Many branches of Christianity believe that people who have done something wrong in this life will, in the afterlife, suffer an infinite punishment that is called hell. Hell is usually depicted as some kind of fire that burns souls, but souls being immortal, it lasts for eternity. Now, people who don't believe in hell often use the argument "*What finite crime deserves an infinite punishment? Even Hitler didn't cause an infinite amount of suffering, so it is unjust to punish him with an infinite amount of suffering.*". How do people who believe in hell respond to that argument?

The Protestant Dispensational Churches of America use the passage of "*I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you*" in regards to a literal nation of Israel, interpreting it to mean that the current Jewish people must be supported at all costs in their quest to regain their ancestral homeland in Palestine, which naturally implies the ethnic cleansing of the local Arab people who have lived in the region for the last over 1,500 years, many of whom are actually Christian themselves. How should any of the various sects of Christianity respond to this situation today, both morally and from Scripture?

Does anyone know of a source that states that the Feast of Tabernacles is suspended for the day of the Sabbath? I am aware that the feast is seven days, followed by an eighth day. There are specific sacrifices listed for each and every day, including the eighth. What I am hoping to discover is if anyone might know a passage from the Talmud that says or suggests that the Sabbath superseded the feast, causing the seven days to have a pause. I have it written down in my notes, but whatever it was that I read, I didn't write down the specific passage, and it's been years at this point. I need to reread it to see if it says what I remember it saying. But, for the life of me, I can't remember where it was, or even precisely what it said. The best I can say is that it gave me the impression at the time that the feast didn't supersede the Sabbath, essentially causing the seven-day feast to span eight calendar days because of the one-day pause for the Sabbath. If anyone can give me some direction on this, it would be appreciated. This includes information specifically to the contrary. If you know of something that pointedly says that the Sabbath does *not* supersede the Feast, that would be equally useful.

I'm a Christian but lately an atheist debates they quoted Psalm 82 as evidence that there are other gods. I have asked Rabbis about this, they don't know what to do about it. The only conclusion is that The Almighty created other gods (yes I know idols are rebuked and not called gods for long, God will never say an idol is a "god", just called idols and abominations). God hasn't created those new gods, as in Isaiah 44: Isaiah 44:8 >Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any. I have been told that only Jahve is God, as in Isaiah 44, however, that was past, now why does it mean in Psalm 82 that God created gods? Psalms 82:1-8 >(A Psalm of Asaph.) >**1** God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. **2** How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah. **3** Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy. **4** Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked. **5** They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course. **6** I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. **7** But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes. **8** Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations. My question is different because God appears to go against the laws of logic and create other Gods. Thank you. English is not my first language so please be slow with me.

There are many denominations out there who claim to be unitarian, do any of them accept all or some of the ecumenical councils? If so which councils do they accept and on what basis? If they accept one not on this list feel free to mention it and explain why. 1. First Ecumenical Council (Nicea, 325 A.D.) 2. Second Ecumenical Council (Constantinople, 381 A.D.) 3. Third Ecumenical Council (Ephesus, 431 A.D.) 4. Fourth Ecumenical Council (Chalcedon, 451 A.D.) 5. Fifth Ecumenical Council (Constantinople, 553 A.D.) 6. Sixth Ecumenical Council (Constantinople, 680 A.D.) - The Quinisext Synod (691 A.D.) 7. Seventh Ecumenical Council (Nicea, 787 A.D.)

Do the following two passages support the reformationist doctrine of cessationism? Cessationism: the belief that the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit ceased with the apostolic age. *Matthew 12:38-40* >Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying, 'Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you.' But he answered them, 'An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but **no sign will be given** to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.' Luke 11:29-30 >When the crowds were increasing, he began to say, 'This generation is an evil generation. It seeks for a sign, but **no sign will be given** to it except the sign of Jonah. For as Jonah became a sign to the people of Nineveh, so will the Son of Man be to this generation.' Answers from the perspective of Cessation would be preferred.

The Scriptures record that there was three hours of darkness during the crucifixion of Jesus. This is a pretty significant meteorological event. Furthermore, the morning of Jesus' resurrection, the Scriptures indicate that there was an earthquake. Additionally, when Jesus died, the curtain of the Temple was apparently torn in two. > Now **from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour**. Matthew 27:45 ESV > > And behold, **the curtain of the temple was torn in two**, from top to bottom. And **the earth shook, and the rocks were split**. Matthew 27:51 ESV I don't know if there are historical records of any earthquakes, eclipses, or such things in any of antiquity. Yet, I am indeed curious to know if there are, and, if so, if there are any secular historical records that could match up to these events that surrounded the death of resurrection of Christ.

In John 5:31, Jesus said the following: > **If I testify about myself, my testimony is not true.** There is another > who testifies in my favour, and I know that his testimony about me is > true. ‘You have sent to John and he has testified to the truth. Not > that I accept human testimony; but I mention it that you may be > saved. John was a lamp that burned and gave light, and you chose for a > time to enjoy his light. ‘I have testimony weightier than that of > John. For **the works that the Father has given me to finish – the > very works that I am doing – testify that the Father has sent me. And > **the Father** who sent me **has *himself* testified concerning me**. (John > 5:31-37) Jesus spoke for himself as the **Son of God**, but said "if I testify about myself, my testimony is *not* true". It means that his word alone would not suffice for the testimony to be established as proof legally in front of human judges. Jesus refers to John the Baptist as a human witness but adds that "he doesn't accept a human testimony" for "I receive not honour from men" (John 5:41 - KJV). Witnesses acceptable to Jesus' standards of perfection were "the works that the Father has given [Christ] to finish", and in connection with those works, "**the Father** who sent [Christ] **has *himself* testified concerning [Jesus]**. He repeated similar words in **John 8:17, 18** > In your own Law it is written that the testimony of ***two* witnesses** is > true. **I am *one* who testifies for myself**; my ***other* witness** is **the > Father**, who sent me. (John 8:17-18) Jesus says "in your own Law it is written that the testimony of *two* witnesses is true". He clearly follows that Law as well in **John 5:31-37** in regards to the legality of his witness. Who are the ***two* witnesses** Jesus mentions in John 8:17,18? **Himself** and **the Father**! According to the Athanasian Creed , the Trinity is “one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;” and that you can’t “confound the persons nor divide the substance.” Albeit being 3 separate persons, they are **consubstantial** and “**coequal**” for “Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit” The persons are all almighty, “and yet they are not three almighties, but **one** almighty.... they are not three Gods, but **one** God.” It goes as far as to say that it is “forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.” The three persons of the Trinity are inseparable and **ONE** being. The Doctrine of Circuminsession (perichoresis) says: > The subsistences [divine persons] then we say are perfect, that we > may not conceive of the divine nature as compound. For compoundness is > the beginning of separation. And again we speak of the three > subsistences as being in each other , that we may not introduce a > crowd and multitude of Gods. Owing to the three subsistences, there is > no compoundness or confusion: while, owing to their having **the same > essence and dwelling in one another**, and being **the same in will, and > energy, and power, and authority, and movement**, so to speak, we > recognise the indivisibility and the unity of God. For verily there is > one God, and His word and Spirit. According to the theologian studies on the Lutheran Trinity Doctrine, Reiner Jansen said the following: > The"works of the Trinity ***cannot*** be lined up alongside one another in > such a way that they stand as three isolated and **disparate** events. The > work of any given person is always seen in relation to the work of the > other two persons. And so the work of the Father, Son, and Spirit are > not considered in and of themselves, but are seen entirely in the > light of the Trinitarian faith" (Jansen, 84) Dr. Charles P. Arand adds to this: > for there exists an intimate **interdependence**, one might even say a > mutual dependence among their works. James E. Dolezal states: > “The doctrine of divine simplicity teaches that (1) God is **identical** > with his existence and his essence and (2) that each of his attributes > is **ontologically** **identical** with his existence and with every other one > of his attributes.” > > *― James E. Dolezal, God without Parts: Divine > Simplicity and the Metaphysics of God's Absoluteness* If the trinitarian dogma is true, that "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit… are one" (1. John 5:7 - KJV) **"ontologically identical"** in essence and being, then the "witness" they are bearing **about *each other*** is legally unacceptable by the Judaic Law that God himself established! Even if you say that God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit are *different* persons of the God-Head, it would still be legally unacceptable due to the very nature of God's subsistence according to the Trinity dogma: **The three persons are **one and the same** being: GOD.** Legally speaking you cannot separate the witness from the being giving the witness. If the three persons of the Trinity are **ONE** in essence, nature, power, action, and will, and thus ***cannot*** say, act, and will differently from each other, then we cannot get three separate, distinct or **independent** testimonies from it, but only **one**. For there is no variation in point of view or dependence, that would warrant it to be accepted as a separate **independent** witness. Jesus' own words would apply that "if I testify about myself [my identity], my testimony is not true". It would mean that if any person of the God-Head, testifies about any other person of the God-Head or about the God-Head itself, according to the judicial Law established by God/YHWH himself, this testimony alone would not be acceptable to Jewish judges abiding to that Law.

I would consider as evidence papyri fragments, patristic gospel quotations (even without naming the supposed evangelist), or patristic references, e.g., "Luke wrote his gospel thirty years after the ascension." The data should predate 135 CE.

It's been said that there is no biblical basis for the assumption that Jesus ever took on the sins of mankind, before, during or after his death. What is the biblical proof that Jesus did take on the sins of mankind? There's been some really great answers here but I'm looking for some more firsthand proof, such as Matthew 5:17–18 > Christ Came to Fulfill the Law > > 17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Here Matthew quotes Jesus. Jesus fulfills the mosaic laws which also includes the sacrificial laws. The one perfect sacrifice that would forgive the sins of mankind past, present and future.

Reflecting on Matthew 9:38, Matthew 10:1-42, and Luke 10:2, who is the Lord of the Harvest, God the Father or God the Son? Or both together along with the Holy Spirit due to the nature of the Trinity? Jesus in Matthew 9 says to pray to the Lord of the Harvest to send workers out into the harvest. In the Lord’s Prayer, Jesus had instructed his believers to pray to the Father. Then in Matthew 10, Jesus sends his disciples out into the harvest. This would seem to indicate that Jesus is the Lord of the Harvest, as he is answering this prayer and doing the sending. Was Jesus in an indirect way in Matthew 9 asking his disciples to pray to him? Or is the Father the Lord of the Harvest, who made the decision to send out laborers, told Jesus, and Jesus is merely revealing the Father’s decision? Please cite Reformed sources.

It's interesting that a person will claim passages were added at a later date without considering the textual evidence. A fragment of the Gospel of John dates in the first half of the second century. We have complete copies of John in the fourth century codices. My concern is answering arguments for parts of John being later additions before the fourth century. An example of evidence, Irenaeus of Lyons, in the late second century, quotes parts of the prolegomena that some question it being part of the original Gospel. >But what John really does say is this: "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us; and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." *Irenaeus - Against Heresies book 1* http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/irenaeus-book1.html >John, however, does himself put this matter beyond all controversy on our part, when he says, "He was in this world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not. He came unto His own [things], and His own [people] received Him not." ... For when he had spoken of the Word of God as having been in the Father, he added, "All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made." ... For that according to John relates His original, effectual, and glorious generation from the Father, thus declaring, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Irenaeus - *Against Heresies book 3* http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/irenaeus-book3.html I'm not concerned with John 7:53–8:11, which is not in the earliest manuscripts. The rest of the Gospel is consistent in language and subject matter. It does appear that John added chapter 21 as a postscript. Has someone already compiled this information for the Gospel of John?

According to Bible Trinitarians, let's assume that there is Samuel the prophet(before he died) and Samuel the spirit(after he died), so after the medium at Endor called his spirit from the dead, he was still Samuel the prophet technically because he still prophesied onto Saul that he would die the following day. Can this analogy be applied to demystify the divine nature of the Holy Spirit as being the Father? That is because I am So Few Against So Many in the flesh but also the same person in the spirit for even that medium must have acquired the name of Samuel from Saul, I am still the same person but with a different essence? So the Spirit is still the Father but in a different essence? Does this explain why the Father is not mentioned in the sermon about the unforgivable sin? Because he is literally the Holy Spirit? There is Jesus who was dead on the cross and Jesus who descended into the heart of the earth in spirit form, both were still Jesus.

If a Trinitarian says that Jesus is both God and man, that is 100% God and 100% man, doesn't that necessarily mean that Jesus is both 100% uncreated and 100% created, since being uncreated is a property of someone who is 100% God and being created is a property of someone who is 100% man. I ask this unironically in consideration of verses like Col 1:15 and Rev 3:14 that can seem to describe Jesus as the beginning of God's creation. If indeed such a meaning was not just apparent but truly intended by the authors, isn't the Trinitarian belief already robust enough that it could accommodate such a scriptural pronouncement? Clarification: This question isn't whether or not Col 1:15 teaches that Jesus is apart of God's creation, but whether the Trinitarian belief already accommodates that, to the extent he is human, he already is created.

Who is known as the Hut-Burner Saint? Is he venerated by the Catholic Church?

Summary from [Wikipedia - Our Lady of Zeitoun](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Zeitoun) : > Our Lady of Zeitoun, also known simply as El-Zeitoun, Zeitun or rarely Our Lady of Light, was a mass Marian apparition that was reported to have occurred in the Zeitoun district of Cairo, Egypt, during a period of about 3 years beginning on 2 April 1968. Summary from [The Marian Apparitions: An Evidential Inquiry](https://www.amazon.com/-/es/Travis-Dumsday-ebook/dp/B0DFDRGRZT) by Travis Dumsday: > Religious experiences are usually private though occasionally they are intersubjective, involving multiple individuals at the same time. These group experiences carry extra evidential weight. But what of mass religious experiences, in which hundreds or even thousands of people apparently experience the same supernatural occurrence at the same time? Such events are rare historically, but of great interest in evidential terms, since they are more difficult to explain scientifically. **The largest mass religious experiences in recorded history (outside Scripture) occurred over the course of several years in Zeitoun, Egypt. Beginning in 1968, the Virgin Mary began to appear above a Coptic Orthodox Church. These apparitions soon attracted massive crowds and sparked official inquiries by both the Egyptian government and the Coptic hierarchy**. This book explores the history of these fascinating events and critically examines every scientific explanation thus far put forward in an attempt to account for them in naturalistic terms. The author argues that, so far, these attempts have failed, and thus the Marian apparitions at Zeitoun constitute powerful evidence for the reality of the supernatural. The YouTube channel *Capturing Christianity* recently released the video *[The Best Evidence for Christianity… Isn’t in the Bible?!](https://youtu.be/n5wxSrxFzz0?t=164)* : > First, what do we have for Zeitoun? > > Well, we have: > > - **Thousands of firsthand eyewitnesses**, including Muslims, skeptics, journalists, and even government officials. > - **Photographs**—something we don't have for the resurrection. > - **Immediate written reports**, with no decades-long gap. > - **Public and repeatable events**—the apparitions occurred countless times spanning three years to massive crowds. > - **Multiple sensory experiences**—people didn’t just see it; they also smelled incense and documented miraculous healings. > - **A government investigation**—and it didn’t debunk it. In fact, the secular Egyptian government officially declared it supernatural. > > This is very serious evidence. If you're thinking, *"Wait, this > actually does sound stronger than our evidence for biblical > miracles,"* you would be right. > > Now, compare the evidence at Zeitoun for what we have for the Resurrection: > > - **Eyewitness testimony**—but from a small number of people. > - **Some hearsay accounts**—written two or so decades (or thereabouts) after the event. > - **No photographs**—the camera wasn’t even invented yet. > - **No secular confirmation**—for example, we have no formal, contemporaneous, say, Roman investigation concluding that anything mysterious or supernatural happened, like we do in Zeitoun. What do Protestants think about the Marian apparitions at Zeitoun, Egypt?

Young Earth Creationists believe in a young earth, followed by a literal global flood based on the belief that Scripture is written as history. Often, in comments, discussion forums, and discussions in general, they will refer to "overwhelming physical evidence" that backs up their theological belief. What phsyical evidence do they teach or believe can be interpreted as consistent with the idea of a global flood?

In the Old Testament, God is identified by many things. Among these are His name, His unique attributes and characteristics, his role or office relative to His creation, and His unique abilities and actions. Sometimes these are combined in scripture when referring to God. One such combination is God's totally unique abilities and actions and His role as the judge of men's hearts and His authority to reward them according to His own findings. This identifies God as omniscient (an attribute unique to God) and as the judge of their hearts (a role or authority unique to God alone). Jeremiah 17:10 says: > "I, the LORD, **search the heart, I test the mind**, even > to give each man according to his ways, **According to the results of > his deeds.**" Please answer this simple question: who is it that Jeremiah addresses as the one that sees the hearts of men and Himself tests the mind? Who does the Old Testament repeatedly identify as this One who is so omniscient as to judge the hearts of men? (See 1 Samuel 16:7, 1 Chronicles 28:9, 29:17, 2 Chronicles 6:30, Psalm 7:9, 139:1, and others.) I ask this question because this is what Jesus Christ stated in Revelation 2:23: > "And I will kill her children with pestilence; and all the churches > will know that I am He who searches **the minds and hearts**; and I > will give to each one of you **according to your deeds.**" So you suppose that in writing this passage where Jesus identifies Himself as the one who searches the hearts of men and rewards them according to His judgment that John might have had reason to think that Jesus is the *same one* as the one who so identifies Himself throughout the Old Testament?

According to [CoPilot AI]: Saint Erasmus and Saint Timothy are both considered patron saints of gastrointestinal issues. [1, 2] Saint Erasmus • The patron saint of liver disease and gastrointestinal issues • Also the patron saint of abdominal pain, especially pain in the liver or intestines • The patron saint of women in labor and those who work at sea • Also known as St. Elmo, the name of the bishop of Foremiae, Campagna, Italy • He was martyred during the Diocletian persecution Saint Timothy • The patron saint of stomach and intestinal ailments • He was a close friend and confidant of St. Paul • He was consecrated as the Bishop of Ephesus by St. Paul in 65 AD • He was stoned to death by pagans in 97 AD • His feast day is celebrated on January 26th in the Roman Catholic Church Generative AI is experimental. Not all images can be exported from Search. https://www.praymorenovenas.com/st-timothy-novena https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11304635/ https://www.praymorenovenas.com/st-erasmus-novena https://catholicsaintmedals.com/patronage/patron-against-intestinal-disorders/ https://connection.newmanministry.com/saint/saint-timothy/

As far as I have been able to determine, **John Calvin** never created a succinct, ordered list of the steps of salvation (though one could be derived from statements in his *Institutes*). Who was the first Reformed scholar to propose such a concise list and call it the *Ordo Salutis*? Some possibilities that I have seen suggested (by an AI but without sources) are **Zacharias Ursinus** and **Herman Bavinck**. This is a variation on an earlier question: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/83126/what-is-the-most-authentic-reformed-ordo-salutis