> "Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me." - Isaiah 43:10 (KJV) In King Follett Sermon, Joseph Smith teaches that members of the LDS church may too become gods one day: **Eternal Life to Know God and Jesus Christ (King Follett Sermon)** > The scriptures say it, and I defy all the learning and wisdom and all the combined powers of earth and hell together to refute it. Here, then, is eternal life—to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power. And I want you to know that God, in the last days, while certain individuals are proclaiming His name, is not trifling with you or me. Moreover; we are aware that the Church of Latter Day Saints believes that the Godhead (Father Son & Holy Ghost) are three separate gods sharing the same will. > Although the members of the Godhead are distinct beings with distinct > roles, they are one in purpose and doctrine. They are perfectly united > in bringing to pass Heavenly Father's divine plan of salvation. > > [Godhead (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)](https://www.lds.org/topics/godhead) Also; **Abraham 4** teaches creation was committed by multiple gods. > 1. And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth. With this in mind; How does the Church of Latter Day Saints interpret Isaiah 43:10? Bonus points if the verse is kept in context.

The 1917 Code of Canon Law can. 2214 §1 states: >The Church has the native and proper right, independent of any human authority, to coerce those offenders subject to her with both spiritual and temporal penalties. This says "The Church", but §2 goes on to specify "Bishops and other Ordinaries". A bishop, when consecrated, is given the power to teach, govern, and sanctify those in his diocese; but what authority does a simple parish priest have over his parishioners? In other words, what can a parish priest command or forbid his parishioners to do? Can he coerce his parishioners with punishments, or is this power only reserved to bishops?

I've come across several instances of the Trinitarian explanation that God's one nature (or essence) defines **what** God is, while the three persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—define **who** God is. For [example](https://relevantradio.com/2022/10/explaining-the-trinity-nature-and-person/) : > ... To wrap our heads around the Trinity, we have to distinguish the word “nature” from the word “person”. Our nature would be what suggests to us that there is a person, but the person is what possesses the nature. A person could not exist without his or her nature but ultimately, the person possesses their nature. > > Patrick applied this to Frank, his caller. Frank’s person tells us *who* he is. He is Frank and that is his person. Frank’s nature tells us *what* he is. He is a human being with a soul, intellect, and free will. Therefore, he has a human nature. When Jesus became incarnate, He had two natures, one human and one divine. He never ceased being God the Son. I’d like to understand more precisely how this distinction is made within Trinitarian theology. I’m particularly interested in how this is supported by both scripture and the historical teachings of the Church. For example, the **Fourth Lateran Council (1215)** declared: >"For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit: but the Godhead of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one, their glory equal, their majesty coeternal." This seems to affirm the distinction between person (who) and essence (what), but I’d like help unpacking it more fully. How do Trinitarian theologians interpret this distinction, and how does it help preserve both monotheism and the full divinity of each person? I’m looking for answers from a classical Trinitarian perspective, whether Western (Catholic/Protestant) or Eastern Orthodox, and would appreciate scriptural, conciliar, or patristic sources that explore this topic.

It is often stated that it is impossible for us to Keep the Law - or at least it must be impossible without first receiving the Holy Spirit. Studying the OT closely, I keep finding scriptures that assert otherwise (like Moses’ speech in Deuteronomy 30). King Saul not only continues to sin after receiving the HS, but sins so greatly that God revokes his Spirit from Saul! (So much for once saved always saved). And even King David - who is otherwise treated as the Gold Standard for OT Kings - commits sins that the Law demands death for after receiving the HS. After completing another read-through of 2 Kings, I found what appears to be the perfect counter example: Josiah. After learning of the Book of the Law, Josiah re-instates the Covenant and carries out his duties to rid the land of the worship of foreign gods and other sinful practices. No fault is listed against him, and in the final analysis he is raised up even over King David: 2 Kings 23:25 > Before [Josiah] there was no king like him who turned to the Lord with all his heart, all his soul, and all his might, in conformity to all the Law of Moses; nor did any like him arise after him. It is worth noting that not only did Josiah perfectly follow the Law, but he also did so without having been blessed with the HS as his predecessors Saul and David had been. How do those that maintain that only Christ and/or only those that have the HS can keep the Law reconcile that with King Josiah?

Are Catholics allowed to read and/or own books that attack Catholicism or argue in favor of other religions without permission, even if it is for a legitimate reason like strengthening their faith? I was reading an old moral theology book but I'm not sure exactly what it meant and if it was just talking about books that were on the Index of Forbidden Books. For example, a quote from John McHugh and Charles J. Callan, OP's *Moral Theology* (1929) [§849-§866. Dangerous Reading](https://archive.org/details/moraltheology0001john/page/320/mode/2up) : > **849. Dangerous Reading.**—There is a threefold prohibition against the reading of literature dangerous to faith. > > - (a) The *natural law forbids* one to read or hear read written matter of any description which one knows is dangerous to one’s faith, even though it is not dangerous to others and not forbidden by the law of the Church. For a similar reason one may not keep such material in one’s possession. Example: Titus and Balbus read the letters of a friend on Evolution. Titus finds nothing unsound in the letters, and is not troubled by reading them; but they fill the mind of Balbus with doubts and perplexities, as the subject is above him. This reading is naturally dangerous for Balbus, but not for Titus. > >- (b) The *law of the Church forbids* the use of certain kinds of writings or representations dangerous to faith (Canon 1399), as well as of those *individual* writings that have been denounced to the Holy See and placed on the Index, or forbidden by other ecclesiastical authorities. > >- (c) The law of the Church also *pronounces ipso facto excommunication* against those who make use of works written by unbelievers in favor of their errors (Canon 2318). > > [... omitted: the rest of the "Dangerous Reading" section (§850 to §866) which covers in great detail every aspect and every term mentioned in §849, such as §862 that spells out what "use" exactly means in §849c]

In Genesis 2:16–17, God commands Adam not to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil: >"And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, 'You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.'" (ESV) This tree seems to serve no immediate nutritional or practical purpose for Adam and Eve, yet it is placed prominently in the garden. Given this, I’m wondering whether God’s primary purpose for establishing the tree was to present a moral choice — a test of obedience — that would foster spiritual maturity, trust, and relational depth with Him. Was the tree intended as a tool to develop spiritual growth through obedience?

In [Genesis 5](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+5&version=ESV) , a brief account of the lives of Adam's descendants is narrated. All of them had long lives, for instance, Adam lived 930 years, Seth lived 912 years, etc. But in [Genesis 6:3](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+6%3A3&version=ESV) , God seems to shorten the lifespan of man to 120 years or at least that's what I understood reading that verse. **Did I understand it right? How is this fact explained by people who consider Genesis to be literal history?**

Have you ever thought why you live? And the Bible says you have the free will to choose life or death (that can mean being with God or separated from Him) But have you ever thought of “did I ever choose to live?” Of course before you are made, you have no “yes, I want to live” or “no, I don’t want to live”. But let’s say that this world is a “testing ground” for the true life to come as it is held in traditional belief (that is having eternal life in heaven or hell). My question is, why can’t I choose death? And by that, I mean non-existence. Like not in heaven, nor hell. Just nothing. If I have free will, why do I not have that option?

According to Catholicism, can unaided reason know that every religion except Christianity is false? For example, if someone claimed that they are 95% sure Christianity is true and 5% sure some other religion is true (and let's say for the sake of argument this person is perfectly informed about both religions), would Catholicism tell them this is a reasonable belief to hold and the right way to think about things, or would they say no, there is enough information out there that if you actually know about that religion you would know with complete certainty that it is false?

All of us know that Jesus had ascended to God the father after he had resurrected, we know that he will come again at the end of time to judge the people and found the kingdom of God on earth. The question is, will he descend as an adult man as he ascended to God the father, or will he be reborn again as an infant in a new incarnation?. Note: there are many who claimed to be incarnations or reincarnations of Jesus, some of them belong to new Christian denominations, look: [Wikipedia List of people claimed to be Jesus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_claimed_to_be_Jesus) Esoteric Christianity like Liberal Catholic Church adopts reincarnation and oneness of god who is both transcendent and immanent and accept Tritheism as three persons in that one God,i.e: the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are manifestations of that one transcendental immanent God. Look: [The Liberal Catholic Church](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.thelccusa.org/about/doctrine.html&ved=2ahUKEwiJqtDln9vmAhVaBGMBHVuACIgQFjAVegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw3tmC-K73qW9T0pMn8NF4yE&cshid=1577636090716) and [Liberal Catholic Church (Wikipedia)](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Catholic_Church&ved=2ahUKEwiJqtDln9vmAhVaBGMBHVuACIgQFjATegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw1jVuej_N56fVnUqmJKBsJ5&cshid=1577637685926) I would like answers to be biblically based, it's preferred to be by scholars of Christianity, especially of orthodox Christianity.

The Gospels record many parables spoken by Jesus, often used to teach moral or spiritual truths. Some of these, like the parable of the prodigal son or the good Samaritan, contain vivid, lifelike details. This raises the question: Were these stories based on actual historical events and people known to His audience, or were they entirely fictional narratives created to convey deeper lessons? I’m curious how different traditions or scholars interpret this — are there clues in the texts or historical context that suggest one view over the other?

1 Corinthians 2:10-11 says: >"But God has revealed them to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who knows a person's thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God." Paul compares the Spirit of God to a person's own spirit — which would imply essential unity, not distinction. In my case, my spirit is not another person; it's just me. If the Spirit of God is likewise indivisible from the Father, as Trinitarian theology also affirms, how can the Spirit still be considered a distinct person from the Father? How do Trinitarian theologians respond to this apparent tension between indivisibility and personal distinction in the Godhead, especially in light of this verse?

If you suddenly suffer from a serious illness, become disabled, or experience a drastic decline in your quality of life, or if someone close to you is killed, murdered, or tortured, should you blame God for it? Certainly, the answer cannot be that it is God's will. Nobody should have to endure suffering like that. How can we still believe in God who allows this to go on in our lives? How does "the entire book of Job" and every other Psalm of David contribute to the answering of this dilemma about the doctrinal topics of Providence and the Attributes of God?

Jeremy Camp is a contemporary Christian artist known for music that deals with faith, suffering, and hope. His song "He Knows" contains the lyric: >All the bitter weary ways Endless striving day by day You barely have the strength to pray In the valley low And how hard your fight has been How deep the pain within Wounds that no one else has seen Hurts too much to show All the doubt you're standing in between And all the weight that brings you to your knees He knows He knows Every hurt and every sting He has walked the suffering This lyric suggests that Christ understands not just our physical suffering, but also our internal struggles and doubts. The song is often described as encouraging and biblically grounded. I’m seeking to understand what biblical and theological principles should be applied to evaluate whether such a song is inspired by the Holy Spirit. I’m not looking for personal opinions on musical style, but for scripturally grounded criteria such as alignment with biblical truth, spiritual fruit, and edification of the Church.

What does teaching morality result in?

In 2 Kings 2:11, Elijah is taken up to heaven in a chariot of fire and horses of fire, a dramatic and supernatural departure. In contrast, Acts 1:9 describes Jesus (the Son of Man) ascending to heaven in a cloud, a more serene and symbolic image. Why are these two ascensions portrayed so differently in Scripture? From a theological or symbolic standpoint, does the fiery chariot imply greater honor and glory for Elijah, or does the cloud signify a higher divine status for Jesus? How do Christian traditions interpret the differences in these departure scenes? I’m especially interested in answers that consider biblical symbolism, typology, and theological meaning within the broader narrative of Scripture.

There is a related question here: hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/56196/… We are told in various imagery that Messiah would come in the line of David and be a branch or rod that sprouts from Jesse's roots: > And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots: And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord; - Isaiah 11:1-2 > Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, thou, and thy fellows that sit before thee: for they are men wondered at: for, behold, I will bring forth my servant the Branch. - Zechariah 3:8 > And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh the Lord of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name is The Branch; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the Lord: - Zechariah 6:12 Later, in Revelation, we are told that Jesus is the root of David: > And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof. - Revelation 5:5 And then Jesus himself claims to be both the root and the offspring of David: > I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. - Revelation 22:16 This is much like when Jesus asked about whose son the Christ is "“How is it then that David, in the Spirit, calls him Lord, saying, “‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet”’? If then David calls him Lord, how is he his son?” (Matthew 22:43-45). For those who believe Jesus did not pre-exist his incarnation, How can Jesus be the root of David if he is David's offspring?

How do people who believe in the theology of The Holy Trinity respond to these clear differences between God and Jesus Christ? | # | The Father | Jesus Christ | |----| -------- | -------------- | |1.| God is not put to the test (Deut 6:16)| Jesus was put to the test in the wilderness| |2.| God is not mocked(Gal 6:7) | Jesus was mocked on the cross, *save us and yourself, he is calling Elijah*| |3|God has immortality and cannot die | Jesus died first and received the breath of life from God| |4|God has been seated on that throne for all eternity| Jesus is seated at the right hand of that throne and not on it, *One Sat On it*| |5|God knows the end from the beginning | Jesus does not know the time of his second coming, *not even the angels but the Father* | The differences above show that Jesus Christ received the breath of life from God like the two witnesses of The Book of Revelation and indeed he is the *Suffering Servant*. *Isaiah 53:4-6* >However, it was our sicknesses that He Himself bore, And our pains that He carried; Yet we ourselves assumed that He had been afflicted, Struck down by God, and humiliated. 5 But He was [c]pierced for our offenses, He was crushed for our wrongdoings; The punishment for our [d]well-being was laid upon Him, And by His wounds we are healed. 6 All of us, like sheep, have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the Lord has caused the wrongdoing of us all To [e]fall on Him. And surely a servant is not greater than his master who is God. As a Christian, I do believe in the words Jesus said that , *he did not know of the second coming, not even the angels but the Father*, if Jesus denied this knowledge then he is not *omniscient* and hence not God, If I deny those words, I make the Lord Jesus Christ a liar, which he is not and never will be. How do Trinitarian Christians respond?

I am studying a Agnus Dei made of rock crystal of the 16th century. The piece / pendant has a little center door that opens and inside a fragment of the blessed wax (Agnus Dei) is found. What is this little door for? The Agnus Dei with a door was it used for a special purpose or by a certain type of person?

Between Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Polycarp, Papias, and Ignatius what are some actual doctrinal disagreements? In your response, please list the relevant writings of the Church Fathers with citations in the usual format such as "Cyprian, *Epistle* 54:14" (Author, *Book* chapter#:section#, see [helpful article](https://jimmyakin.com/2020/08/how-to-decode-mysterious-church-father-citations.html)) .