In several passages, Jesus describes judgment using the phrase “weeping and gnashing of teeth” (e.g., Matthew 13:42, Matthew 25:30). At the same time, some Christian traditions—particularly those that hold to annihilationism or conditional immortality—understand the “lake of fire” as resulting in the eventual destruction of the wicked rather than ongoing conscious torment. My question is: How do proponents of annihilationism reconcile their view with Jesus’ description of “weeping and gnashing of teeth”? Specifically: - Do they interpret this phrase as referring to a temporary conscious experience before destruction? - Or is it understood metaphorically (e.g., representing regret, judgment, or exclusion rather than ongoing conscious suffering)? I am looking for answers that explain how this phrase is interpreted within annihilationist theology, ideally with references to biblical or theological sources.

Some Christians reject the doctrine that the punishment of hell is everlasting, instead holding views such as annihilationism or conditional immortality. However, this raises questions about how these views are reconciled with Jesus’ own words. In Mark 9:48, Jesus describes hell as a place “where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched,” language that appears to suggest ongoing, unending punishment. Similarly, in Matthew 25:46, Jesus contrasts “eternal punishment” with “eternal life,” using the same Greek adjective (aiōnios) to describe both outcomes. For those who deny that hell is everlasting: - How are these passages interpreted in a way that avoids an eternal duration? - Is aiōnios understood differently when applied to punishment versus life, and on what linguistic or theological basis? - How do these interpretations remain consistent with Jesus’ teaching as recorded in the Gospels?

In Matthew 24:13, Jesus says: >“But the one who endures to the end will be saved.” This appears to place a condition on salvation—namely, perseverance. It seems to imply that failing to endure could result in not being saved. Additionally, in Galatians 3:3, Paul rebukes believers: >“Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?” This raises concerns about those who begin in faith but do not continue rightly. Other passages such as Hebrews 3:14 (“we have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end”) also seem to connect salvation with continued faithfulness. **Question:** How do proponents of the doctrine that salvation cannot be lost (e.g., “once saved, always saved”) reconcile these passages with their view? Specifically, how are conditional statements about enduring to the end understood within that framework?

Original sin was a sin of disobedience of God's command: > Romans 5:19 : … by the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners … cf. Council of Trent sess. 5, can. 2 But which command(s) did Adam disobey? 1. >Genesis 1:28
And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth. 2. >Genesis 2:17 (the "law of probation")
But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death.

> Genesis 1:28 > > Easy-to-Read Version (ERV) > > 28 God blessed them and said to them, “Have many children. Fill the > earth and take control of it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the > birds in the air. Rule over every living thing that moves on the > earth.” There are so many Christian concepts that make me scratch my head as to why God wants us to have children. Things like the ruler of this world is Satan, Christians must suffer in this world, we are anxiously waiting for Jesus' return and the rapture, fighting our carnal nature of a fallen world....etc. Wouldn't it be better to leave unborn children wherever they may originate from? **So what is the reason God wants us to have children?** (Also, if you happen to known - does God ***NOT*** want non-Christians to have children?)

I want to express beforehand that this is not an attack on Christianity I genuinely would like an honest answer. If Christ was a human male and Mary was his mother how did jesus get his Y chromosome. Mary is said to have given birth by immaculate conception. God in Christianity is a trinity, The Father The Son and the Holy Spirit. How did the Son happen as the Son is not the Father and is not the Holy Spirit. How can God perform a miracle in a physical world to create the Son if God didnt already belong to the physical world? If it took God 13 billion years to create chromosomes why did God suddenly choose to sidesweep all the time it took create Man and Women and cheat all the science with a miracle in Jesus's birth?

In historical Christian belief (of almost any type), it would be considered heresy to say that God the Son was created. The term "begat" is preferred, where this term does not imply creation. In such a tradition, Christ became incarnate . Is it correct/acceptable in such a tradition to refer to the body of this incarnation as being _created_? Why or why not?

There have been a lot of new methodologies developed in medicine that isolates specific fractions of blood for use in specific needs of individuals. Whole blood is rarely transfused anymore. My understanding is that a wide variety of fractions of blood are now being accepted as medical therapy by Jehovah's Witnesses. What exactly is the official position of JWs now as regards use of blood and blood products for patients?

In reading the answers to a [recent question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/113053/why-do-some-believers-form-factions-despite-scriptures-warning-against-division) here, the Great Schism was brought up, and consequently the filoque: which added the words to the creed, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father *and the Son*. In researching the filoque, it occurred to this writer that perhaps it was a needless divide. It seems that man is trying to parse and define the undefinable. The bottom line seems to be the understanding of what Jesus meant by "proceeds." >But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me. ‭‭John‬ ‭15‬:‭26‬ ‭NKJV‬‬ The commentaries weren't very helpful - the ones that would be, mostly used the Greek which was useless to me. The lexicons give several meanings, as does the English dictionaries. Generally I use all of that plus, most importantly, *context* to try to figure out what a passage means. But the context doesn't help, even considering other passages, and I am still flummoxed. I wonder if we are going beyond Scripture in trying to figure out the nature of the Trinity. In an answer to a similar question, [What does "proceeds" mean to Greek Orthodox?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/53159/what-does-proceeds-mean-to-eastern-orthodox) this was said: >Regarding the precession of the Holy Spirit as well as the pre-eternal begetting of the Son, Gregory of Nazianzus (known as Gregory the Theologian) (329-390) is reputed to have cautioned: >>When was this begetting and this procession? This was before when itself. You have heard that the Spirit proceeds from the Father; do not be curious to know how He proceeds. Oration 20 This made the most sense to me. I wonder if he added being cautious about adding the filoque as well. How am I wrong? Why did the church divide over this? Note: [This commentary](https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/gab/john-15.html) by Gaebelein was somewhat helpful, but still seems presumptuous to me. >In saying: whom I will send, Jesus is necessarily thinking of His approaching reinstatement in the divine condition; and in adding: from the Father, He acknowledges His subordination to the Father, even when He shall have recovered that condition. ...Most of the modern interpreters, Meyer, Luthardt, Weiss, Keil, refer the words: who proceeds from the Father, to the same fact as the preceding words: whom I will send you from the Father, to the sending of the Holy Spirit to the disciples. The attempt is made to escape the charge of tautology by saying that the first clause indicates the relation of the Spirit to Christ, and the second His relation to God ( Keil); as if in this latter were not already contained the from God, which, repeated in the second clause, would form the most idle pleonasm. It must be observed that the second verb differs entirely from the first; ἐκπορεύεσθαι , to proceed from, as a river from its source, is altogether different from to be sent: the ἐκ , out from, which is added here to παρά , from the presence of, also marks a difference. But especially does the change of tense indicate the difference of idea: whom I will send and who proceeds from. He whom Jesus will send (historically, at a given moment) is a divine being, who emanates (essentially, eternally) from the Father. An impartial exegesis cannot, as it seems to me, deny this sense. It is that the historical facts of salvation, to the view of Jesus, rest upon eternal relations, as well with reference to Himself, the Son, as to the Spirit. They are, as it were, the reflections of the Trinitarian relations. As the incarnation of the Son rests upon His eternal generation, so the mission of the Holy Spirit is related to His eternal procession from the very centre of the divine being. The context is not in the least contradictory to this sense, as Weiss thinks; on the contrary, it demands it. What Jesus sends testifies truly for Him only so far as it comes forth from God.

The Catholic Church depicts the Crucifixion in a series of images known as the [*Stations of the Cross*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stations_of_the_Cross) , and many other denominations celebrate with passion plays and Easter Pageants. which include descriptions of the events surrounding the Crucifixion. As depicted in the Bible, that day almost feels like a sacred ceremony being performed, with each character briefly entering the stage, playing a role, and then exiting. Historically, was there a related ceremony that reflects the events of that day?

## Background Inspired by https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/29919/what-important-mormon-doctrines-are-taught-in-the-book-of-mormon-that-we-couldn The Hebrew bible contains history , religious laws , sensual poetry , creation stories, and more. But scholars have long noted a lack of systematic theology compared with other religious books (not that there isn't theology contained in the Hebrew bible). On the other hand, authors of the New Testament make extensive and explicit theological arguments, a clear example is *Epistle to the Hebrews* which marked the line in the theological sand between proto-Christianity and 1st/2nd Century Judaism. ## Question What are doctrines or ideas, small or large, which are only found in the New Testament? I am interested in all perspectives on doctrines, theology, etc that are 'new' in the New Testament. This question will require an amount of good faith from any answerers, since a *post-hoc* reading of the Hebrew bible ***could*** gin up support for any number of NT innovations. I'm looking for ideas that are clear in the NT but unclear or not found in the Hebrew bible. ## Example answer An example could be: >> For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it *James 2:10* > The idea that breaking any one of the commandments is equivalent to breaking all of them is not found in the Hebrew bible and appears to be a new doctrine found only in the New Testament

In a recent debate between Dr. James White and Dr. Justin Smith , Dr. James White argues for a Trinitarian interpretation of 1 Corinthians 8:6, claiming that Paul deliberately echoes the Shema (“Hear, O Israel: YHWH our God, YHWH is one” – Deut 6:4) and “expands” it. According to this argument, Paul: - Retains the Shema’s monotheistic framework - Identifies “one God” with the Father - Identifies “one Lord (κύριος)” with Jesus Christ - Uses the same κύριος / θεός vocabulary found in the Septuagint rendering of Deut 6:4 This is taken to imply that Paul includes Jesus within the unique divine identity of YHWH, without abandoning Jewish monotheism. **My question is directed to Christians who affirm the doctrine of the Trinity:** **Apart from later creeds or patristic theology, what exegetical and hermeneutical arguments support reading 1 Corinthians 8:6 as a deliberate reworking or “expansion” of the Shema?** More specifically: - Does the immediate literary context of 1 Corinthians 8 support this reading? - What linguistic or intertextual indicators suggest Paul is intentionally alluding to Deuteronomy 6:4? - How should the distinction between “one God, the Father” and “one Lord, Jesus Christ” be understood without collapsing them into modalism or separating them into two gods? Would you agree with Dr. White’s interpretation? If so, on what biblical and contextual grounds, rather than post‑biblical theological developments? If not, what other interpretations of 1 Corinthians 8:6 exist that are in support of the trinity doctrine, and on what biblical and contextual grounds, rather than post‑biblical theological developments?

Watching the installation of the 106th Archbishop of Canterbury, the Nicene Creed was part of [the service](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cevkjgykrvet#player) at around 16:14. What I heard was > We believe in the Holy Spirit, > the Lord, the giver of life, > who proceeds from the Father, > who with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, > who has spoken through the prophets. though the [standard Church of England version](https://www.churchofengland.org/faith-life/what-we-believe/nicene-creed) includes the filioque phrase > We 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 worshipped and glorified, > who has spoken through the prophets. The Church of England does provide a filioque-less [alternative for ecumenical purposes](https://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-and-worship/worship-texts-and-resources/common-worship/service-word/service-word-morning-and#ch6k) but it seems strange that a service which is so internally focused on the Church of England and the wider Anglican Communion should do this. Is this an indication of the future?

In preterist interpretations, many of Jesus’ prophecies—especially those concerning the destruction of Jerusalem (e.g., in the Olivet Discourse)—are understood to have been fulfilled in AD 70. However, I am curious about how preterists treat the prophecies found in the Book of Revelation, traditionally attributed to John. One point of tension I am trying to understand is this: when Jesus spoke about “all things that are written” being fulfilled (e.g., Luke 21:22), the Book of Revelation had not yet been given to John and therefore had not yet been written. This seems to raise the question of whether Jesus’ statement can be applied to Revelation at all, since it was, at that time, still unwritten. Given that, do preterists (especially full preterists) include the prophecies of Revelation among the things fulfilled in AD 70? Or do they distinguish between what was already written at the time of Jesus’ statement and later revelations given to John? Additionally: - Is this one of the reasons partial preterists typically do not see Revelation as fully fulfilled in AD 70? - How do full preterists respond to the argument that Jesus referred only to what had already been written, not to future writings like Revelation? I am looking for answers grounded in specific preterist interpretations, along with scriptural and/or historical reasoning.

Rather than busting out a KJV and a JST and comparing them verse by verse I am lazily hoping that there is, somewhere, a list which has already been generated providing all of the verses from the Bible which the JST has modified or allegedly 'restored'?

What is a good analogy for God being outside of time but not completely controlling it? We have heard the analogy of God being on the bank of the river of time. Revelation Lad wrote about God looking down on the solar system and seeing us experience day and night without His experiencing them (https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/111175/102058) . I have a different analogy. I read that if one wants comments on a write-up, they should post it as the answer to a question, making up an appropriate question, if necessary. When I ask a question, the system says, "Answer your own question – share your knowledge, Q&A-style". So, please comment on my answer. **Conclusion** Rather than my analogy, I prefer Mimi's analogy that God can travel back and forth through time. Thus God can - 1. Know the future without controlling it. 2. Change the future in response to our prayers. 3. Change the past (although I am not aware of His having done this). **Comments** 1. This does not represent my personal beliefs, only a simple way of understanding one set of beliefs. 2. This does not appear to be a salvation issue. Those of us with a proper relationship with Jesus should end up in the New Jerusalem, regardless of whether we believe that a. God doesn't completely know the future, b. God completely knows the future but doesn't completely control it, or c. God completely knows the future because He completely controls it. 3. Googling a definition of absolute sovereignty got me the following: >absolutism political system Also known as: absolute monarchy, autocracy Written and fact-checked by The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica Last Updated: Oct. 11, 2025 •Article History Britannica AI Icon Britannica AI Ask Anything >absolutism, the political doctrine and practice of unlimited centralized authority and **absolute sovereignty**, as vested especially in a monarch or dictator. The essence of an absolutist system is that the ruling power is not subject to regularized challenge or check by any other agency, be it judicial, legislative, religious, economic, or electoral. King Louis XIV (1643–1715) of France furnished the most familiar assertion of absolutism when he said, “L’état, c’est moi” (“I am the state”). Absolutism has existed in various forms in all parts of the world, including in Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler and in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin. Please notice that the definition requires only that the rule be unchecked. It says nothing about how much control the ruler chooses to apply. Each of the three groups listed in comment 2 tends to agree that God has absolute sovereignty, that He can do and have done whatever He chooses, and no one can interfere. Using "absolute sovereignty" such that it applies to only one of the three groups in comment 2 is unfair and misleading.

Millions of dollars have been made off the **Left Behind** books and movies. I would like to ask who was the first person to associate Matthew 24:40-41 with the rapture?

I've recently encountered the claim from a full preterist that... > It is well established by their own writings and history that the Apostles and the earliest church fathers like Eusebius, Athanasius, and Clement all held a Preterist theology. They understood that the fall of Jerusalem was the end and fulfillment of all scripture, as it says in Luke. However I've been unable to independently verify this claim. Unless this person is avoiding saying "full preterist theology" as a kind of safeguard. Regardless of the reason, the question is as written in the title. Were any church fathers (or other such as heretics, apostates, etc) full preterists?

For context, Heb 11:1-5 (NIV): > "Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for. By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. By faith Abel brought God a better offering than Cain did. By faith he was commended as righteous, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith Abel still speaks, even though he is dead. ... https://www.bible.com/bible/2692/HEB.11.NASB2020 https://www.bible.com/bible/2692/HEB.10.NASB2020

> **“Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God."** - Matthew5:8 **IMPORTANT NOTE:** We cannot add nor subtract any word from the bible. When Jesus said this beatitude, He said this promised to all the living not dead nor this promise can only be gain after death. Jesus did not said, *"Blessed are the pure of heart, for they will see God,* ***after death***." Archangel Gabriel have faculties to see the state of soul of every human being. Archangel Gabriel saw the majestic soul of Mary, and proclaimed that it was *"full of grace"*. Mary was seen having the most pure heart. > [**Mary: Woman of Most Pure Heart**](https://carmelite.org/spirituality/mary-woman-most-pure-heart/) > > As well as regarding Our Lady, the Blessed Virgin Mary, as patron of our Order, we Carmelites revere her under a number of special titles such as ‘Beauty of Carmel’, ‘Sister’, and ‘Woman of Most Pure Heart’. > > Purity of Heart (Puritas Cordis in Latin) is an important concept in Carmelite spirituality, and Mary is seen as its greatest exemplar and embodiment. For this reason medieval Carmelites were among the most fervent promoters of the doctrine of Mary’s ‘Immaculate Conception’, which was not formally proclaimed a dogma of the Catholic Church until 1854. > > Carmelites have always sought to imitate Mary in her purity of heart. The medieval Carmelite writer Felip Ribot said that the goal of the Carmelite life is to offer to God a holy heart purified from all stain of sin. The purpose of this is to achieve, by God’s grace, union with God. Mary, the Most Pure Virgin, is seen as the perfect model of one who was totally available for union with God. > > To explain the significance of purity from a Carmelite perspective, the Irish theologian Chris O’Donnell, O.Carm., uses the image of a milk jug. The purpose of a milk jug is to dispense milk. In order to do so properly, it must be clean; if the milk jug is dirty, then the milk will become infected. However, there is no point in the milk jug being clean simply for the sake of it; if the purpose of a milk jug is to dispense milk, then it can be as clean as you like but if it’s empty then it isn’t useful. This is an analogy of the human heart. Its purpose is to pour out love for others. If our hearts are impure, then what we ‘pour our’ to others will be infected. But there is no point is having a pure heart simply to leave it empty; the point of purity is not an end in itself but a means to be useful for others. > > This is what Carmelites mean by purity: having a heart undivided for God, free from our own motives and desires so that God’s will be done in us. Today’s society often associates ‘purity’ with puerile notions of sex. Carmel teaches us that purity is more a matter of the heart than the rest of the body. > > *Maria Purissima*, Mary Most Pure, is the great example of purity, in that her heart is totally given over to God and pours out love towards those around her. **Looking for Protestant Founders like Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc. also theologians and biblical scholars outside of Catholic Church, before Reformation and early reformation era, who look upon the Blessed Virgin Mary as having a pure heart**." A citation from Protestant Founders and Theologians in harmony with Early Church and Church Fathers would be a perfect answer.