similarly, James emphasizes that faith without works is dead, yet the works seem to be expected as a fruit of living faith—not merely outward moral actions. My question is: **If a person does something objectively good (like curing a disease) but does not do it out of Christian faith or for God’s glory, does Christian theology still regard that as a "good work"?** How do major Christian traditions (especially Protestant and Catholic) interpret such acts? I’m not asking whether the act is socially or ethically beneficial, but whether it qualifies as a “good work” in the theological sense—something pleasing to God or meritorious in any way. Citations from Scripture, Church Fathers, or confessional documents (like the Catechism or Reformed confessions) would be helpful.

Some Christians, particularly in the United States, believe that America has a divine obligation to support or defend the modern state of Israel. This belief is often linked to the promise in **Genesis 12:3**, where God says to Abraham, *“I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse.”* Is this verse the primary theological basis for that belief?

According to [Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_divorce) , many Christian denominations, including Eastern Orthodoxy and various Protestant churches around the world, permit remarriage after divorce. This appears to directly contradict several Bible verses such as Luke 16:18 (NRSVA): > Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and whoever marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery. On what grounds do these denominations permit remarriage, despite this?

While I understand there are many potential passages in the Bible of Jesus claiming to be a messiah (which I understand to mean "anointed"), a king, or one through whom it is necessary to know God, I'm interested to know if there are any places where He *literally* claims to be God, God-like, or related to God (i.e. the son of God). Taking the Bible to be a reliable record of what He said (for the sake of this question), what Biblical passages illustrate Jesus literally saying He was God? OP Edit: I see that my question has been edited to say "literally" which has caused a bit of turmoil, so I'll just say that for me "literally" is read to mean "literally stated, or inferred without interpretation". So "I intend to put on foot coverings" does not literally mean shoes, as it could mean socks, but "I intend to drive to the capital city of the country England" means you'll end up in London no matter which way you swing it. Interestingly I did try to ask the Biblical Hermenutics group this question and it was suggested I ask here.

In Mark chapter 3 Jesus is teaching and healing when he decides to head home (verse 20). When home (presumably Capernaum) a crowd gathers and his family comes to take him away, for they fear "He is out of his mind.": > 20 Then he went home, and the crowd gathered again, so that they could > not even eat. 21 And when his family heard it, they went out to seize > him, for they were saying, "He is out of his mind." (Mark 3:20-21, > ESV) Mark then goes on to describe scribes accusing Jesus of being a pawn for Satan, followed by Jesus rebuffing the accusation. Immediately following this, we are told in verse 31 that Mary and Jesus' brothers sent for him: > 31 And his mother and his brothers came, and standing outside they > sent to him and called him. 32 And a crowd was sitting around him, > and they said to him, "Your mother and your brothers are outside, > seeking you." (Mark 3:31-32, ESV) According to Roman Catholics, Are his "mother and his brothers" mentioned in verse 31 included with "his family" described in verse 21?

Jesus said in Matthew 7:16, "You will know them by their fruits." This verse is often cited to identify genuine believers based on their actions and character. However, a recent incident in Minnesota where a self-professed evangelical Christian—who had even received an appointment—was involved in the shooting of a congresswoman raises questions. How should this verse be understood in light of such events? Can we truly and reliably know a believer by their fruits, especially when someone outwardly identified with Christianity ends up acting in a way that seems so contrary to Christ’s teachings? How do different theological traditions interpret this principle when actions contradict profession of faith?

Me and a friend have been debating this topic and I'm a little stumped I must say. My friend believes in Hard Determinism where desires control us and our desires come from what he calls "life path". I tried refuting this by saying free will and desires are distinct but he simply brought up that our strongest desires determine our free will. So if you use your free will to go against your strongest desire, then you are still using a stronger desire to over come another stronger desire if that makes sense. So after doing some research I stumbled upon libertarianism and it seems like that is the view point I gave to him about free will and desires being distinct. But I'm not sure if libertarianism is the Biblical explanation. So how does God explain free will and desires being distinct? Can we really choose to not follow our stronger desire without a stronger desire causing us to do so? If so, then why would we choose to do something we do not want to do unless the desire to do that thing is stronger than the desire to not do it?

I'm looking for a comparable Protestant teaching, and hopefully the scriptural reference it's based on, for this point within the Catholic catechism. > The desire for God is written in the human heart, because man is created by God and for God; and God never ceases to draw man to himself. [CCC, n. 1](http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c1.htm)

Zechariah speaks of “all the peoples” (Zech. 12:2), “and all the people of the earth will gather against it (Jerusalem)” (Zech. 12:3), and “I will gather all the nations to fight against Jerusalem” (Zech. 14:2). These verses do not seem to be referring to the Romans in A.D. 70. Further on, Zechariah continues, saying: “On that day the Lord will shield those who live in Jerusalem” (Zech. 12:8), and: “Then the Lord will go out and fight against those nations, as he fights on a day of battle” (Zech. 14:3). I concluded that none of this fits with what happened to Jerusalem in A.D. 70, when the Romans conquered Israel. Finally, the passage says that the Lord will save Israel on that day (Zech. 14:3), whereas in A.D. 70, the Lord judged Israel, as written in Luke 21:20–24. So how can preterists say that Zechariah is speaking of A.D. 70 if, in this passage, the Lord is saving His people? james stuart russell the parousia The AD 70 Doctrine description

I'm curious how, in the context of spiritual teaching and leveraging scripture, religious leaders are balancing the value of the text with questions that scholarship has raised as to the authenticity and originality of various texts such as the Johannine comma, the woman caught in adultery, the end of Mark, etc. Thank you in advance for your thoughts!