Jesus himself said that there is eternal life and eternal punishment according to Mathew 25:46 >"And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." John the Revelator, reinforced that by saying that the wicked have no rest day or night in the lake burning with sulfur and brimstone. >"He also will drink the wine of God's wrath... and the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night..." (Revelation 14:10-11) Jesus said God will destroy both the body and the soul in the lake of fire, he has not specified whether the destruction is eternal but then the verses above confirm that eternal punishment will be executed on sinners. How do Annihilationists respond?

The mainline Protestant idea of Atonement is, as Luther himself put it, this: > Jesus Christ, our God and Lord, died for our sins and was raised again > for our justification (Romans 3:24–25). He alone is the Lamb of God > who takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29) Eastern Orthodox speak about theosis, and about sin as a "disease." But what does the atonement, the death on the cross, and the resurrection of Jesus Christ mean for Eastern Orthodox? What does Eastern Orthodoxy understand about Christ being "the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world" (John 1:29)? Did Christ die for my sins? Was he raised again for my justification?

According to Stéphane-Joseph Piat, O.F.M., *Story of a Family* ch. 3, St. Thérèse of Lisieux 's father Louis Martin >had closely studied the theological value of such a [[virginal] marriage][4] as that of St. Cecilia and that of [Sts. Elzéar de Sabran and Delphine de Glandève ], as witnesses the following note, copied by his own hand at this time, and found among his private papers: >>*Concerning the doctrine of the Church on the Sacrament of Matrimony* >> >>The bond which constitutes this Sacrament is independent of its consummation. We have a striking proof of this truth in the case of the Blessed Virgin and St. Joseph who, although they were truly married, observed perpetual continency. These illustrious spouses have since had as imitators several saints who, living as virgins in the married state, have limited themselves to a perfectly pure union of hearts, renouncing by common consent the physical union which was permitted to them. These marriages contained everything essential to their validity; they had even this advantage over the others that they represented more perfectly the chaste and wholly spiritual union between Jesus Christ and His Church. Has this *Concerning the doctrine of the Church on the Sacrament of Matrimony* (presumably titled *De la doctrine de l'Église sur le sacrement du mariage* in 🇫🇷) been published, as a result of his beatification and canonization process ?

Following are some excerpts from the Nicene Creed: > I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father... > >I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets. > >(*Source*: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops) Here, the Creed speaks of God the Son as consubstantial with the Father. But when it comes to describing the Holy Spirit, it does not use the attribute 'consubstantial'. What is the explanation for the same? Inputs are welcome from any denomination that has adopted the Nicene Creed.

I've heard references to debates about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and it's always been presented as a pointless exercise. If such debates have actually occurred, presumably the participants didn't see them as pointless and thought there was both a way to answer the question and a reason to do so. Did these debates actually occur, and if so what were the reasons at the time? (For bonus points, what answers did people give and was there ever anything approaching consensus?)

I was doing some research on the age the dead will be raised-in and came across a publication by Saint Thomas Aquinas who suggests that the dead will be raised in their prime age (i.e. 30-33 because it is the age of prime), and also the fact that Jesus was raised back to life at 33. Is this correct, and is there any biblical basis to support this apart from the example of Jesus? >"All will rise again in the age of Christ, which is the age of thirty-three years... This is the most perfect age — when the body has reached its full growth, and yet has not begun to decline. Therefore, in the resurrection, all will be restored to the age of that perfection which Christ had when He rose again." — Thomas Aquinas, [*Summa Theologiae, Supplement*, Q. 81, Art. 1](https://www.newadvent.org/summa/5081.htm)

I was looking for information on whether, according to the LDS Church, the "days" in Genesis chapter 1 are literal 24-hour days or something else. I found this article at lds.org (aimed at a younger readership though) which states that > The Creation took six days and was done by Jesus Christ under the > direction of Heavenly Father. That seems to indicate that Mormons view those days as being 24-hour days. 1. Do Mormons view the creation days in Genesis chapter 1 as literal 24-hour days? 2. Or are they viewed as representing some other length of time?

My question is based on an event that will happen immediately the Son of Man returns. The trumpet goes off and Jesus is revealed from the Spirit World to the whole creation.The dead in Christ are raised first and then those who are alive are quickly transformed and are caught to the air to meet Jesus alongside those who have been raised. Why would these believers still go to judgment after being received by Christ himself in the air? After all judgment is for those who are raised second? *1 Thesalonians 4:16-17* >For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord. So they are received by the Lord of judgment himself, I believe in the **resurrection of life(first)** and the **resurrection of judgment(second)**, all human beings take part in one of those and not both. So why do some Christians hold the doctrine that Christians will be judged like the wicked. Jesus said believers have passed from death to life and hence avoiding judgment. *John 5:24* >Verily, verily I say unto you, he that heareth My Word and believeth in Him that sent Me, hath everlasting life and shall not come into condemnation, but is passed from death unto life.

Both Ezekiel 38-39 and Revelation 20 speak of this ‘entity’ Gog & Magog, both in battle based scenarios. Are these events the same or different? The Revelation 20 version gives a fairly clear, explicit timeline, the Ezekiel account is much more obscure. How can one decipher the timeline for the Ezekiel battle if it differs from Revelation?

Some of those who subscribe to the theory that the Jesus traditions were not published until decades after the resurrection assert that authorized tradents were responsible for accurately preserving the traditions via "oral tradition" methods. For example, Richard Bauckham contends that > Of crucial importance for our whole argument in this book is the role of individual authors and tradents of Jesus traditions. We have suggested that the traditions were originated and formulated by named eyewitnesses, in whose name they were transmitted and who remained the living and active guarantors of the traditions. **In local Christian communities which did not include eyewitnesses among their members, there would probably be recognized teachers who functioned as authorized tradents of the traditions they had received from the eyewitnesses either directly or through very few (authorized) intermediaries.**1 Which leads to the question: What percentage of the 1st century Christian population is assumed to have served as (Bauckham-style) authorized tradents of the oral tradition, who would have accurately memorized something comparable to what would one day be contained in Matthew's Gospel? [Reference to a published estimate would be most appreciated.] Ultimately, am trying to establish whether this is a greater percentage than those who were literate (at least able to read) within the early Christian population. ___ 1 Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2017), 290.

Do preterists interpret the generation referenced in Mathew 24:34 as a future generation or the generation Jesus was addressing during this sermon, this is because most preterists justify eschatological events as history using this verse as primary basis. >"Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.(Mathew 24:34)"

Many who theorize concerning Gospel origins claim that the material which was ultimately published in the four Gospels was preserved almost exclusively as oral traditions, carefully tended by local tradents, until the Gospels began to be published thirty to fifty years after the ascension. For example, Richard Bauckham contends that > Of crucial importance for our whole argument in this book is the role of individual authors and tradents of Jesus traditions. We have suggested that the traditions were originated and formulated by named eyewitnesses, in whose name they were transmitted and who remained the living and active guarantors of the traditions. In local Christian communities which did not include eyewitnesses among their members, there would probably be recognized teachers who functioned as authorized tradents of the traditions they had received from the eyewitnesses either directly or through very few (authorized) intermediaries.1 Accordingly, how long is it theorized that it would take to teach the Jesus traditions, such as what would one day be contained in Matthew's Gospel, to new tradents who would be responsible for accurately preserving such via oral tradition methods? [Reference to a book/article on the topic would be greatly appreciated.] On Paul's second missionary journey he makes it out to Macedonia (Acts 16–17). However, his visits to Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea, etc. are characterized as being both brief and mostly evangelistic, rather than instructional (i.e., training a tradent). Relative to Thessalonica, Acts 17:2 indicates that Paul reasoned in the synagogue for a mere three Sabbaths; although, Paul's epistles suggest that he was in the city for more than two or three weeks. Even if for a slightly longer period, Paul's letters from Corinth applaud the Thessalonians for their grasp of the traditions (2 Thess. 2:15) and their dissemination of the word (1 Thess. 1:8). But was he there in each of these cities long enough to train up a tradent? > To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter. (2 Thessalonians 2:14–15 ESV) Am trying to draw a comparison between how long it would take to help someone accurately memorize a set of material akin to Matthew, without recourse to a written document, as opposed to simply making a copy of a document. It would seem much more effective to instead leave behind a copy of a Gospel, given that Matthew could be copied within a week. (A related question: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/105788/what-percentage-of-the-1st-century-christian-population-served-as-authorized-tra) P.S. I do recognize that some scholars deny that there were formal tradents or that anyone necessarily preserved anything accurately. ____ 1 Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2017), 290.

It seems that Christian apologetics very much rests on the historical veracity of the resurrection. That is, if we can verify the resurrection, then we have an objective rationale to believe in the Christian faith. Let's assume for a moment that William Craig is correct that there is good evidence for the resurrection. Even so, does this conclude that Jesus was in fact who he said he was, i.e. the son of God? Deuteronomy 13:1-4 reads as follows: >If there appears among you a prophet or a dream-diviner and he gives you a sign or a portent, saying, “Let us follow and worship another god”—whom you have not known—even if the sign or portent that he named to you comes true, do not heed the words of that prophet or that dream-diviner. For the LORD your God is testing you to see whether you really love the LORD your God with all your heart and soul. Follow none but the LORD your God, and revere none but Him; observe His commandments alone, and heed only His orders; worship none but Him, and hold fast to Him. And the resurrection served as a sign: >Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying, “Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you.” But he answered them, "An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. (Matthew 12:38-40) As far as a Pharisee Jew is concerned, Jesus is certainly a god "whom you have not known"; Jesus and the Trinity were completely unknown to the Jews. Thus his sign should be disregarded. Now you might be tempted to respond that Jesus is indeed the same God that they knew, but he just didn't come out of the closet as Jesus until later. The question would then be: how are we to know that Jesus is, in fact, the same god? For that Christian apologetics has turned to the resurrection as evidence. But the verse clearly states: "_even if the sign or portent that he named to you comes true, do not heed the words_" thus excluding supernatural signs as evidence! (In fact, in Exodus 7:11 even Pharoah's sorcerers were capable of performing supernatural feats.) So we are back to square one; first, we need evidence that Jesus was indeed the son of God. Then and only then, does the historicity of the resurrection have any relevance to affirming Jesus. Without prior evidence, it seems justifiable to write Jesus off as a false prophet. Now many are quick to point out that Jesus claimed to be that very same god of the OT and even admonished Israel for not revering the god of the OT. Nonetheless, this doesn't prove that he is that very same god. Where are we to look for that verification? The resurrection? But that may just be another "sign" or "portent". It seems that the only acceptable form of validation must come from the Old Testament itself i.e fulfilled messianic prophecies. That is, the historicity of a supernatural feat has no place in the debate between Christians and Jews. Please note what I'm **not** saying: 1. Christianity therefore _must_ be false 2. Deuteronomy 13 by definition _must_ exclude Jesus 3. The purpose of the resurrection was to serve as "proof" What I **am** saying: The Resurrection _in and of itself_ can be evaded on supernaturalistic grounds.

I have read in numerous commentaries on John 20 that Thomas first met the resurrected Christ on Sunday, the first day of the week. Here is one illustrative example, though others I've looked at are similar in substance: > Verses 26-31 We have here an account of another appearance of Christ > to his disciples, after his resurrection, when Thomas was now with > them. And concerning this we may observe,I. When it was that Christ > repeated his visit to his disciples: **After eight days, that day > seven-night after he rose, which must therefore be, as that was, the > first day of the week.** Matthew Henry's commentary on John 20 [emphasis is mine] Here are the relevant verses from the Bible: > John 20 (NKJV) > > 19 Then, **the same day at evening, being the first day > of the week**, when the doors were shut where the disciples were > assembled, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, > and said to them, “Peace be with you.” 24 Now Thomas, called the > Twin, one of the twelve, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 The > other disciples therefore said to him, “We have seen the Lord.” So he > said to them, “Unless I see in His hands the print of the nails, and > put my finger into the print of the nails, and put my hand into His > side, I will not believe.” 26 **And after eight days His disciples were > again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came,** the doors being shut, > and stood in the midst, and said, “Peace to you!” Perhaps I'm being naïve, but starting from the Lord's day, Sunday, I count "and after eight days" (Greek: "καὶ μεθ’ ἡμέρας ὀκτὼ") to mean the Monday of the following week, that is, eight days after the first Sunday. It seems that the commentaries I've read interpret it to mean "on the eight day", which would indeed work out to the following Sunday. However, I'm having difficulty understanding how "after eight days" can be understood in this way. So, my question is: **On what day of the week did Thomas first meet the resurrected Christ? Was it on a Sunday, a Monday, or some other day of the week?** My main interest in this question is to understand if these verses in John 20 are indeed a valid support for the practice of Christians meeting on Sunday. I don't question the practice (there are many other verses in Acts, 1 Corinthians and Revelation that support it); I am simply trying to understand whether John 20 indeed displays the first case of Christians meeting as Christians on two consecutive Sundays. I'm having a hard time seeing this in this particular chapter.

Deuteronomy 13:1-4 [states](http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0513.htm) : >1. All this word which I command you, that shall ye observe to do; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it. > > 2. If there arise in the midst of thee a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams--and he give thee a sign or a wonder, > > 3. and the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spoke unto thee--saying: 'Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them'; > > 4. thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or unto that dreamer of dreams; for the LORD your God putteth you to proof, to know whether ye do love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. My understanding is that Christians believe that Jesus abrogated the Mosaic law (e.g. keeping the Sabbath, dietary restrictions, etc.) and they no longer feel bound by them. How, then, do they understand the above passage, which states that one may not subtract commandments from the Law, and which seems to imply that a true prophet will not do so?

I am trying to understand the Lutheran doctrine of Communion. Lutherans believe that Christ "gives us his true body and blood in, with, and under the consecrated bread and wine" (*Small Catechism with explanation* Concordia Publishing House, 352). They believe that Christ's real presence is there whether the communicant believes it or not (353), because the presence of Christ is established by the words of Jesus that are read during the ceremony. While my Small Catechism doesn't say this, I am also of the understanding that the real presence is also not dependent on the faith of the pastor leading the ceremony. In this way, a communicant does not need to worry about whether the pastor or the congregation is faithful; Christ's word is sufficient for him to be sure that he is in fact receiving Christ's body and blood for his forgiveness. However, Lutherans apparently believe that, at churches (such as Baptists) who do not affirm the real presence, Christ is *not* present in the communion elements, even if the words of institution are read. This appears to also be the case even if the communicant believes that Christ is present in the elements at such a church. I don't understand how those ideas can be reconciled. **If it is Christ's words, not the faith of the recipient nor the faith of the minister, that effectuates the real presence of Christ in Communion, how is it that that word is ineffective if the sacrament is administered in a church of the wrong denomination?** Perhaps one might say that if most or almost all of the congregation doesn't believe in real presence, then Christ's body will not be really present. But then we lose that assurance solely in Christ's Word that he is really present and we must also trust the congregation that we are with. Is there something that I am missing here? How do Lutherans reconcile these beliefs? *Note:* I am not asking whether or not Lutherans are correct on this issue. I am asking asking whether the Lutheran beliefs about Communion are internally consistent. If I have misunderstood any part of the Lutheran doctrines here, please let me know what I got wrong.

Augustine and Jerome wrote several epistles to one another. In these epistles, how did Augustine feel about Jerome producing the Latin Vulgate? What were his concerns?

In multiple New Testament passages the Disciples and even Jesus appear to think He would return within one generation or so: 1. Jesus says, 'What I say to you, I say to all: Watch, for you know not the hour ...' or 'Some here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.' (Mt 16, Lk 9) 2. Paul encourages people to remain in their current states of life (e.g. celibate) in anticipation of Jesus' return. 3. The Christians waited to produce a written record of Jesus' teachings when need for it became apparent. (Such need was not immediately apparent because they thought Jesus would return soon.) I can only guess that Jesus' return and the hour of our death are equivalent, hence Jesus tells everyone to keep watch, but I don't see that this interpretation is supported by the text. Rather, the text literally suggests that the end of the world would come at any time, but then Jesus has delayed it by 2,000 years, which seems unjust to all those generations, and to us as well, leaving us in a kind of painful suspense. So what's the deal? Why did Jesus cause and allow the early Christians to be mistaken about the timeframe of His return? I did read a book arguing that Jesus was actually using symbolic language to refer to the Roman destruction of Jerusalem, but this theory merely replaces those questions with why Jesus would make His written testimony unreasonably difficult to understand.

First off, I admit that I am not entirely sure if there is a term/title for a theological framework that suggest we must keep the Torah. Does one exist (similar to we have titles like "Reformed Theology" or "Dispensationalism")? With this, I see there are many tangential questions to the topic of Acts 15, but the questions at the end of my post here have not been addressed so I do not believe this to be a duplicate post. That said, Acts 15 appears to directly address the matter of whether Gentiles are required to keep the law of Moses, and the council’s decision seems to clearly oppose that idea. I have seen individuals suggest that this is *not* the topic/discussion within Acts 15, however, the chapter seems fairly straight forward. Correct me if I am wrong, but this seems to be how the chapter unfolds: 1. **The Dispute Leading to the Council** Certain individuals come to Antioch, teaching that Gentiles must be circumcised to be saved. This creates a significant dispute, leading Paul and Barnabas to travel to Jerusalem to address the issue. - **Acts 15:1-2** > “And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.” 2. **The Council Begins Discussion** Upon arrival in Jerusalem, the matter is raised again. Certain believers of the Pharisees (also?) insist that Gentiles must be circumcised and keep the law of Moses, prompting a formal discussion among the apostles and elders. - **Acts 15:5-6* > “But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.” 3. **Peter’s Speech and the Yoke** Peter addresses the council, reminding them that God has already shown His acceptance of the Gentiles by giving them the Holy Ghost, and argues against placing a yoke upon them that neither their ancestors nor they could bear. - **Acts 15:10-11** > “Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.” 4. **The Council’s Decision and the Letter** The apostles and elders decide to write to the Gentile believers, acknowledging that some had troubled them by teaching circumcision and Torah observance without the church’s authority. They instead advise Gentiles to avoid certain practices linked to pagan worship. - **Acts 15:24-29** > “Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment: > … For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.” **My Question(s):** How do those who uphold Torah Observance reconcile their position with Acts 15? Specifically: - How is Peter’s argument in verses 10-11, which describes the law as an unbearable "yoke" and emphasizes salvation through grace, understood within the framework of Torah Observance? - How is the statement in the letter (verse 24) that teachings about circumcision and keeping the law of Moses were troubling and unauthorized by the apostles addressed? - How is verse 28, which lists only a few "necessary things," interpreted in light of the earlier claims that Gentiles must keep the law of Moses? Does this not contradict such a requirement? Bible verses are KJV. Thank you and God bless.

Leviticus 23 introduces several appointed festivals/holy convocations. The chapter starts with: > The Lord said to Moses, > > 2 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘These are my **appointed festivals**, the appointed festivals of the Lord, which you are to proclaim as **sacred assemblies**. - Lev 23:1-2 (NIV) Then the festivals / holy convocations are enumerated: 1. **The weekly Sabbath** (Lev 23:3) 2. The Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread (Lev 23:4-8) 3. Offering the Firstfruits (Lev 23:9-14) 4. The Festival of Weeks (Lev 23:15-22) 5. The Festival of Trumpets (Lev 23:23-25) 6. The Day of Atonement (Lev 23:26-32) 7. The Festival of Tabernacles (Lev 23:33-44) Similarly, in Numbers 28 and 29 we find a similar list: 1. Daily Offerings (Num 28:1-8) 2. **Sabbath Offerings** (Num 28:9-10) 3. Monthly Offerings (a.k.a. New Moons) (Num 28:11-15) 4. The Passover (Num 28:16-25) 5. The Festival of Weeks (Num 28:26-31) 6. The Festival of Trumpets (Num 29:1-6) 7. The Day of Atonement (Num 29:7-11) 8. The Festival of Tabernacles (Num 29:12-40) It's not rare to come across Christians who claim that the weekly sabbath (Lev 23:3, Num 28:9-10) is still in effect, while all the other festivals and holy convocations are not (e.g. (https://sdarm.org/publications/periodicals/sbl/en/2009/1/11) , (https://naturesanswer.com/topic/colossians-2%3A16-sabbath-2283ef) , (https://www.the-ten-commandments.org/isthesabbathaceremoniallawormorallaw.html) , (http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/qod/q16.htm)) . What is the biblical basis for that claim? ________________________________ As requested in the comments, I'll briefly summarize the core ideas presented by some of these sites: 1. This [site](https://www.the-ten-commandments.org/isthesabbathaceremoniallawormorallaw.html) (and this follow-up [publication](https://www.the-ten-commandments.org/wasthesabbathabolished.html) on the same site) basically claims that the weekly sabbath belongs to the moral law, whereas the remaining feasts and holy convocations belong to the ceremonial law, and therefore they conclude that the weekly sabbath still stands but the others are abolished because they were "shadows". 2. This [site](http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/qod/q16.htm) essentially says the same thing: it talks about the concepts of "ceremonial law" and "moral law", claims that the weekly sabbath in particular is "moral" rather than "ceremonial", and, thus, concludes that the weekly sabbath is still in effect.