The [Protestant Bible](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Bible) consists of 66 books. Some believe this set of books is inerrant. Others do not. **Question**: According to non-inerrantist Christians, what are the strongest arguments for the belief that **at least one of these 66 books contains at least one error**? ___ **Addendum - What do I mean by error?** I'm borrowing the meaning of 'error' from the definition of Biblical inerrancy: > Biblical inerrancy is the belief that the Bible "is without **error or fault** in all its teaching"; or, at least, that "Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is **contrary to fact**". Some equate inerrancy with biblical infallibility; others do not. > > The belief in Biblical inerrancy is of particular significance within parts of evangelicalism, where it is formulated in the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy". A formal statement in favor of biblical inerrancy was published in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society in 1978. The signatories to the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy" admit that, "Inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture." However, even though there may be no extant original manuscripts of the Bible, those that exist can be considered inerrant, because, as the statement reads: "The autographic text of Scripture, ... in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts **with great accuracy**." > > ([source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy))

Christian Scientists, if I understand them correctly, believe that most deaths are caused by Malicious Animal Magnetism. That's why Mary Baker Eddy, when she got a severe case of pneumonia in 1911 (which she ended up dying from), blamed that pneumonia not on a germ, but on Malicious Animal Magnetism done by people who are against her. That's also why, when her husband died, and doctors said he had a heart attack, she insisted he died of arsenic poisoning mentally delivered. However, quite a few deaths in the real world appear to be caused by other people, but not necessarily against the people who know you. Deaths in a battle, for example. The German soldier who killed William McBride in 1916 was presumably shooting around with a gun randomly, not targetting William McBride specifically. Or terrorist attacks, for example. So, do Christian Scientists believe that it is possible to attack a group of people with Malicious Animal Magnetism, without necessarily knowing anybody from that group of people?

The first chapter of Matthew traces Jesus' lineage through his father Joseph back to King David through something like 18 generations. But as we know, Jesus was born through the agency of the Holy Spirit meaning that Joseph did *not* impregnate his mother, the Virgin Mary. How would Jesus have a bloodline back to King David? Was Mary a cousin (of some degree) to Joseph with similar bloodlines? If not, what doctrine would cause Jesus to be considered descended from King David? Or put another way, are there any sources that describe what bloodline Jesus actually had through Mary?

Growing up having a Christian background, I was taught to use God/Jesus to refer to the Creator and Son. Recently, I've come across some information stating that our Creator has a Name and that we should use it, the name referring to Yahuah/Yahsuah, which would be in original Hebrew. Given that Jesus was a Jew and the original text was written in ancient Hebrew, would it be fair to say that instead of the more commonly accepted Greek version of His Name, that should we use the Hebrew versions instead? Also, if I'm misunderstanding anything in my post, I'm all ears, I'm just trying to figure out if we've been generalizing the Name and sort of not receiving the full effect of being able to state our Creators name and benefit from praising Him in that way. This, along with knowing that throughout history, things can get sort of lost in translation as we switch from languages. On top of the knowing that devil will do whatever it takes to twist and take the opposite approach of whatever the Creator does. > In the Bible, God declares: >> I am Jehovah. That is my name; I give my glory to no one else. >> Isaiah 42:8 - NWT > “Jehovah” is an English translation of the four Hebrew consonants YHWH, which constitute the divine name. That name appears some 7,000 times in the Hebrew Scriptures. It is used more often than any title, such as “God,” “Almighty,” or “Lord,” and more frequently than any other name, such as Abraham, Moses, or David`

From this answer it is stated "Peter, James, John (the twelve) were followers of Christ's earthly ministry to Israel (the circumcision)." and from a comment there given for clarity, "The gospels were directly to Israel regarding the coming kingdom of heaven and 'prophecy' that was revealed to Israel's prophets "since the world began" (Luke 1:70).". The answer states that, while all of the New Testament is profitable for those in the Church it is the Apostle Paul's writings that are specifically to and for the Church with the rest (especially the Gospels) specifically to and for the nation of Israel. The twelve Apostles were Christ's ministers to Israel and Paul was Christ's minister to Gentiles. The Dispensationalist view seems to be that Jesus is building His Church now and **some Jews** believe and are added to the Church. At some point the Church will be removed from earth and then **lots of Jews** will believe but they will not be part of the Church (because the Church age is over). > And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. - John 10:16 (KJV) In this passage John records Jesus saying **to the Jews** that there is one sheepfold of His sheep into which "other sheep" will be brought. The natural reading of this seems to be that Jesus' sheep are the believing Jews and the "other sheep" who are not of this fold that will be brought in are the Gentiles. This appears on the surface to be the exact opposite of dispensational thought wherein Jews believe in Jesus and are added to the Church and where there are two "sheepfolds", Israel and the Church. Parenthetic: A similar difficulty arises in Romans 11:11-24 where the wild olive branches (Gentiles) are grafted into the good olive tree (Israel) so that there will be just one olive tree. My question for Dispensationalists regarding John 10:16 is: How is the plain reading of this passage overcome?

I am interested to see if there are any reliable references in (peer-reviewed) scientific literature or learned articles which indicate that some expressions in scripture pre-date scientific or technical discovery from any other sources. There are two examples which spring to mind but they require full validation as I am not seeking opinion-based answers. Firstly, in Hebrews 11:3, it is stated that 'things which are seen were not made of things which do appear'. This expresses what is now known that, once one goes beyond previous particle theory, it can be demonstrated by the two-slit experiment, by the optical 'quantum entanglement' experiment and by particle accelerator experiments that matter is constructed of 'field energy' and is not made of physical substance. Secondly, the laver in the wilderness journey was made of brass, taken from 'the looking glasses of the women'. But in the visions of John, by revelation of Jesus Christ, what is represented is a 'sea of glass'. Thus the use of the only reflective surface then known, was used to represent what, later, would better be represented by a fully transparent substance, not then known, or not yet manufactured, on earth. Can these be fully substantiated and are there any other possible examples of reliable instances of such concepts expressed in scripture which pre-date their later discovery on earth ? This has a bearing on Christianity in the present, modern world where many Christians feel threatened, or at least disconcerted, by 'science'. If it can be shown, from scripture, that the bible (both OT and NT) contains scientific fact that pre-dated earthly scientific endeavour, then I think that is relevant to Christianity in the present day in which we find ourselves. ------------------ In comment, reference is made to a Previous Question which makes seven *claims* of 'scientific foreknowledge' but does not substantiate or explain any of them in detail, merely giving a biblical reference. However it is a good list of what I am seeking. Further edit upon comment : To more fully explain : mirrors used to be made of bronze. (And the KJV calls this 'looking-glasses' - archaically and untechnically). Nowadays they are made of glass. But the concept of the 'sea' (both constructed and envisaged) is of solid, transparent material. Which did not exist, yet, upon earth until men figured out how to make the stuff.

### The Catholic position. *There are many other sources, I just picked one at random* > "the unnatural vice." This may happen in several ways. First, by procuring pollution, **without any copulation, for the sake of venereal pleasure**: this pertains to the sin of "uncleanness" which some call "effeminacy." Secondly, by copulation with a thing of undue species, and this is called "bestiality." Thirdly, by copulation with an undue sex, male with male, or female with female, as the Apostle states (Rm. 1:27): and this is called the "vice of sodomy." **Fourthly, by not observing the natural manner of copulation, either as to undue means, or as to other monstrous and bestial manners of copulation.** > > Summa Theologica - Whether the unnatural vice is a species of lust? **Basically, if you are married the venereal act must always be unprotected and end inside.** They will often also point out this particular situation in Genesis 38, quoted from the NKJV to reflect the catholic preference for the MT Old Testament. > NKJV: 8 And Judah said to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife and marry her, and raise up an heir to your brother.” 9 But Onan knew that the heir would not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in to his brother’s wife, that he emitted on the ground, lest he should give an heir to his brother. 10 And the thing which he did displeased the Lord; therefore He killed him also. Right, so Onan pulled out and the average catholic person suggests that this was the problem. (I humbly disagree, but that's off-topic here) I think this side of the issue is well understood so let me show the Jewish side of it. ### The Jewish position (Talmud) The ancient Jewish views come from rabbinic interpretations like the Talmud and later writings. As Christians and Jews understand, sexual acts are supposed to be within marriage. And focus on procreation. A focus is not the same as the outright demand of the catholic position. Here are some quotes of the English from the Talmud in Nedarim 20b. > However, the Rabbis said: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Yoḥanan ben Dehavai. Rather, **whatever a man wishes to do with his wife he may do. He may engage in sexual intercourse with her in any manner that he wishes**, and need not concern himself with these restrictions. As an allegory, it is like meat that comes from the butcher. If he wants to eat it with salt, he may eat it that way. If he wants to eat it roasted, he may eat it roasted. If he wants to eat it cooked, he may eat it cooked. If he wants to eat it boiled, he may eat it boiled. (Nedarim 20b:4 ) > The Gemara relates: A certain woman, who came before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi to complain about her husband, said to him: My teacher, I set him a table, using a euphemism to say that she lay before him during intimacy, and he turned it over. **Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to her: My daughter, the Torah permitted him to engage in sexual intercourse with you even in an atypical manner, and what can I do for you if he does so?** (Nedarim 20b:6 ) I'm sure we are adult enough to understand the euphemism of a "turned-over table" here in the context of a woman who is upset about it. But I'm going to quote the Talmud again because I really don't want this euphemism to be misunderstood. > The Gemara wonders about the proof from Tamar itself: But weren’t there **Er and Onan**, her previous husbands, who presumably engaged in sexual intercourse with her? The Gemara responds: Er and Onan engaged in sexual intercourse in an atypical manner, i.e., anal intercourse, and therefore she was still a virgin. (Yevamot 34b:1 ) The verse about Onan has mixed opinions but from what I can tell primary objectionable act is that Onan was disobeying God by blatantly disregarding his levirate marriage obligation. Not even putting it in the wrong hole itself. Looking through other things on Sefaria I found all kinds of instructions like... > Approach her lovingly and passionately, so that she reaches her orgasm first. - Iggeret Hakodesh, 13th C. (found in this article ) Also, I looked in Mi Yodeya (J:SE) - What are reasons of מצוות עונה marital sex? 3. Wife is longing for Husband & 4. Husband simply does not want to be tempted to sexual sin. (Additionally the answer starts with wives have a right to sexual pleasure just as they do clothing and food... so yeah) ### Quick side by side | **Aspect** | **Catholic Position** | **Ancient Jewish Position** | |--------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------| | **Core Principle** | Sex must always unite procreation and unity; no exceptions. | Sex should prioritize procreation but allow marital freedom for pleasure or preventing sin. | | **Scriptural Basis** | Genesis 38 (Onan), natural law theology (Aquinas). | Genesis 38 (Onan), Leviticus 15, Talmudic interpretations. | | **Flexibility** | Rigid; universal rules apply to every act. | More flexible; depends on intent, context, and rabbinic opinion. | Ancient Jewish regulations are pragmatic and interpretive, shaped by rabbinic debate, and don’t enforce a universal procreative mandate for every act. Catholicism, with its rigid systematic theology (Augustine, Aquinas, etc), insists on procreation as mandatory in every instance. ### Things I've checked already... I've looked at these aspects so far... but I'm giving up and asking you guys now. - Jesus did not abolish the Law (Matthew 5:17-18) - Flee from sexual immorality (1 Corinthians 6:18-20) does not contradict the previous Jewish understanding in any way. - Galatians 3 // Acts 15 Both of these passages do not suggest that any previous sexual laws or understandings of immorality had changed. - The marriage as an icon of Jesus and the Church in Ephesians 5:25-33 doesn't retroactively change the previous understandings either, if anything it strengthens them. - And of course, we have the entire book of Song of Songs which urges us to Love God with the same passion as two people in passion. (This is mentioned here as well ) ### Question On what basis do the Catholics change the original ancient understandings on this subject? No traps here... honestly curious as, to why the Catholics made this rigid universal rule when none existed previously. Edit: Talmud is way too late to be valid in the format I presented. Making my question a frame issue. I'm not deleting this though as the answers are insightful.

Since becoming Catholic and being exposed to some Islamic and Jewish criticism on the Trinity I am again struggling with the concept and its relationship of monotheism. What I do understand is that it is supposed to be a description of the inner working of the One, not some kind of polytheism (which I do not want to believe in). So, I have thought about it a lot and I came up with the following statement: *”We believe because of God, through God, in God.”* What do I mean by this? * "because of God" is God the Spirit, which causes us to recognise God. Only God can recognise God, and thus animals cannot perceive him, as they do not have the Spirit. The prophets of old also had the Spirit, which spoke through them. * "through God" means the way to God, his Word, our Lord Jesus. He became fully man, while remaining fully God, and through his death made it again possible to be in a relationship with the one God. He also was the only one who aligned his will perfectly with the will of the Father. He has his own, human will, that always did what the Father wants. * "in God": this is the Father, our ultimate goal and destination. I think the word “person” adds unnecessary complexity, as its current meaning is not the one it had 1500 years ago. Is this a correct mainstream and biblical understanding of the Trinity? Are there any suggestions to improve this? (And, as a bonus, does anyone have any suggestions for dealing with the concept of the Trinity?)

### This question is addressed to Trinitarians If we have God the Father, God the Holy Spirit, and God the Son (God the Trinity sharing the same essence and all of them being God), **why does the Bible insist that it is ONLY the Will of the Father that matters and should be done**? Not the will of the Trinity, not the will of the Son, nor of the Holy Spirit; and certainly not the will of "God" in the Triune sense? **Why is the will of *only one of the three* singled out as having preeminence over the other two yet they are equal? Why do the other two subject their wills to the one?** ### Bible references **On the primacy of the Father's will** - Matthew 7:21 – “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, **but the one who does the will of My Father who is in heaven.”** - Matthew 12:50 – “**For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother**.” - Ephesians 6:6 – “Not by way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but as bondservants of Christ, **doing the will of God from the heart**.” **Jesus Does the Will of the Father** - John 4:34 – “Jesus said to them, ‘**My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me and to accomplish His work**.’” - John 5:30 – “I can do nothing on My own. As I hear, I judge, and My judgment is just, **because I seek not My own will but the will of Him who sent Me**.” - John 6:38-40 – “**For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will but the will of Him who sent Me**. And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that I should lose nothing of all that He has given Me, but raise it up on the last day.” **In Heaven, Only the Will of the Father Is Done** - Matthew 6:10 – “Your kingdom come, **Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven**.” - Psalm 103:20-21 – “Bless the Lord, O you His angels, you mighty ones who do His word, obeying the voice of His word! **Bless the Lord, all His hosts, His ministers, who do His will**!”

As I understand it, a key part of dispensationalist theology is a separation between Jews (Israel) and the Church as two separate entities with distinct purposes in God's plan. In discussions with them, I find that they often assert that some passages of the Bible are for Israel while others are for the Church; the process of distinguishing them is sometimes called "rightly dividing the Word of God." However, I often fail to see how they can tell which is which. In a discussion with a dispensationalist pastor I had recently, he seemed to believe that every other paragraph in Galatians is directed at Israel or directed at the Church, and I found myself totally at a loss to be able to follow. I am wondering, **what methodology do Dispensationalists use to determine which passages are directed at which group**?

Note that my question is asking about married couples, not just any two people engaging in intercourse. According to the Catholic Church, would a husband in wife be in sin if they committed any of the following acts: 1. Anal sex 2. Oral sex (Manual sex) 3. Sex during pregnancy with knowledge of that pregnancy. 4. Sex after menopause. The reason I ask for these is because it seems that birth control is immoral since it leaves out the openness to life. So what about these circumstances? Also, perhaps one could add whether or not these are mortal or venial sins?

How does one confess being an occasion of sin for others? If you said *"I created an occasion of sin for others 5 times"* I can't imagine that's really a species and not just the genus. So what are the species? Are they the 9 ways of sharing in sin? So could you say *"I praised people for committing sins 5 times and commanded people to commit sins 5 times."* Or is the species also what sin it was? So you would have to say *"I praised people for schism 5 times and I concealed someone's theft 5 times."*

The title is pretty self explanatory. I have made some vows during psychotic episodes from when I was an emotionally charged and immature protestant many years ago. I was recently just now received into the Holy Russian Orthodox Church. Does virtue of baptism grant me dispensation from my previous vows? (Note: Never married/divorced.)

Was man not going to multiply the earth before he decided maybe Eve!!

The Eastern Orthodox Church (Greek Orthodox) considers ***(a) Scripture, (b) Tradition, and (c) Ecumenical Councils***, as a basis for determining and establishing doctrines (beliefs). However there are many Councils in the history of Christendom, with varied acceptance. Protestants generally accept the results of "the First Four." While the Roman Catholic religion accepts almost two dozen (21), and counting! How many does the Orthodox accept-along with its Holy Scriptures and Tradition of the Patristic Elders-for determining doctrines? And is there a ***reason(s)*** given for why only such a number? Would the Church accept the findings of a ***new Ecumenical Council***, if one were to be held in modern times?

James Fodor is an atheist physicist who has written rebuttals against the Christian faith and its arguments for God. One of those articles that he wrote was [*A Case for Christianity: a Critique*](https://jamesfodor.com/2014/05/02/a-case-for-christianity-a-critique/) in which he tried to debunk the contingency argument. I was wondering how you would reply to him? Here are some quotes from the article: **On Contingency** > The speaker argues that the universe is probably contingent, because > the universe is simply the sum total of everything in the universe, > and as far as we know everything in the universe is contingent. There > are several flaws with this argument. First, we simply do not know > very much about the large-scale structure, origin, and nature of the > universe. We do not know what was possible and what wasn’t – the > science (and philosophy) of these matters is a long way from being > settled. For the speaker therefore to simply assert that ‘as far as we > know everything is contingent’ grossly overstates the extent of our > knowledge, and dismisses too readily the high levels of uncertainty > that remain. Second, the speaker actually gives no reason as to why > the universe should be contingent even if all of its constituent > components are contingent. This is simply the fallacy of composition. > He does acknowledge that it isn’t logically necessary that this be the > case, but then he simply brushes off this objection and asserts that > ‘it is a real stretch’ to argue that the universe could be necessary > even though all its constituents are contingent. Why? No argument is > given. Indeed, there seem to be many obvious counterexamples where > properties of the whole are not manifested in any of the parts. For > instance, cells are alive, but cells are made up of nothing but atoms, > which are not alive. Words have meaning, but words are made up solely > of vibrations of air or dots of ink, which do not have any meaning > associated with them individually. To give another example, we would > have to ‘go and look’ to see if any particular book was in a library – > that fact would be contingent. But it would not be a contingent fact > that a library contains books of some sort, or else it would not be a > library at all. For these reasons, the speaker fails to establish > their conclusion that the universe is contingent. **On the Principle of Sufficient Reason** > The speaker argues that all contingent facts must have some reason or > explanation as to why they are the case, a notion which is called the > ‘principle of sufficient reason’. He argues that this principle > underpins essentially all of science, and that rejecting it leads to > nonsensical conclusions. However, I think the speaker fails to > establish their argument about PSR, for the following reasons. First, > he is not clear about exactly what constitutes a ‘reason’. Is it a > physical cause? A non-physical cause? An explanation? A purpose? What > exactly? It seems difficult to take the argument very seriously when > it is not even clear what claim is actually being made. On a related > point, even the notion of causation itself is philosophically > problematic, as David Hume and others have noted. To this the speaker > makes no reference at all, and seems content merely to take the > concept of ‘causation’ as an unproblematic given. Second, the fact > that something like the PSR (arguably) ‘underpins all of science’ does > not imply that it is everywhere and always true. The author falls into > the same trap that he accuses the naturalist speaker of falling into, > namely of assuming that because a given concept sometimes works or is > successful in a particular sphere (in this case science), it therefore > follows that it is universally applicable. That simply does not > follow. It could be the case that science works well for questions > where PSR (or something like it) is applicable, and does not work well > for questions where it does not. One can also raise the deeper > question of whether science actually provides ‘reasons’ or ’causes’ at > all, rather than merely describing empirical regularities (again, as > argued by Hume). These are complex and much-debated questions in > philosophy, but the speaker ignores them, and simply adopts as > ‘obvious’ particular simplistic answers which, conveniently enough, > also support his argument. Third, to reject the PSR does not imply > ‘nonsense’. It merely is to say that we do not properly understand > abstract and difficult concepts like ‘causation’ well enough to make > confident claims about them.

When Jesus was born, he was a Jew. So he stayed this his whole life. Only later in life, he spoke on behalf of his Father. His Father, the almighty JHWH (another name instead of the name God), was Jewish too. And so was the holy Mother Maria. Obviously, he couldn't be a Christian yet, and *if* he was, wouldn't that mean he was involved in a personality cult in which he was his own admirer? So, during his life did he consider himself a Jew or a Christian? **How did others consider him?** I'm *not* asking if he belonged to a religion, like Judaism, or Islam, or Christianity, or even Hinduism. I'm asking if he was born as a Jew. As can be expected if your father and mother are both Jewish. Or is this a modern notion? **I'm asking if he was considered a Christ (Messiah) *already* in his time**. Note: I don't see why this is a duplicate, I don't ask if He was a time traveler! I ask if **others** (*but not Himself*) **consider Him Jewish**.

We have many scriptures about Jesus' humanity. Several specific verses about his total dependence on the Father, his God, for all his needs, his words and his ability to perform miracles etc. Jesus was a fleshly man - "made like us in every way" Heb 2:17 Not *some* or *most* ways, but *every* way. As he was indeed tempted - again - 'as we are', then it follows that he *could have sinned* - as we do. >we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin Heb 4:15 The very point of temptation - and his need to resist every and all temptations to become the Lamb of God, is pointless if sin was not a possibility. The fact that he *did not sin* has nothing to do with his inherent ability as a man, like us, to be *able to* sin, should he have chosen to do so or faltered before severe and prolonged temptation. As Heb 4:15 "yet, he did not sin", implies, at the very least, that the potential was there but he was able to resist and remain victorious over evil. What kind of victory has he achieved over evil and death if failure was never remotely possible or even feasible? What evidence does the bible provide to support this premise of Jesus' potential for committing a sin?

Many Christians encourage people to "seek" God. Similarly, many Christians claim that God can be "found". I'm also well aware of the existence of many passages in the Bible that talk about the possibility of "seeking" and "finding" God (see for example https://dailyverses.net/seeking/niv/kjv) . In concrete and practical terms (for the lay reader): - What does it mean to "seek" God? - What does it mean to "find" God? - How can a person know for sure that they have finally "found" God after a long process of "seeking" Him (whatever that means)? [Given the controversial nature of spirituality questions](https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7168/how-do-we-ask-spirituality-questions) , I'd like to narrow the scope to the **Protestant** perspective. ____ For those interested in the Catholic perspective: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/86589/50422

Many Christians emphasize the importance of having an actual *relationship with God/Jesus* as opposed to merely being *religious*. The previously asked question https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/69228/50422 attests very well to this fact. But what about when people from other religions claim to have similar personal relationship experiences with their deities? For example, a Muslim claiming to have a personal relationship with Allah, a Hindu claiming to have a personal relationship with Brahman, a Hare Krishna claiming to have a personal relationship with Lord Krishna, a New Ager claiming to have a personal relationship with the Universe, their spirit guides, their higher self, etc. Qualitatively speaking, what sets the Christian *relationship with God* apart from *relationship* experiences that people claim to have in other religions? What makes the Christian *relationship with God* special and unique? Are people in other religions just having counterfeit, deceitful experiences? ____ Related: - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/84362/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/86124/50422