The author of this blog makes a claim that the asteroid belt in space was formed from the remains of the planet that was destroyed when war arose between Michael and Lucifer, and some of the craters on the moon too. >It's possible the fifth planet (now the asteroid belt) was destroyed and many of the craters visible on the Moon's surface were caused at that time. (Subsection Title: Rebellion) Is there any Biblical basis that supports this claim?

Romans 7:1-25 >**1** Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? **2** For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. **3** So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. **4** Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. **5** For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. **6** But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. **7** What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. **8** But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. **9** For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. **10** And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. **11** For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. **12** Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. **13** Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful. **14** For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. **15** For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. **16** If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. **17** Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. **18** For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. **19** For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. 20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. **21** I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. **22** For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: **23** But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. **24** O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? **25** I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin. I was reading the text in the King James Bible, and found that the apostle Paul was the servant of sin and as a servant, he was commanded by sin to sin, as such and being the context I can say for certain that the apostle Paul committed at least concupiscence.

From The Big Bang Theory S10E12 : > Mary: Thank you, God, for the food we are about to receive and for the nourishment of our bodies and bless the hands that prepared it. Amen. > > Sheldon: Given that your hands prepared it, isn't that a little self-serving? > > Mary: You start changing the words to the prayers, next thing you know, you're in a church with a guitar. --- Not sure if this is to do with Christianity or some TBBT inside joke I'm missing like Sheldon changes words to prayers at home and then later changes words to prayers in church.

I am a Latin Rite Catholic, but since September, I have been primarily attending Melkite and Ruthenian Divine Liturgies. Recently, I started attending the Latin Mass again, and while the transition has been mostly seamless, I’ve encountered one challenge—I find it nearly impossible to revert to making the Sign of the Cross from left to right. In the Divine Liturgy, one makes the Sign of the Cross over a hundred times, and after crossing myself from right to left over a thousand times, it has become deeply ingrained in my muscle memory. What is the historical or theological reason behind the difference in the direction of the Sign of the Cross between Eastern and Western traditions? Additionally, as a Latin Catholic, is it acceptable for me to continue crossing myself from right to left, or should I consciously work to revert to the Western practice?

Abeka 's textbook *Book of the Revelation* teaches that the seven churches of Revelation prophetically represent different periods of church history, and that we are in the Laodicean church today. | Church | Approximate dates | Meaning of name | Description | |--------|-------|-----------------|-------------| | Ephesus | A.D. 30-100 | "desirable" | "Apostolic church" | | Smyrna | 100-300 | "crushed" | "Persecuted church" under Rome | | Pergamos | 300-500 | "married" | "Worldly, imperial church"; Early Roman church, "married" to government beginning under Constantine | | Thyatira | 500-1500 | "continual sacrifice" | "Pagan, papal church"; medieval Catholic church; "continual sacrifice" refers to transubstantiation | | Sardis | 1500-1700 | "remnant" | "Reformation church" | | Philadelphia | 1700-1900 | "brotherly love" | "Revival, missionary church"; includes Great Awakening | | Laodicea | 1900-present | "rights or rule of the people" | "Lukewarm, tolerant, ecumenical church" | In the rightmost column, the parts in quotes are from a table printed both on page 5 and on the back cover of the book, while the parts not in quotes are my notes based on the content. > [T]here is only one key that really fits the mystery of the seven churches. That **key** is to *put the events of church history alongside the seven church letters and observe how they parallel a prophetic history of the church*. Thus the mystery of the seven letters to the seven churches is solved, for the key has been found. > > All seven churches existed in John's day and continue to exist in every period of church history, yet there is a dominant church description in each period. Each church description parallels a time period in church history (or the church age). For example, the church at *Ephesus*, the first of the seven churches, *parallels* the average, *typical first-century church*. Though all seven churches existed in the first century, the church at Ephesus describes the typical church of the first century. > > All seven churches addressed in Chapters 2 and 3 have existed throughout church history, yet the church in each time period manifests particular characteristics that parallel each letter. > > The church's *name* reveals the *character* or *conduct* which provides identification for the sequential period of church history. Even the sequence in which each church is addressed reveals divine inspiration. To reverse their order or to change their order in ant way destroys the description of that church period. (from *Book of the Revelation*, Abeka, pp. 5-6, emphasis in original) The idea is that there have, for the entirety of church history, been churches like Ephesus, churches like Smyrna, churches like Pergamos, and so on, but from 30 to 100, most churches were like Ephesus; from 100 to 300, most were like Smyrna, and so on. As we are, according to the book, currently living in the Laodicean period, most churches today are like the church of Laodicea, although there are churches like each of the seven today. How common is the belief that the seven churches represent periods of history? Is there a word for this belief? Wikipedia calls this a historicist interpretation of the seven churches , but this term is not ideal because historicism can refer to any prophecy, so it is vague exactly what a "historicist" believes, and it is also not obvious that the letters are intended to be prophetic, so the concept of historicism may be irrelevant. The linked Wikipedia article indicates that the earliest form of this theory originated with Thomas Brightman , a sixteenth-century Puritan. He believed that his time was in the Laodicean period, while it falls within the period of Sardis according to Abeka's interpretation.

My common sense tells me that there must be many such churches, but I'm having a hard time finding concrete examples on the web where this is officially stated in their doctrinal statement of faith. Does anyone know concrete examples that can be backed up with references? _______ Note: by "keeping the Sabbath" I mean from Friday sunset to Saturday sunset, according to Exodus 20:8-11 (ESV)'s instructions: > 8 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. 11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. Isaiah 58:13-14 (ESV) sheds more light on this commandment: > 13 “If you turn back your foot from the Sabbath, from doing your pleasure on my holy day, and call the Sabbath a delight and the holy day of the Lord honorable; if you honor it, not going your own ways, or seeking your own pleasure, or talking idly; 14 then you shall take delight in the Lord, and I will make you ride on the heights of the earth; I will feed you with the heritage of Jacob your father, for the mouth of the Lord has spoken.” ____ Related: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/89124/50422

Generally or in majority, what would these groups think about the following scenarios: - Praying to say thank you to a dead relative in heaven - Asking God to say thank you to a dead relative in heaven - Doing either of the above for a relative that is likely in hell

Of course there would be no sin atonement offering, but there were the other sacrifices that had nothing to do with sin. If Jesus in fact followed the law perfectly, He would have had to have made some of these following sacrifices it would seem. Sacrifices were for peace offerings, fellowship offerings, votive offerings, offerings of consecration. In John 7 Jesus attends Sukkot and is in the crowd during the water libation ceremony. Jesus also instructs a man healed with leprosy to go to the temple and make a sacrifice, probably of thanksgiving. In Matthew 17 Jesus pays the temple tax with a coin found in a fish that Peter catches. This is merely a question for intellectual speculation since the scriptures don't define them.

I think this question haven't been asked yet here. The teaching of Chalcedonian Christianity (including the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant churches) is that Jesus Christ exists as one person with two natures: divine and human, united without mixing or confusion. Thus, in Jesus Christ there is not one will (*contra Monothelism*), there is no absence of the human soul (*contra Apollinarianism*) and there is not two persons (*contra Nestorianism*). There is a new explanation just recently that is called Neo-Apollinarianism wherein it is said that Jesus had no uncreated human soul but that the divine Logos **completes** the human nature of Jesus Christ. In this view, the divine Logos underwent a change (divine mind became the soul) so that Jesus has one mind but still had two complete natures: divine and human (*pro Chalcedon*) (Source ) My question is: How to explain the doctrine that Jesus Christ is one person despite having two wills (dyothelitism) and two minds? Answers from any Chalcedonian perspective are welcome.

Marcion, by all accounts, was a very early and popular Christian leader. He lived and worked hundreds of years prior to the existence of Catholicism. What, if anything, did he have to say about Jesus and/or the "Holy Ghost" being completely equal to God?

Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theologians usually cite the authority of tradition in order to refute Protestants on any point where we have disagreement. Many Protestants also like to cite tradition; for instance, Luther and Calvin were adamant that they were not innovators, but simply returning to the doctrines of the ancient church which the Roman Catholics had drifted away from. However, Catholics and Eastern Orthodox point to institutional continuity and the idea of Apostolic Succession in order to argue that Protestant churches are not legitimate churches. Similar appeals to tradition and apostolic succession are made by the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Assyrian Church of the East and other splinter groups. For the purposes of this question, "traditionalist" refers to those groups which emphasize the Sacred Tradition as an additional authority beside Scripture, and emphasize the institutional continuity back to the apostles. Thus the principle branches of traditionalists are the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church, and the Assyrian Church of the East. These groups are all mutually not in communion with one another and have profound disagreements. **How do they discern which tradition is the correct tradition?** This is an *epistemological* question; while the particular disagreements among them are interesting and may serve as examples, I want to know by what methods traditionalists determine which tradition is correct. From my limited understanding, I see a lot of arguments that amount to begging the question. For instance, you might appeal to ecumenical councils, but how do you determine which councils are ecumenical? Only the First Council of Nicaea (325) and the First Council of Constantinople (381) are recognized by all four traditionalist branches. (And it would appear from reading Wikipedia's article that even within a particular tradition, there may be different opinions as to which councils are "ecumenical".) Or you might appeal to the authority of the Pope, but that is exactly the point at issue. How do you know that the tradition of following the Pope is the correct tradition?

Is there a reasonable way to use all the various heresies as defined by the various ecumenical councils and declarations of the pre-2nd millennium church (0AD-1000AD), or other sources from this time period, to define what the Trinity is using Apophatic Theological methods? Obviously scripture does include some Cataphatic statements, but please try to focus on Apophatic methods.

In [Genesis 5](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gen%205&version=ESV) , some of the descendants of Adam are listed with their ages. The people listed lived very much longer than anybody does today. For example, Adam lived to be 930. The oldest age, 969 years, is listed for Methuselah. How did these people live so long? Does the Bible explain this at all?

What is the Eastern Orthodox critique of the Catholic teaching that artificial contraception is intrinsically evil? What premise of that reasoning do they call into question?

This simple question was the center of the quarrel around Port-Royal and the efficacious grace in the 17th century in France. In fact, the defenders of Cornelius Jansen’s *Augustinus* argued that they agreed to state that those five propositions were heretical. However they didn’t recognize that they were in the posthume book of the bishop of Ypres. --- In one word, I’m searching for an answer to the famous *question de fait* (*question of fact*) stated in the first *Provinciale*: >Celle de fait consiste à savoir si M. Arnauld est téméraire pour avoir dit dans sa Seconde Lettre : Qu’il a lu exactement le livre de Jansénius, et qu’il n’y a point trouvé les propositions condamnées par le feu Pape ; et néanmoins que, comme il condamne ces propositions en quelque lieu qu’elles se rencontrent, il les condamne dans Jansénius, si elles y sont. Translation : >The question of fact consisted in ascertaining whether M. Arnauld was guilty of presumption, for having asserted in his second letter that he had carefully perused the book of Jansenius, and that he had not discovered the propositions condemned by the late pope; but that, nevertheless, as he condemned these propositions wherever they might occur, he condemned them in Jansenius, if they were really contained in that work. Was Arnauld right not to find the propositions? --- --- **So, in short, my question is:** 1. Are the propositions in Jansen's book? 2. If yes, where **exactly** in the book? A page and/or quotation (even not translated) would be great. Many thanks for your answers! --- Reminder: the five propositions condemned are : 1. Some of God's commandments are impossible to just men who wish and strive to keep them, considering the powers they actually have; the grace by which these precepts may become possible is also wanting to them. 1. In the state of fallen nature no one ever resists interior grace. 1. In order to merit or demerit, in the state of fallen nature, we must be free from all external constraint, but not from interior necessity. 1. The Semi-Pelagians admitted the necessity of interior preventing grace for all acts, even for the beginning of faith; but they fell into heresy in pretending that this grace is such that man may either follow or resist it. 1. It is Semi-Pelagian to say that Christ died or shed His blood for all men.

I am not a Christian. In a second-hand bookshop I often visit, there are many Bibles for sale. These books are mostly in Chinese and Korean, sometimes English, piling up meters high (maybe 200 prints or more). The bookshop owner says many Chinese and Korean believers sold (or sometimes donated) them to him, and he re-sells them at ￥50-100 each. I am curious, from a religious view, is it legal to sell the Bible to an apparent non-believer bookshop? As far as I know, Bibles are given **freely** to believers in where I live (in China). Does it make any difference, whether the Bible is acquired free, and whether it is sold or donated (either way the bookshop owner will finally sell them at a price, he will not donate anything for sure)? I believe it will be not very moral if I take one for free and sell it to a bookshop for money. P.S. In contrast, the Buddhist temple of my city also gives out propaganda books/leaflets for free. It usually prints "to achieve maximum merits, please don't discard; if you no longer need it, give it to another believer", indicating selling is not approved. And I seldom see free Buddhist books sold in that bookshop. Also, some Islam sites say selling Arabic or donated Quran to non-muslims is prohibited too. From the below answer, it seems Christianity really has a different tolerant view on this issue.

Roman Catholics believe that the virgin Mary was not only a virgin up until her birth of Christ, but remained a perpetual virgin until her death, but doesn't Matthew 1:25 affirm that Mary and Jospeh did in fact have sexual relations? Matthew 1:25 reads: > And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he > called his name Jesus.

### Bible verses in question Bible translation accepted by my church: NKJV (for the New Testament) Romans 13:1-7 NKJV >**1** Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. **For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God**. **2** Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will [a]bring judgment on themselves. **3** For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. **4** For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. **5** **Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake.** **6** For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. **7** Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor. 1 Peter 2:13-17, NKJV > **13** Therefore **submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake**, whether to the king as supreme, **14** or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good. **15** For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men— **16** as free, yet not using liberty as a cloak for vice, but as bondservants of God. **17** Honor all people. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king. To show that I'm not being unfair, and trying to be unbiased here is the New World Translation of Romans 13 which the Jehovah's Witnesses recognize. Romans 13:1-7 >**1** Let every person be in subjection to the superior authorities, for **there is no authority except by God the existing authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God**. **2**  Therefore, whoever opposes the authority has taken a stand against the arrangement of God; those who have taken a stand against it will bring judgment against themselves. **3** For those rulers are an object of fear, not to the good deed, but to the bad. Do you want to be free of fear of the authority? Keep doing good, and you will have praise from it; **4**  for it is God’s minister to you for your good. But if you are doing what is bad, be in fear, for it is not without purpose that it bears the sword. It is God’s minister, an avenger to express wrath against the one practicing what is bad. **5** **There is therefore compelling reason for you to be in subjection, not only on account of that wrath but also on account of your conscience.** **6** That is why you are also paying taxes; for they are God’s public servants constantly serving this very purpose. **7** Render to all their dues: to the one who calls for the tax, the tax; to the one who calls for the tribute, the tribute; to the one who calls for fear, such fear; to the one who calls for honor, such honor. To my understanding, Jehovah's Witnesses do not participate in government at all. Wouldn't participating in representative democracy be part of being in subjection to the superior authority on account of your conscience? Participating: **As in voting!**. You can supply additional comments about running for office or being in a governmental position, but I'm only interested in the voting aspect as it applies to the majority of people. *Answers not presenting the perspective of the Jehovah's Witness will be rejected.*

I heard a Christian apologist Dr. Frank Turek making a claim that God designed Jupiter that big so He would protect us from destructive meteorites, because the gravity of Jupiter (which is twice as strong as the earth's) pulls these objects to crash on its surface. Photographic evidence has shown that very huge meteorites, some even bigger than the size of the earth, have crashed on the surface of Jupiter thereby making Jupiter a planet that saves lives according to the plan of God. If so, how do they then reconcile this with how another meteorite *did* crash on the Gulf of Mexico which caused the dinosaurs to be extinct?

Micah 5:2, "But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah, From you one will go forth for Me to be the ruler of Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity." This prophecy is quoted by Matthew at Matthew 2:6, "And you; Bethlehem, land of Judah, Are by no means least among the leaders of Judah; For out of you shall come forth a ruler, Who will Shepherd My people Israel." This is referring to Jesus Christ the Messiah. The Jehovah's Witnesses agree with me. >There is no doubt that, from the prophecy of Micah 5:2, Satan the Devil knew where the birth was to take place... 16. How did Micah 5:2 indicate where the Messiah was to be born? Micah 5:2 reads: “And you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, the one too little to get to be among the thousands of Judah, from you there will come out to me the one who is to become ruler in Israel, whose origin is from early times, from the days of time indefinite. w81 7/15 pp. 11-16 - The Watchtower—1981" The prophecy states in the last sentence, "His (Jesus Christ's) goings forth goings forth from long ago, from the days of eternity." The following is from Strong's Lexicon on the word "eternity." Strong's word number 5769 https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h5769/kjv/wlc/0-1/ Notice the JW's word "indefinite" is used with "everlasting, unending future, eternity". So again, how do Jehovah’s Witnesses reconcile this apparent contradiction when you say Jesus Christ did not exist eternally or everlastingly?