> **“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.

To be clear, I'm interested to know if there is anyone throughout church history who claimed to be Christian (whether a group, individuals or a notable figure) who taught that *the Holy Spirit is **not** a divine person who is distinct from the Father and the Son* and were still considered to be within the bounds of Christian orthodoxy i.e. not excommunicated or deemed a heretic? Edit/ additional info: When I say "deemed a heretic" I mean, deemed to be a heretic by any church denomination or other group of Christians. ---------- **FYI: I'm a traditional trinitarian Christian. I believe the Holy Spirit is a distinct divine person of our triune God. I am only asking this question because I've encountered people who deny this, and I have become more interested in the topic to defend my belief.**

I have heard it described as cutting off a limb to describe the agony, separating conjoined twins... I believe it is far more painful, physically, emotionally, and spiritually. However, not sure what analogy to use. Thank you in advance. Sincerely, Perry

(If we need to specify denomination, Catholic works, but I think other Christian perspectives will work too.) C. S. Lewis said "The bad psychological material is not a sin but a disease. It does not need to be repented of, but to be cured." So at least one of us thinks psych and Christianity can be compatible, and in areas that don't quite overlap. I can go with that, but it seems to me Christianity and Jungianism or depth psychology do overlap, and have different approaches to changing one's character. Christianity takes every thought captive for Christ; discards the old man for the new; buries one's sinful nature and is raised in baptism; puts off works of darkness. How can Christians incorporate Jung into their practices? (Not doctrines !) Talking to the part that wants to sin and asking it what it wants and can it get that a better way doesn't sound a lot like Jesus or St. Paul! It almost feels like Christianity shoves things into shadow from a Jungian perspective, and Jungianism tolerates sin from a Christian perspective. Yet Jesus tells us about projection well before Jung was on the scene (the "mote in your brother's eye" thing), and Jung reminds us to extend the mercy God calls us to offer to each other, to parts of the psyche.

Scripture clearly warns believers to avoid divisions and those who cause them. For example, Paul writes: >“Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them.” — Romans 16:17 (NKJV) Yet throughout history, we see Christians forming separate factions or denominations. A notable example is the Eastern Orthodox Church, which formally split from the Roman Catholic Church in the Great Schism of 1054 over issues including papal authority, doctrinal disputes, and cultural differences. Given this, how do Christians understand the tension between the biblical call for unity and the historical reality of denominational splits? What principles should guide believers today in maintaining unity without compromising essential doctrine?

In Revelation 12:1–2, a woman is described as being “clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and a crown of twelve stars on her head.” Some interpretations identify this woman symbolically as the nation of Israel (e.g., relating the twelve stars to the twelve tribes). Which Christian denominations or theological traditions explicitly interpret the woman as representing the nation of Israel and the dragon’s flood (Revelation 12:15) as a form of Jewish persecution throughout history? Additionally, how do these groups justify this interpretation from the text?

Dispensationalism is often understood to distinguish between God’s plan for Israel and for the Church, and some formulations suggest differences in how the gospel is administered or understood across dispensations. However, several biblical passages seem to emphasize a single, unified gospel message and consistent basis for salvation: - Galatians 1:8–9 — Paul warns against “another gospel,” strongly affirming that there is only one true gospel. - Ephesians 4:4–6 — speaks of “one body… one Lord, one faith, one baptism.” - Acts 10:43 — Peter declares that “everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins through His name.” - Romans 3:22–30 — emphasizes justification by faith for both Jews and Gentiles, with God being “one.” - John 3:16 — presents belief in Christ as the basis for eternal life universally. Given these passages, how do dispensationalists interpret texts that emphasize a single gospel and unified means of salvation? Do they understand these verses as applying universally across all dispensations, or do they interpret them within a specific dispensational context?

When you read Numbers 25 and then view the middle east through that lens….. the actions of the middle east don’t feel as extreme. I definitely do not agree with the extremes of the middle east culture, but I am also shocked and dismayed at the extremes of what are written in Numbers 25. Yet God said…. > 4 ……. “Take all the leaders of the people and execute[b] them in broad daylight before the LORD so that his burning anger may turn away > from Israel.” > > 7 …….Aaron the priest, saw this, he got up from the assembly, took a > spear in his hand, 8 followed the Israelite man into the tent,[c] and > drove it through both the Israelite man and the woman—through her > belly. > > 11 …….Aaron the priest, has turned back my wrath from the Israelites > because he was zealous among them with my zeal,[d] so that I did not > destroy the Israelites in my zeal.* > > 17 “Attack the Midianites and strike them dead. 18 For they attacked > you with the treachery that they used against you in the Peor > incident. How do I as a Christian, defend this to a nonbeliever (or someone who questions Christianity). “This” being the fact that the God I serve, directed this….condoned this….. and rewarded this.

I'm doing a study on grace and the fulfilment of the Law at present, and wonder if someone can assist: some texts definitely state that it is not humanly possible to perfectly keep the Law. Thus Paul in Romans 7:14-23, 9:31-32, Peter’s words in Acts 15:10, that the Law was a burden that the Israelites could not bear, etc. However, other texts seem to indicate that keeping the Law was possible. For instance, concerning the Law and the choice between obedience and disobedience proffered to the Israelites, Moses says (Deuteronomy 30:11), > ‘Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or > beyond your reach.’ In other words, they have no excuse for disobedience. Also, in Philippians 3:6 Paul, in giving his credentials as an impeccable Pharisee, avers that he was, ‘as for righteousness based on the law, faultless.’ There is also the argument and thrust from Romans 7 to 8 that, as heeding of the Law is not possible, the solution is through the power of the Holy Spirit (thus 8:1-4). A related query might be, then: did the OT Israelites for over 1,000 years go through the same sense of guilt, frustration, and inability to keep the Law as did Paul (cf. Romans 7), because of the absence of the indwelling Spirit? This would seem unfair, but would be in line with the Romans 7 theology of difficulty in keeping the Law. However, how would this square with Moses’ parting exhortation that the Law was ‘not difficult’ (Deut 30.11)? A thought: might Paul's (and Peter's) comments perhaps have something to do with an attempt at perfectionism, which is attested in the Talmud among first century rabbis?

The modern state of of Israel has this flag: Wikipedia says: > In the Middle Ages, mystical powers were attributed to the pentagram and hexagram, which were used in talismans against evil spirits. Both were called the "Seal of Solomon", but the name eventually became exclusive to the pentagram, while the hexagram became known as a symbol associated with the Israelite king David. Later, it began to appear in Jewish art. In 1648, Ferdinand II of the Holy Roman Empire permitted the Jews of Prague to fly a "Jewish flag" over their synagogue; this flag was red with a yellow Star of David in the middle. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Israel Is there any biblical scripture which has any hint to this flag or any part of it?

In the Lord’s Prayer (Matthew 6:9), Jesus teaches: “Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name.” The phrase seems to emphasize honoring or sanctifying God’s name. In its original context, this likely carried specific meaning related to reverence for God in Jewish tradition. However, in modern Christianity, practices and interpretations vary across denominations. **How do contemporary Christian traditions interpret and practically apply the idea of “hallowing” God’s name in daily life or worship?** Are there common theological understandings, or does this vary significantly between groups? Answers from multiple traditions (e.g., Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant) are especially helpful.

> The most important duty of the Freemason must be to glorify the > **Jewish** Race, which has preserved the unchanged divine standard of wisdom. You must rely upon the **Jewish** race to dissolve all > frontiers. Le Symbolism, July 1928. See The Age of Confusion by Seamus bin Shylockeen, 2020. > Masonry is based on **Judaism**. Eliminate the teachings of > **Judaism** from the Masonic ritual and what is left? The Jewish Tribune, New York, October 28, 1927. See Bloody Zion by Edward Hendrie. Great Mountain Publishing, 2012. p. 182. > Freemasonry is founded on the ancient law of **Israel**. Israel has given > birth to the moral beauty which forms the basis of Freemasonry. The Freemason, April 2, 1930, quoting Br. Rev. S. McGowan. See The Age of Confusion by Seamus bin Shylockeen, 2020. > The spirit of Freemasonry is the spirit of **Judaism** in its most > fundamental beliefs; it is its ideas, its language, it is mostly its > organization, the hopes which enlighten and support **Israel**. It’s > crowning will be that wonderful prayer house of which Jerusalem will > be the triumphal centre and symbol. La Verite Israelite, Jewish paper, 1861, IV, p. 74. See The Kings of the Earth and the High Ones On High by Allan Cornford, 2019. > Masonry is a **Jewish** institution whose history, degrees, charges, passwords and explanations are **Jewish** from the beginning to the end. Isaac Mayer Wise. The Israelite, August 3, 1866.

God's name for himself is a form of "I AM", and he is referred to by a form of "HE IS" (YHWH), as in **Exodus 3:13-14**: > **13**… The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them? **14**And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. When Jesus used the expression, the Jewish leaders wanted to kill him for blasphemy, as described in **John 8:58-59**: > **58**Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. > **59**Then took they up stones to cast at him … In comic strips and animated cartoons, the character Popeye frequently said: > I YAM WHAT I YAM AN' THA'S ALL THAT I YAM or some variation thereof. When it first appeared (1933 or perhaps earlier) did anyone protest that this expression was blasphemous?

How was tithing done in the Old and New Testaments? In the New Testament, it seems it was put in the γαζοφυλάκιον or "treasury" (cf. Mk. 12:41,43 & Lk. 21:1 , the parable of the widow's offering). But in either Testaments, were tithes ever give directly to individual priests, or were they only given to the priests collectively? If an individual priest received a tithe, was he obliged to put it in the "treasury", or did priests have individual "accounts"?

Why can't God exist as One when there's no point of Him existing in 3 forms that too after death of Jesus. Why is Trinity necessary as it gets confusing everytime you try to pray to God. Furthermore, there are many questions (Look at them ) than answers when it comes to Jesus calling God as one at many places in the Bible. My question is if God can manifest in 3 forms, there is a higher chance of him existing in more than 3 forms? Isn't it. Why stop at 3? So it would have been much better if God existed as one in all respects for there would be no contradictions. If God is Sufficient in all Respects, then What's the need of Holy Spirit Or Jesus to exist. What's their role in running the affairs of this Universe. Ain't God as one, sufficient?

Calvin, among his other points, includes the point that Atonement is Limited; i.e., that Christ's death was sufficient for all but only effective for the elect. What is the Biblical basis for this doctrine?

> Ezekiel 21:18-23 > > New American Standard Bible 1995 > > The Instrument of God’s Judgment > > 18 The word of the Lord came to me saying, 19 “As for you, son of man, > make two ways for the sword of the king of Babylon to come; both of > them will go out of one land. And make a signpost; make it at the head > of the way to the city. 20 You shall mark a way for the sword to come > to Rabbah of the sons of Ammon, and to Judah into fortified Jerusalem. > 21 For the king of Babylon stands at the parting of the way, at the > head of the two ways, to use divination; he shakes the arrows, he > consults the household idols, he looks at the liver. 22 Into his right > hand came the divination, ‘Jerusalem,’ to set battering rams, to open > the mouth for slaughter, to lift up the voice with a battle cry, to > set battering rams against the gates, to cast up ramps, to build a > siege wall. 23 And it will be to them like a false divination in their > eyes; they have sworn solemn oaths. But he brings iniquity to > remembrance, that they may be seized. The Ezekiel 21:18-21 bible passage is interesting , and a bit strange. The reason being is that in Ezekiel 21:18 states God’s command to the Prophet Ezekiel to somehow prophecy and proclaim that the Babylonian king will attack the cities of Rabbah, Ammon and Jerusalem, Judah(Southern Israelite Kingdom). It’s sort of interesting that the immediate subsequent Ezekiel 21:21-22 indicate that the Babylonian king will “use divination”, “consults the household idols”, etc., which are all pagan practices & rituals of divination. However, Ezekiel 21:21-22’s bible passage seems to suggest that the Israelite God’s Will sometimes is manifestly prophetically expressed via divination pagan rituals & practices. Please understand that my question posting is in **No** way an indication of support and/or acceptance of practices & rituals of Nonbelievers, NonChristians &/or pagans. However, the Ezekiel 21:18-23 bible passage is interesting for Christians in today’s world because it gives Christians an idea as to how the Israelite God may at times guide/communicate with Nonbelievers, NonChristians &/or pagans who naively &/or unwittingly just do Not know &/or do Not understand Him. What can the bible reader infer from Ezekiel 21:18-23? Within the context of Nonbelievers, NonChristians &/or pagans who naively &/or unwittingly just do Not know &/or do Not understand the Israelite God, could it be that Israelite God does occasionally allow for His Will & Prophecies to be manifestly prophetically expressed via divination pagan rituals & practices?

1 John 2:2 (ESV) > He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. Understanding the "ours" as referring to the universal church of believers, it would seem that John is saying that Christ "propitiated" for everyone's sins. Calvinism, through the doctrine of limited, or definite, or particular, atonement, says that Christ died only for the elect. How would a five-point Calvinist understand this passage?

In Romans 3:23, Scripture states that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," a point emphasized throughout the New Testament regarding the universal human condition. However, the Catholic Church dogma of Papal Infallibility (defined during Vatican I) suggests that under specific conditions (ex cathedra), the Pope is preserved from error. From a Catholic theological perspective: Does the Church distinguish between impeccability (sinlessness) and infallibility (erroneous teaching)? If the Pope is considered a "sinner" like any other man, what is the scriptural or tradition-based mechanism that prevents his fallen nature from affecting these specific formal definitions of faith and morals? I am looking for an explanation of how these two concepts coexist in Catholic teaching without contradicting the biblical narrative of universal human fallibility

On a different question I got an answer and some comments. One of which said: > Generally, when a Christian says that Jesus is the "Son of God" they are referring to the doctrine of the Trinity, where Jesus is a person of a three-part godhead. It's a complicated doctrine that necessitates antinomy. As for your friend's reasoning, it is sound, and is the same reason we call Adam, from Genesis, the son of God also, for he also had no human father, instead God fashioned him from the clay of the Earth and breathed life into him. – fredsbend yesterday If that is what Trinitarians usually mean when they call Jesus the "Son of God", what do non-trinitarians mean when they say it?