What is the history of Biblical interpretation for "not abolishing the law but to fulfill them" (Matt 5:17), accounting for the Jewish history of understanding the Law of Moses, and the issue of how they interpret and teach in the synagogue?

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

One of the many important areas of disagreement between Catholicism and Protestantism is how the two understand the intercession of the saints. Both groups agree that saints in heaven may pray to God on behalf of the Church on earth. However, Catholics believe that it is appropriate for Christians alive on earth now to ask the saints in heaven to pray for us, whereas Protestants do not think so. In defense of their view, Catholics often cite 2nd Maccabees 12:39-46, which reads in the *New American Bible:* > 39 On the following day, since the task had now become urgent, Judas and his companions went to gather up the bodies of the fallen and bury them with their kindred in their ancestral tombs. 40 But under the tunic of each of the dead they found amulets sacred to the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear. So it was clear to all that this was why these men had fallen. 41 They all therefore praised the ways of the Lord, the just judge who brings to light the things that are hidden. 42 Turning to supplication, they prayed that the sinful deed might be fully blotted out. The noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen. 43 He then took up a collection among all his soldiers, amounting to two thousand silver drachmas, which he sent to Jerusalem to provide for an expiatory sacrifice. In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection in mind; 44 for if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. 45 But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. 46 Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be absolved from their sin. I don't see what the connection is. I would think that people on earth praying for the deceased is the opposite of people on earth praying to saints in heaven. In the former case, it is *our* prayers which are meant to be helpful to *them*. In the latter, it is *their* prayers which are meant to help *us*. Furthermore, in the former case there is no communication between the living and the dead, quite unlike the idea of directing prayers towards people in heaven. (And that is a very important detail, as that is the point of divergence between Catholic and Protestant regarding the Intercession of the Saints.) The footnote in the 2012 *New American Bible* also makes no reference to prayers to the saints on these verses: > This is the earliest statement of the doctrine that prayers (v. 42) and sacrifices (v.43) for the dead are efficacious. Judas probably intended his purification offering to ward off punishment from the living. The author, however, uses the story to demonstrate belief in the resurrection of the just (7:9, 14, 23, 36), and in the possibility of expiation for the sins of otherwise good people who have died. This belief is similar to, but not quite the same as, the Catholic doctrine of purgatory. So basically, I do not see how the practice of praying *to* people in Heaven is similar to praying *on behalf of* people in Purgatory. **I would like some clarification on the purported connection between the two concepts.**

How did Job have a conversation with God before Christ was incarnated, and the coming of the Holy Spirit? What ***form*** did Job recognize as being God who was talking to him?

Benedict Ashley, O.P., *Spiritual Direction in the Dominican Tradition* p. 50 claims: >Naturally speaking, the human species is divided equally into male and female, so that every human can find a partner and form a marriage, and if there had been no fall into sin, naturally all persons would have married. Is this true? Would've everyone married if there were no Original Sin? It seems not, as isn't celibacy equally natural as being married? What did Catholic fathers or doctors of the Church have to say about this?

Union with Christ is a central doctrine in Reformed Theology, and concerns the mystical union of the believer with Christ, by faith and by the Holy Spirit. In faith the Spirit unites us to Christ, and that union is the means by which Christ's saving work is applied to us, it is the power of regeneration, and the basis on which the earthly church can and should be united. While there may be a sense in which all of the elect are united to Christ even before they come to faith, this Union is normally spoken about in reference to our temporal experience of God's grace: the unbelieving elect person is not yet united to Christ, but instead we are united to Christ when we are given new life, the power to have faith, and freed from sin, or in other words, saved. (Though there is a logical order, the *ordo salutis*, from our perspective we experience these things concurrently.) So here we come to my question: Does Reformed Theology teach that the Old Testament saints were personally united to Christ in this same way? Reformed theologians have traditionally taught Covenant Theology, where the various Biblical covenants, including the Old (Mosaic) and the New, are seen as aspects of the one eternal Covenant of Grace. So the Westminster Confession says: > WCF 7.6: Under the gospel, when Christ the substance was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed, are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper; which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity and less outward glory, yet in them it is held forth in more fullness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the New Testament. **There are not, therefore, two covenants of grace differing in substance, but one and the same under various dispensations.** > > WCF 8.6: Although the work of redemption was not actually wrought by Christ till after his incarnation, yet **the virtue, efficacy, and benefits thereof were communicated into the elect, in all ages successively from the beginning of the world**, in and by those promises, types, and sacrifices wherein he was revealed, and signified to be the seed of the woman, which should bruise the serpent's head, and the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world, being yesterday and today the same and for ever. These paragraphs would seem to indicate that yes, the OT saints were united to Christ in the same way as NT Christians are. But it's not explicit, and there are some factors which would argue against it. First is that at Pentecost there seems to have been a fundamental change of state for the disciples whom the Holy Spirit came upon. Before that moment Jesus's disciples had faith, and the faith of the Christian is the same faith as that of Abraham (Romans 4:16). But the indwelling presence of the Spirit seems like something new; indeed Peter in Acts 2:16-21 says that the Spirit's coming upon them is the fulfilment of Joel 2:28-32, this "pouring out" of the Spirit being something new from the perspective of the OT prophets. When Paul describes the blessings of Israel in Romans 9:4-5 the Spirit is not one of them. A second factor is that the NT consistently describes the Spirit's indwelling as permanent. Several verses describe the Spirit as our guarantee of the rest of God's blessings (2 Cor 1:22, 2 Cor 5:5, Eph 1:13-14). In contrast the OT often speaks of the Spirit departing from someone or being taken from them (Judges 16:20, 1 Sam 16:14, Ps 51:11, Is 59:21), and many times when the Spirit comes to someone (Judges 3:10, 6:34, Ezek 2:2), it comes to someone we would most naturally describe as already having faith. Now there are many ways those verses are understood, but I've often heard it said (though not necessarily by Reformed teachers) that the indwelling of saints in the OT was only temporary, instead of the permanent indwelling Christians receive. So how does Reformed Theology understand the role of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Old Testament believer, and whether those believers should best be described as being personally united to Christ? ---------------- It is conceivable that Reformed Baptists may have a different answer to Reformed Paedobaptists as many of them reject Covenant Theology and would not say that there was only one covenant that applied equally to Old and New Testament saints. If this is the case, a good answer would explain the position of both Reformed Baptists and Paedobaptists.

I have heard that the legal age of marriage was quite young in Jewish culture at the time of Christ. I believe young girls at the age of twelve could marry. However, I find it difficult to imagine Mary as young as thirteen years years old around the time of her giving birth, because of the maturity of her words that are found in the gospels. Is there any tradition that would place a more realistic age of Mary? Or is this just completely unknown even when guessing?

One of the key differences between Catholicism and Protestantism is the practice of prayer to saints in heaven, which encouraged in Catholicism but absent in Protestantism. My question is, **according to Catholic teaching, when did this practice begin?** I can find many resources from Catholic sources arguing that it ancient Christians prayed to the saints, pushing the beginning back at least to the late 1st or early 2nd century. How much older they believe "at least" means is not clear. For instance, this article at Catholic Answers has a lengthy collection of quotes from the Fathers, the earliest of which cited is Shephard of Hermas. However, it doesn't say when this practice actually began. They give a Biblical argument for its legitimacy, but nowhere claim that any of the Biblical figures *actually did* pray to deceased saints in heaven. So, I can think of several possibilities for the origin that are consistent with that: * It was first practiced by the early church shortly after the Apostles. * It was first practiced by the Apostles after the ascension of Christ, as an inference from his teachings and revelation from the Holy Spirit. * It was explicitly affirmed by Jesus to the Apostles while he was on the earth. * It was already practiced prior to the Incarnation. The last of these is the most interesting. If it's a pre-Incarnation practice, how far back does it go? Might Noah have prayed to Seth, for instance? Or is it an intertestamental development? Or somewhere in between? *Please note I am **not** asking about any of the following:* 1. Critical perspectives on the origin of prayers to saints. (I want a Catholic perspective.) 2. The idea that the saints in heaven pray for people still on Earth. (That's something Protestants generally accept; the point of difference is whether *we* should invoke *them*, not whether they're praying for us.) 3. The theological foundations of the intercession of the saints. (I want to know when it began to *actually be practiced by the Church,* not when it could have been theoretically valid.) 4. Anything related to prayers to angels. (I'm specifically asking about prayer to human beings in heaven.) 5. Prayers on behalf of the deceased, such as 2nd Maccabees 12:42-46. (There's a significant difference between praying *to* and praying *for* the deceased—in the former case the living are communicating directly with the dead while in the latter they are not.)

Heb 4:12: > For the **word of God** is **living** and effective and sharper than any double-edged sword, penetrating as far as the separation of soul and spirit, joints and marrow. **It is able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.** (CSB) > For the **word of God** is **quick**, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and **is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart**. (KJV) is quoted a lot by evangelicals in promoting devotional Bible study as though *the act of reading the Bible text in itself* produces the benefit that the Pastor of the book of Hebrews mentions in the verse, i.e. "judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart". But technically, isn't it true that it is **NOT** the text on paper that "judges" but **Jesus (God the Word)** speaking to us? Jesus is the one living, not the text. The theme of the sermon makes it clear what "word of God" refers to, *cf* Heb 1:1-2: > Long ago God spoke to our ancestors by the **prophets** at different times and in different ways. In these last days, **he has spoken to us by his Son**. God has appointed him heir of all things and **made the universe through him**. (CSB) > God, who at sundry times and in divers manners **spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets**, Hath in these last days **spoken unto us by his Son**, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; (KJV) which more precisely refers to the words God spoke by the OT prophets, culminating in His word by Jesus's body, life, action, and words. V. 2 alludes to the words through which God spoke creation into existence (Gen 1) that the Pastor implied as "through Jesus". It seems clear to me that proper exegesis should center the referent of "the word of God" in Heb 4:12 on Jesus who *indeed* is **living and present** preaching to us through the various ways alluded by Heb 1:1-2: - prophecy to OT fathers by the prophets - voice of our conscience (part of the created order), - the beauty & order of nature herself (testified in Job, Psalms, etc.) rather than ***ONLY*** through the words of the text of the Bible (though of course the Bible is the inscripturated word of God also). Furthermore, the more immediate context of Heb 4:12 is Heb 3:1-4:13 about the warning from the lesson learned at Kadesh Barnea's rebellion where they didn't heed the word of God delivered through Moses. Thus the warning of that passage is so that we heed Christ's words to our soul TODAY (*cf* frequent reference to Ps 95:7-8) now that God has spoken to us a lot more clearly by sending Jesus, His own incarnation, greater than the word He spoke to Moses. So why do Evangelicals, whenever they cite the verse in many sermons, Bible study guides, proof-text for apologetics, etc., regularly shift the referent of Heb 4:12 from Jesus to the text of the Bible itself, even broadening the scope to the NT text that has *yet* to be recognized as Scripture? ### 2 illustrations of the consequence of bad exegesis I think my concern for my evangelical brothers and sisters is important when considering **the two disturbing practices I notice** which seems directly to follow from this bad Evangelical exegesis: 1. In several evangelical churches I have attended, they imply that to obtain the benefit in Heb 4:12b, reading the Bible text in itself *is more efficacious* than other books (such as a good theology book, the Catechism, or a C.S. Lewis book), as though God works in a MORE SPECIAL MANNER in producing the benefit when the text read is the Bible but not other books. They seem fearful as though theology books can be more corrupting than the effect of uninformed straight reading of the Bible that has the risk of bad private interpretation if not checked by the church's interpretation mediated by the pastor's sermons. Some even eschew using a commentary, fearing that the commentator's interpretation obscures Scripture rather than making it brighter to the mind! To me this is not coherent. Doesn't the **agent** need to be someone LIVING rather than words on a page? But Evangelical careful readers (adopting the Berean discernment) certainly prioritize the teaching in Scripture to serve as a norm and a rule to judge whether a book elucidate or distorts the orthodox teachings of the Bible. Thus they pick and choose better parts of C.S. Lewis books and quote judiciously from writers such as Dallas Willard / A.W. Tozer. When a Christian reading those books became convicted of their sins and obtained more wisdom to know their hearts more clearly (thus obtaining the benefit of Heb 4:12b), can we *not* say it was Jesus speaking through those books? Can we *not* say it was Jesus speaking through a Biblical sermon prepared with lots of research including the use of commentaries, philosophy, and theology books? No one is going to mistake those books as "word of God", put them on the same level as the Bible, or attribute the author or the pastor as "Jesus speaking". By the way, I am in no way disputing the status of the text of the Bible as Scripture, nor am I excluding Scripture from the "word of God". Evangelical doctrines of - Verbal inspiration of Scripture - Infallibility of Scripture - *Sola Scriptura* as the norm for interpreting other sources such as tradition, council canons, patristic writings, church doctrines, post-NT prophecies, etc. - Protestant understanding of canon of "recognition" instead of Magisterium can be derived from other parts of the Bible instead of misusing this verse in support of the above, which in turn make the above doctrines stand on a less secure foundation. 1. The advice I got from several fundamentalist leaning evangelicals is that to evangelize you HAVE to look for an opportunity to cite a series of strategic Bible verses as though by the very act of reading them aloud to the non-Christian you're speaking to, the Holy Spirit can work BETTER in convicting him/her. One such sequence is this: 1. Romans 10:9 1. John 1:12 1. John 3:36 1. Rev 3:20 1. Rom 6:23 They say I am NOT supposed to let my own explanation to cloud over the reciting of those verses, even explanation of the CONTEXT of each verse! Nor is it necessary to let him/her talk about his/her current misunderstanding of the gospel or the difficulties he/she has with Christianity. **One should simply recite the verses to let them "work" in the hearer's heart unmediated by explanation**. I think I'm justified to say that this practice is adding a mystical element to the Bible text itself, as though the text has mystical power akin to incantation. So my question is: **Why do evangelicals tend to conflate "word of God" in Heb 4:12 with the "text of Scripture", thus with a meaning that ascribes animacy and agency to the words of the Bible text instead of to the Living God?**

**NOTE :** This question is aimed at narrowing down the probability, when did Mary committed an actual and personal sin, and what is the most likely nature of sin that She would commit? Protestant and Bible Alone Believers do not accept the Dogma on Immaculate Conception for lack of biblical support, so its only fair for Catholics, that we also, cannot accept the accusation that Mary is a sinner, for the same reason that it also lacking in biblical support. And so, its now the Protestant and Bible Alone Believers turn to prove their accusation and judgement that Mary is a sinner, by providing us biblical proof? Sin of pride, lust, envy, gluttony, sloth, etc. What is the most probable nature of sin that a lowly handmaid, a human being with profound humility, who is daily praying and embracing the Will of the Father, can fall into? Let's check on Mary's age. At age 1 to 3, is the age of innocence, therefore, Mary cannot commit sin here at this age. At age 3 to 13, Mary had spent her life in the Temple as a servant of God. Most likely, Satan cannot offer any of his temptations as he did to Jesus as money, fame and power will not entice the young Mary of this non-sense. https://www.mdrevelation.org/the-presentation-of-mary-in-the-temple/ At age 13, Angel Gabriel having faculties to see the soul of human being, saw Mary's soul as "full of grace", and telling us that in Mary's soul, the Lord presence can be seen. -Dominus tecum. Before conception, during conception and after giving birth it is unlikely that Mary can commit sin, as She was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit. And so, for all the Bible Alone Believers and wizards here at CSE, we only have one choices left. Mary is possible to commit sin, after giving birth to Jesus Christ. But what is the nature of sin, that a person who is docile to the voice of God, and had shown holiness and righteousness in her life,so, the simple and direct question is... What is the nature of sin that Mary would fall into after giving birth to Jesus Christ? **Can anyone tell us according to the bible, what is the nature of sin that Mary had fallen into, after giving birth to Jesus Christ?** Catholic, Protestant and Christian can answer this question, using only bible as the source and nothing else.

When does Christmas really end for Catholics? I know it starts different for most Eastern Orthodox, but for Latin Rite Catholics, like myself, I don't know when it actually is supposed to end. At the very least I know it's over by Ash Wednesday, but there there seem to be very real reasons to celebrate from 1. December 25 - January 1st (the octave of Christmas, ending with the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God) 2. December 25 - January 6th (the 12 days of Christmas, ending with the Epiphany) 3. December 25 - February 2nd (40 day celebration, ending with the Presentation) So, I guess the real question is who has the stamina to party Catholic style for 40 days, especially after the hubbub leading up to Christmas, but in a liturgical sense, when does the Christmas season end?

I know that there are a respectable number of denominations that hold to the idea that the scriptures aren’t innerant (free from error). But are there any that go as far as to teach that the scriptures aren’t inspired?

What are the oldest manuscripts of the Bible that contain either the Torah, Tanakh, Gospels, or New Testament? How far back do the Septuagint, Dead Sea scrolls, Codexis, or Masoretic parchments go?

Affable Geek's answer to What does it mean to interpret the Bible literally? mentioned the possibility of non-literalists interpreting the story of David and Goliath as a "tale that grew in the telling." This reminded me of something I read many years ago in a Bible commentary. It mentioned that several odd discrepancies exist in the details surrounding the story of David and Goliath, making it appear as if another story had been clumsily inserted into the middle of the text by some scribe. Unfortunately, the book was borrowed and I no longer have it, and I don't remember all the points that were made, but the one I remember clearly, because it was so blatant, was how David, once he volunteered to fight Goliath as Israel's champion, was introduced to King Saul as if for the first time, even though he had been serving in the King's court as a musician for quite some time prior to this. Of course a literalist must necessarily reject this idea that the story is full of later interpolations. How would one account for the apparent discrepancies in the story of David and Goliath, then?

Pelagianism is the point of view which suggests that human nature has not been affected by the Fall and that therefore every human being has the potential to achieve sinlessness by his/her own will. This view was condemned as heretical at the Council of Ephesus, though the main topic of the council was about the Nestorian controversy on the two natures of Christ and Pelagianism was not the main focus. The Council of Ephesus was rejected by the Church of the East (now represented only by the Assyrian Church of the East), which considers Nestorius a saint. Since the disagreement between the CotE and Ephesine Christianity was over Nestorianism, I am wondering if the Church of the East would agree with Ephesus's condemnation of Pelagianism?

When we come to Exodus 33:12-16, all efforts at atonement for the sin of the golden calf have failed in renewing God's covenant with His people. Here Moses seems truly at a loss: he has burned the calf and made the people consume its ashes from the water; he has had the sons of Levi put 3,000 men to the sword; he has tried to atone for their sins by offering his own life; the Lord has sent a plague; the Lord has made them rid themselves of ornaments; yet even in this last instance it is obvious that the question remains even now with Moses in this encounter if Israel is restored by God to the covenant He had made with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph. The last word on the subject was God declaring, “if for a single moment I should go up among you [Israel], I would consume you. So now take off your ornaments, that I may know what to do with you,” (Exodus 33:5). So, we have Moses in the tent interceding for the people, and we read: “And [the Lord] said, ‘My presence will go with you, and I will give you rest,” (Exodus 33:14). It is hard to see if perhaps there is ambiguity in “you” here, whether the Lord is speaking uniquely of Moses, or of Moses and the people. It is in the second person masculine singular, but that is also the case elsewhere when it is obvious that all Israel is understood. For example, where God says “for you are a stiff-necked people,” (Exodus 33:3), He is addressing them in second person masculine singular. Yet, when God repeats the phrase as direct speech that Moses is to convey to the people, “Say to the people of Israel, ‘You are a stiff-necked people,’” (Exodus 33:5), He uses the second person masculine plural. Then, in the same direct speech, referring still to the people Israel, God says “among you,” “consume you,” “your ornaments,” “with you,” all in the singular. Yet, it seems to be something of the point that Moses is turning on as he intercedes for the people, where he adds that, while he has found favor with God, “Consider too that this nation is your people,” (Exodus 33:13), and again, “I and your people,” (v 16). Does Moses remain unsure of the standing of Israel and God's covenant with them in part because God is addressing Moses uniquely? Sorry for the length.

In Revelation 7:4–8, John mentions 144,000 people sealed from the twelve tribes of Israel. Jehovah’s Witnesses interpret this number literally as the total number of anointed Christians who will go to heaven and rule with Christ. Immediately afterward, Revelation 7:9–10 describes “a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb.” How do Jehovah’s Witnesses reconcile the idea of a fixed number of 144,000 heavenly Christians with the depiction of innumerable “multitudes” standing before God’s throne? Do official Watch Tower publications clarify the relationship between the 144,000 and the great crowd?

Searching from different bible translations, I had looked deeply into Douay-Rheims version. > "And she entered into the house of Zachary, and saluted Elizabeth." - Luke 1:40 From this passage, we can see that it ends with a period. This event is finished. A casual greetings can be inferred on this passage and nothing much, it's like Mary saying "Hi! or Hello!" to Her cousin Elizabeth, who knew nothing, about what happened to Mary in the annunciation and Her, having conceived the Messiah. Moving on to next verse... > And it came to pass, that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the infant leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? - Luke1:41-43 The word ***"and it came to pass"***, meaning, this event is separated from v.40, where the casual greetings occured. This salutation is much different, it delivered a profound effect on the child in the very womb of Elizabeth, who never knew the Blessed Virgin Mary. The greeting in v. 40 compare to v. 41 can be seen as two separate events. Luke described that it was Elizabeth who heard the salutation and not the infant in her womb. Elizabeth was overjoyed, cried out in a loud voice...this unexplainable feelings was then felt by the child in her womb, that made the infant leaped, as if he shared in the joy that Elizabeth her mother was experiencing at that very moment, that made him leaped. Could it be, that the ***"greetings or salutation"*** that Elizabeth heard at that moment from Mary while praying, is the **Magnificat**. Hearing the words from the Magnificat, was the cause, and the instrument that made her filled with the Holy Spirit. Because Mary's Magnificat was uttered, having overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, the very words of Mary are inspired by the Holy Spirit, to praise the Father in spirit and truth. Elizabeth heard Mary's Canticle, and had realized that Mary was pregnant with the Messiah, and hearing Mary saying, ***"All generations shall call me blessed..."***, Elizabeth reacted,and she is the first one who praised Mary, saying ***"blessed are you among women..."***, and also the first one who proclaimed ***"Jesus is Lord"*** by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, recognizing, the child as her Lord, the way she knew the Lord as the chosen People of God, addressed God in the Old Testament. John the Baptist in Luke1:15 had been prophesied to be filled with the Holy Spirit in the womb of his Mother, and Luke's gospel described the moment, how it happened in v.44 > *For behold as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy.* - Luke 1:44 From the discernment above, we can see that the *"greetings"* in Luke 1:40 is different from the *"greetings"* in Luke1:41, the two greetings are a separate event. The other is obviously a casual greeting and the other is a mysterious greetings. In view of the above, I am looking for a commentary or writings from Catholic sources or Christian sources,biblical even extra-biblical showing that the "greetings" in Luke 1:40 and Luke 1:41 is a separate event and different from each other. Elizabeth didn't need to hear Mary's Magnificat to know that she was pregnant with the Lord. Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, who was perfectly capable of conveying that knowledge. Elizabeth's intuition was very manifest here.

In [this video](https://youtu.be/NYXZQ9BRiGw?si=Aho7ezGrcCPKuvC0&t=616) , former KKK Grand Imperial Wizard Bill Wilkinson says that "we believe that God has commanded us to separate ourselves from the other races. Not because we hate the other races or because we feel we are better or worse, but because it's God's commandment". According to the KKK interpretation of Christian law, where, in the scriptures or in other sources of Christian religious law, does God command the whites to separate themselves from other races?

Congregations such as the Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-day Adventists believe that Jesus is Michael. What is the Biblical basis for the belief that Jesus is Michael? **Jehovah's Witnesses** >...it is logical to conclude that Michael is none other than Jesus Christ in his heavenly role. [Source](http://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/bible-teach/who-is-michael-the-archangel/) **Seventh-day Adventists** >Moses passed through death, but Michael came down and gave him life before his body had seen corruption. Satan tried to hold the body, claiming it as his; but Michael resurrected Moses and took him to heaven. Satan railed bitterly against God, denouncing Him as unjust in permitting his prey to be taken from him; but Christ did not rebuke His adversary, though it was through his temptation that the servant of God had fallen. He meekly referred him to His Father, saying, "The Lord rebuke thee." Early Writings, p. 164.