Throughout Scripture and history, the Middle East has been the central stage for world-shaping spiritual and political events: - The **Garden of Eden** is believed to have been located near the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. - **Israel**, the chosen nation, was often defended by miraculous angelic intervention (e.g., 2 Kings 19:35). - Empires like **Babylon (Nebuchadnezzar), Persia, Greece (Alexander the Great), and Rome** all rose and fell through this region. - The **birth, crucifixion, and resurrection** of Jesus Christ happened in this area. - End-times prophecies (e.g., Revelation, Daniel, Ezekiel) often center around Jerusalem and the surrounding nations. Given this pattern, is it theologically or biblically valid to understand the Middle East as the prophetically ordained site of a final spiritual or political "showdown," possibly involving the return of Christ or emergence of the Antichrist? I’m especially interested in how various Christian traditions interpret this historical pattern—whether it's symbolic, literal, or both.

I wish to know why I don't hate Lucifer. I just can't seem to bring myself to hate him and i cry for him. And I don't understand why does everyone hate him when the incident he did was so so long ago. Also, I wasn't even born at the time he did those things so why I just I am not joking. I'm not trying to be rude; I just don't understand why am I like this.

A recent question and an older question have accrued several answers with 'false' prophecies of Joseph Smith. Below is a compilation of them: 1. D&C 84:2-5,31 Prophecy that the temple would be built in Missouri within Smith's Generation >2 Yea, the word of the Lord concerning his church, established in the last days for the restoration of his people, as he has spoken by the mouth of his prophets, and for the gathering of his saints to stand upon Mount Zion, which shall be the city of New Jerusalem. > >3 Which city shall be built, beginning at the temple lot, which is appointed by the finger of the Lord, in the western boundaries of the State of Missouri, and dedicated by the hand of Joseph Smith, Jun., and others with whom the Lord was well pleased. > >4 Verily this is the word of the Lord, that the city New Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of the saints, beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, which temple shall be reared in this generation. > >5 For verily this generation shall not all pass away until an house shall be built unto the Lord, and a cloud shall rest upon it, which cloud shall be even the glory of the Lord, which shall fill the house. > >31 Therefore, as I said concerning the sons of Moses—for the sons of Moses and also the sons of Aaron shall offer an acceptable offering and sacrifice in the house of the Lord, which house shall be built unto the Lord in this generation, upon the consecrated spot as I have appointed 2. D&C 87:1-3 1832 Joseph Smith prophesied that the United States civil war would eventually engulf all nations >1 Verily, **thus saith the Lord** concerning the wars that will shortly come to pass, beginning at the rebellion of South Carolina, which will eventually terminate in the death and misery of many souls; > >2 And the time will come that war will be poured out upon all nations, beginning at this place. > >3 For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States, and the Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and then war shall be poured out upon all nations. 3. History of the Church, vol. 2, p. 182 1835 Joseph Smith prophesied the Lord’s return within 56 years >President Smith then stated that the meeting had been called, because God had commanded it; and it was made known to him by vision and by the Holy Spirit. He then gave a relation of some of the circumstances attending while journeying to Zion—our trials, sufferings; and said God had not designed all this for nothing, but He had it in remembrance yet; and it was the will of God that those who went Zion, with a determination to lay down their lives, if necessary, should be ordained to the ministry, and go forth to prune the vineyard for the last time, or the coming of the Lord, which was nigh—even fifty-six years should wind up the scene. 4. History of the Church, vol. 5, pg. 394 1843 Joseph Smith prophesied that the United States government would be overthrown and wasted within a few years if they refused to redress the wrongs committed against the Mormons in Missouri >**I prophesy in the name of the Lord God** of Israel, unless the United States redress the wrongs committed upon the Saints in the state of Missouri and punish the crimes committed by her officers that in a few years the government will be utterly overthrown and wasted, and there will not be so much as a potsherd left 5. D&C 114:1 Apr 1838 David Patten would go on a mission (he died October 1838 before he could) >1 Verily thus saith the Lord: It is wisdom in my servant David W. Patten, that he settle up all his business as soon as he possibly can, and make a disposition of his merchandise, that he may perform a mission unto me next spring, in company with others, even twelve including himself, to testify of my name and bear glad tidings unto all the world. 6. History of the Church, vol 6, p 116 1843 >While discussing the petition to Congress, I prophesied, by virtue of the holy Priesthood vested in me, and in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that, if Congress will not hear our petition and grant us protection, they shall be broken up as a government How do LDS explain how Joseph Smith is a prophet when there are false prophecies?

Most of the Mormon missionaries I've encountered are young men doing a couple year stint. They are typically identified as "elders", but my understanding is that this designation is only temporary during their time of service. How is the LDS use of this term similar or different than the office of elder in mainstream Protestant circles? Does their designation as elders give them any ruling authority over the church body or is their role strictly to work with non members?

In Genesis, Adam and Eve's disobedience resulted in death entering the world. Does Christian doctrine interpret human aging and physical decline as part of the curse resulting from the fall? Or was aging part of the natural human design even before sin? How have theologians historically interpreted this?

Some Christians hold the view that Jesus was the final prophet in a unique or ultimate sense. However, passages like 1 Corinthians 12:10 mention that the Holy Spirit gives some believers the gift of prophecy: >"to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues..." (NIV) If Jesus is considered the last prophet, how do those who hold that view understand the ongoing operation of prophecy in the Church? What terminology is used for individuals who exhibit this spiritual gift, if not “prophet”?

The neurochemical work of the brain provides many arguments that question or even refute the concept of the soul as an immaterial entity independent of physiological processes. First, all mental processes, including consciousness, emotions, and decision-making, have a clear neurochemical basis. For example, neurotransmitters such as dopamine, serotonin, and glutamate directly affect our mood, motivation, and perception of reality. Damage or imbalance of these substances leads to personality changes, depression, hallucinations, or memory loss, which indicates that "personality" and "consciousness" are products of the brain, and not manifestations of an immaterial soul. Secondly, experiments with electrical stimulation of the brain (for example, the work of Wilder Penfield) show that artificial exposure to certain areas can evoke memories, emotions, or even religious experiences. If the soul were independent of the brain, such manipulations would not have such an effect. Moreover, in clinical death, when the brain stops receiving oxygen, consciousness turns off almost instantly, and "near-death experiences" are explained by hypoxia and the release of endorphins, rather than the exit of the soul from the body. Thirdly, evolutionary biology shows that consciousness developed gradually as an adaptive mechanism, rather than being "injected" into humans in a supernatural way. Primitive animals with less complex brains show the beginnings of consciousness, emotion, and learning, which contradicts the idea of an exclusively human soul. If there were a soul, it would either have to be absent in animals or manifest itself in some material way, but there is no evidence of this. Finally, the phenomenon of split brain (when the severing of the corpus callosum leads to the emergence of "two consciousnesses" in one body) it calls into question the unity of the soul. How can one soul split into two independent streams of consciousness? All these data indicate that the "soul" is just a metaphor for complex neurochemical processes, and not an independent substance. Logically speaking, there is a neurochemical brain function that completely negates the soul, and which has been proven. She denies it as follows: For example, neurotransmitters such as dopamine, serotonin, and glutamate directly affect our mood, motivation, and perception of reality. Damage or imbalance of these substances leads to personality changes, depression, hallucinations, or memory loss, which indicates that "personality" and "consciousness" are products of the brain, and not manifestations of an immaterial soul. After all, the phenomenon of split brain (when the severing of the corpus callosum leads to the emergence of "two consciousnesses" in one body) it calls into question the unity of the soul. How can one soul split into two independent streams of consciousness? All these data indicate that the "soul" is just a metaphor for complex neurochemical processes, and not an independent substance.

Edward Healy Thompson, *The Life and Glories of St. Joseph*, ch. 14 "Joseph's Vow of Virginity", p. 89 states that: >Athanasius spoke these short but weighty words of Joseph and Mary: that “both remained intact, as was proved by many testimonies.”11. *De Incarnatione [*On the Incarnation* ].* I am unable to find this quote in the *De Incarnatione*. Is this a real quote or not?

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?