From what I understand, St. Augustine had a "common-law wife" (concubine) who bore him a child. He abandoned them to pen theology. Was this considered honorable by the Catholic clergy?

In the book *Sapiens* by Yuval Noah Harari, the author claims that Heaven and Hell are concepts not mentioned in the Old Testament of the Christian Bible. From *Sapiens*: > Belief in heaven (the realm of the good god) and hell (the realm of the evil god) was also dualist in origin. There is no trace of this belief in the Old Testament, which also never claims that the souls of people continue to live after the death of the body. ## References Harari, Y.N. (2014). *Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind*. (p. 248)

For those that maintain that the soul is not destroyed in the lake of fire, but instead results in eternal suffering, how then do you interpret death being cast into the flames? Revelation 20:14 (NASB) > Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. Is "Death" merely tormented or is it truly destroyed? What would it even mean for death to suffer?

Since the Father is the most supreme hierarchical being in the trinity, followed by the Son and the Spirit, does it mean that the self-revelation of God to man was started by the Father in the Old Testament , succeeded by the Son who died on the cross to take away the sins of the world, then succeeded by the Spirit who is completing the works of salvation, and if the spirit is completing the works as the most junior member of the trinity then it means it was began by the most senior member of the trinity, what do Bible Trinitarians think? Did all the three equally participate in salvation as they all participated in the creation of the world?

Revelation’s visions often put the Son with the Father, but the Holy Spirit is generally absent. For example: Receiving the Book of Revelation -------------------------------- “God” gave the visions of Revelation to “Jesus Christ” and Jesus gave it to His angel to give to John (Rev 1:1). The Holy Spirit is absent from this sequence. There-after, Revelation itself is referred to as “the word of **God** and to the testimony of **Jesus Christ**” (Rev 1:2). Worship ------- Both “Him Who sits on the Throne, and … The Lamb” are praised and worshiped (Rev 5:13-14; 7:10) but the Holy Spirit is never praised or worshiped. In Revelation 4, the Holy Spirit is present in the throne room, described as “before the throne” (Rev 4:5) but the beings in the throne room ignore the Holy Spirit and “give glory and honor and thanks (only) to Him who sits on the throne, to Him who lives forever and ever” (Rev 4:9-10). In Revelation 5, as Jesus enters the throne room, the Holy Spirit departs “sent out into all the earth” (Rev 5:6). Now, while the Holy Spirit was not praised previously, both “Him Who sits on the Throne, and … The Lamb” are praised (Rev 5:13). On the Throne ------------- Jesus sat down with His Father on His throne (Rev 3:21; 12:5) but the Holy Spirit never sits on the throne. Rather, the Holy Spirit is “before His throne” (Rev 1:4; 4:5); apparently subordinate to “God who sits on the throne” (Rev 19:4). God’s People ------------ The saved are described as “first fruits to **God** and to the **Lamb**” (Rev 14:4); “a kingdom, priests to His God (Jesus’ God) and Father” (Rev 1:6); With His blood, Jesus has “made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God” (Rev 5:9-10). No Holy Spirit involvement. Christian Faith ------------------- “The seal of the living God,” which is put on the foreheads of God’s servants (Rev 7:2-3), is “His (the Lamb’s) Name and the Name of His Father” (Rev 14:1). Christian faith is often portrayed as consisting of two parts, referring to God and Jesus; e.g.: - “The word of GOD and the testimony of JESUS” (Rev 1:9; cf. Rev 6:9); - “The commandments of GOD and … faith in JESUS” (Rev 14:12); - “The commandments of GOD and ... the testimony of JESUS” (Rev 12:17); - “Their testimony of JESUS and … the word of GOD” (Rev 20:4). Apparently, faith in the Holy Spirit is not required. Christ’s Victory ---------------- Through Christ’s death, “the kingdom of our GOD and the authority of HIS CHRIST have come” (Rev 12:10). No Holy Spirit. Judgment Day ------------ On Judgment Day, while the saved will stand “before THE THRONE (representing the Father) and before the LAMB” (Rev 7:9), the lost will attempt to hide “from the presence of Him Who sits on the Throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb” (Rev 6:16-17). The saved do not stand before the Holy Spirit and the lost do not hide from the Holy Spirit. On that day, Jesus will tread “the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty” (19:15). The New Earth ------------- On the new earth, “He Who sits on the Throne will spread His tabernacle over them” and “The Lamb … will be their shepherd” (Rev 7:16-17). No Holy Spirit. The “kingdom of the world … (will) become the kingdom of OUR LORD and of HIS CHRIST” (Rev 11:15). “The Lord GOD THE ALMIGHTY and the LAMB are” the temple of the New Jerusalem. (Rev 21:22). “The glory of GOD has illumined it, and its lamp is the LAMB” (Rev 21:23), “A river of the water of life, clear as crystal, coming from the throne of GOD and of the LAMB” (Rev 22:1; cf. Rev 22:3). In other words, only God and the Lamb will sit on the throne; no Holy Spirit. Conclusion ---------- In Revelation 1:4-5, John mentions the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in a triadic passage but that is not part of the visions of Revelation. It is part of John’s own introduction to and context setting for the book. From a Trinitarian perspective, in which the Holy Spirit is a third Person; co-equal with the Father, how does one explain the absence of the Holy Spirit from key moments in the visions of the Book of Revelation?

My pastor mentioned the Bible is written by the Holy Spirit, through man. Where does this concept come from (rather than just written by wise or experienced men)? Other than direct references to Jesus, how do we know the rest is not just man's ideas and are indeed God inspired or "written"? Is there a chapter in the Bible that states this or is it tradition?

Who are the artistsenter preformatted text here behind these two paintings and ehat year were they painted (for authentication)? [![enter image description here]] [![painting of Holy Mary and the infant Jesus?]]

I’ve been trying to see how “federal vision” is different than traditional defenses of paedobaptism. It seems pretty unclear to me, but multiple Presbyterian denominations have rejected “federal vision,” so there must be something questionable about it.

The Bible does state very many times that God already knows our earthly and eternal destinies. Jesus chose Judas Iscariot because he knew his destiny was to betray him. Jesus knew Paul would try to persecute the church in Damascus and intercepted him on the way. Jesus also knew the thief to his right will confess and they will be re united paradise the same day. My question is, if God already knows who gets to be saved and who doesn't, why should anyone make an effort to be saved when an individual's destiny is already known to God?

> For as many as are **led by the Spirit of God**, they are the sons of God. [Romans 8:14 KJV] > 16 This I say then, **Walk in the Spirit**, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. 17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. 18 But if ye **be led of the Spirit**, ye are not under the law. [Galatians 5:16-18 KJV] How are Christians led by the Holy Spirit according to Cessationism? For instance, when a Christian has to make an important life decision in which he/she would really like to hear God's opinion on the matter through the direct lead of the Holy Spirit, what should such a Christian do and possibly expect to receive according to the Cessationist view? Some concrete real life situations that come to mind where the lead of the Holy Spirit would be quite helpful include: - Knowing one's calling (*should I be a pastor, teacher, evangelist, missionary, etc.?*) - Deciding what career to pursue. - Choosing one's spouse (or whether to remain celibate for the sake of the gospel). - In the case of a pastor or another church leader, the discernment to decide who will join them in positions of leadership in the church (ideally, one would like that these people were directly chosen by the Holy Spirit Himself, because He has the perfect discernment). - Avoiding dangerous situations, especially when they are unpredictable (not for the Holy Spirit, of course). - Being led by the Holy Spirit, possibly in supernatural ways, to approach and share the gospel with specific individuals, especially at the right place and time when they are ready to receive it. ___ Related questions: - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/9120/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/80658/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/84215/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/83881/50422

**To those who believe that the Angel of the Lord who appears in several situations in the Old Testament was the pre-incarnate Christ:** I have come across many writings and opinions from some within the Evangelical Christian movement, asserting that the "angel of the lord" in the Old Testament, is pre-incarnate Jesus (a Christophany). See, for example: or Google: **"Is Jesus the Angel of the Lord?"** On two ocassions in the Bible, the Angel of the Lord appears to Hagar (Genesis 16:7-13 and Genesis 21:17-19). That is, when Hagar is pregnant and being harshly treated by Sarah and later when Hagar runs out of water after Abraham sends her and her son away as demanded by Sarah and consented to by God. **The Angel of the Lord picks the child's name and blesses him on two separate ocassions (before and after his birth). What are the theological and spiritual implications of the fact that Jesus directly and personally blessed Ishmael twice?** **I am not aware of any Biblical passage of Isaac being blessed by God as a child or having an encounter with the Angel of the Lord**

Genesis 1:21-22 > So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing > with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to > their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw > that it was good > > God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and > fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." Genesis 1:24 > And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to > their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, > and the wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. For example :
A. God create a bunch of elephants, cows, doves, eagles, penguins, dolphins, dogs, ants, snakes, etc etc ... here and there across the earth - male and female. B. God create 2 elephants, 2 cows, 2 doves, 2 eagles, 2 penguins, 2 dolphins, 2 ants, 2 snakes, etc etc ... male and female for each type and they are all in one place ---> Something like when on the 6th day we go to a zoo or to an African Safari, many types of animal are there - but there are only two for each type, male and female. C. Almost like B, but the two elephants on the most North of the earth, the two doves somewhere on other part of the earth, the two penguins on the most South of the earth, **the two snakes exactly in the Eden Garden**, etc etc. In other words, the size of the "African Safari" is as big as the earth size :). So, according to the YEC - is it A or B or C ? Thank you.

A recent highly upvoted answer on a different question sparked this question to me. It is at the bottom. Searching found this similar but different question I will quote the parts that sparked the question here. I as always will leave the author unnamed. (I'm not here to put anyone on "blast" so to speak) > ...we don’t blindly accept what men claim. We follow Acts 17:11 where the Bereans were commended because “they examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.” > >**If it wasn’t done during the first century when Christ Jesus established his church** – not a building, not an organisation but the body of believers – **then we reject it.** We follow Scripture. > >That, in a nutshell, is how Protestants deal with the claims of men who lived after the death of Jesus and the apostles. If their teachings and claims are found in Scripture, then we accept that as our authority. **What we reject is the teachings and traditions of men who have added to the word of God.** I assume "add" would also include "remove or change". To understand the spirit of the words written here. Edit: It has come to my attention that the above is likely to be incorrect with regards to how protestants do things. This makes the question based on a misunderstanding I thought it was accurate. Knowing this resolves the issue of the main question, and leaves the "bonus questions" remaining. --- Immediately I find myself wondering how the logic can possibly work here. Because we have several problems that are immediately apparent. (As noted here in another question, but I'm not focused on Sola Scriptura like that question is) Facts. 1. The Scriptures were starting to be canonized maybe as early as 382AD (Rome) or 393 (Hippo). This does not mean the early church had no scriptures, but there was much that was "repeated" and also "not divinely inspired" (Protogospels, multiple letters, gnostic false scriptures... etc) This process was formally completed in the 6th Ecumenical Council Canon 2 **in 692AD** 2. Who decided which texts were "divinely inspired" and "good for worship"? The Church fathers did *after the 1st century*. > Edit: I just remembered the local councils at Carthage (255 AD). So the process started even earlier in some formal sense. --- Claims from above combined with facts. 1. Protestants only accept things within Scripture. 2. Protestants reject things after the 1st century. (So they do accept some "direct contact tradition") 3. The New Testament and Bible was starting to be canonized from multiple texts in multiple councils starting in 382AD. And at this point the protestants somehow accept the Biblical Canon. Though they seem to have a problem with the original canon list. Even Luther wished parts of the Bible didn't exist (see here... ) --- #### How do protestants, accept* the given tradition of the Bible, despite it being canonized by the traditions of men after the 1st century? - Bonus question: How do they reconcile changing the Bible from the original canon of 692AD? - Bonus question: How is this not cherry picking which tradition you like? (You like scripture, but dislike XYZ)

Based in part on answers to this question , this definition from the Merriam-Webster dictionary: > : religious belief emphasizing the powers of priests as essential mediators between God and humankind and this definition from Wikipedia: > Sacerdotalism (from Latin sacerdos, "priest", literally "one who presents sacred offerings", sacer, "sacred", and dare, "to give")[1] is the belief in some Christian churches that priests are meant to be mediators between God and humankind. I would like to compile a list of those Churches or denominations which officially affirm Sacerdotalism where that affirmation is not only to the ministry of Priests as mediators but the **essential nature of that mediation** in the salvation of the faithful. The Wikipedia article names Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and some forms of Anglo-Catholic theology as sacerdotal. It also indicates some forms of Lutheranism as sacerdotal, at least as far as the handing down of the priestly work of the Apostles is concerned, but I wonder if that fulfills the 'essential to salvation' qualifier. I also think Latter-Day Saints hold a 'restored' priestly ministry which is theologically important but I wonder if 'essential to salvation' is accurate. Which Christian Churches teach that the mediatorial ministration of their official priesthood is essential to the salvation act/process for individual humans? _____________________________________________________________________________ I hesitate to ask after a denominational survey since that requires a daunting effort. Perhaps answers could come in the form of a 'community wiki' wherein each denomination adds to or edits in its own official support of sacerdotalism? If this is a legitimate method for answering, could someone with the correct amount of computer savvy please make it so?

Most Christian denominations teach that the devil and his angels cannot be forgiven because they committed an **eternal sin**, while Adam and Eve committed a **mortal sin**, hence they can be forgiven. How did the devil and his angels end up committing an eternal sin when the only sin that leads to eternal damnation is **blasphemy against the Holy Spirit** All **sin** can be defined as going against the **will of God in heaven or on earth** Was it **pride** that made the devil and his angels liable of eternal damnation and how is this a tresspass against the Holy Spirit? Since the Bible claims that **no sin is small or great**, why was the sin by the devil and his angels so great that it made them guilty of eternal damnation and how is the sin of pride any different from the sins committed by men because even men have pride and conspired to be like God in the Tower of Babel?

Deuteronomy 33:26 is > "There is none like the God of Jeshurun, who rides the heavens to your > aid, and the clouds in His majesty." Biblical Unitarians take Daniel 7:13 to be a Messianic prophecy, and it has > "I saw One like the Son of Man coming with the clouds of heaven. He > approached the Ancient of Days and was led into His presence." If the Son of Man = God, then the fact the Son of Man in coming with the clouds of heaven is easy to reconcile with Deut. 33:26, where it seems to describe an exclusive activity of God - riding the clouds. How do Biblical Unitarians, who believe the Son of Man is a divine figure in a sense, but not God, reconcile these two verses?

Does the Power of the Most High overshadowing or enveloping Mary describe the incarnation of the Son of God, his transformation from divinity to mortality? Luke 1:35 ESV > And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and > **the power of the Most High will overshadow you**; therefore the child to > be born will be called holy—the Son of God. The Son is identified as the "Power of God" and the Wisdom of God in 1 Corinthians 1:24 > but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, **Christ the power > of God** and *the wisdom* of God. The Wisdom of God existed with God from the beginning according to Proverbs 8:30 > Then **I was a skilled craftsman at his side**, and his delight day by > day, rejoicing always in his presence. The Wisdom of God is also the Word of God according to John 1:1 > **In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God**, and the Word > was divine. The Son became flesh according to John 1:14 > And **the Word became flesh and dwelt among us**, and we have seen his > glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and > truth. The Son was at the Father's side during creation, and the Son became flesh at his conception by the Holy Spirit. Again my question is, Does Luke 1:35 imply that the Son pre-existed his human incarnation as a divine personage, and did this personage overshadow Mary at the spiritual conception of Jesus to undergo the kenosis and incarnate into flesh as described in Philippians 2:6?

This question is inspired by part of an answer given to a recent question : > It is God alone who has created the canon, our human responsibility is only to recognise it, which we have done better and worse through history. If someone seeking the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit and diligently studying the Bible arrived at the conclusion that, say, Song of Solomon, or Esther, or James, was not inspired, would it be possible for that person to accept Sola Scriptura AND accept a 65 book canon? Why or why not? *** This question is seeking the perspective of those who believe in Sola Scriptura, and I'm primarily interested in the answer to the 2nd part of the question (why or why not?)

Revelation 22:19 KJV >And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. When I first began to study the Bible in earnest, I became intrigued by the Apocrypha, and when I spoke to my pastor about it, he ignored my questions. Some other sources, however, indicated that those apocryphal books had been rejected, because they conflicted with that particular verse. Through further study, it became apparent that the argument had no real backing. Since all of the books of the Bible were not written by the same person, and over a very long time, and they were not even compiled or even authorized until some years later.

When I was researching about the deuterocanon (or the apocrypha, as most Protestants call them) I stumbled upon the notion that God was silent during a period of 400 years between the end of the Old Testament (after the Prophet Malachi) and the beginning of New Testament time (namely the appereance of John the baptist). From a Protestant point of view where the deuterocanonical/apocryphal books are not considered scripture, there is indeed a 400 year gap in revelation -- no prophets, no inspired writings, nothing. From a Catholic, Orthodox and Assyrian Churches, point of view however there is scripture written and inspiration taking place during that period and there is no gap (at least not that long) in Gods revelation. Now, when looking for reasons why christians consider the deuterocanon/apocrypha inspired or not I am sometimes told that those writings originated in a period where God was silent and thus cannot be considered scripture (like here , here or here ). To me this is: 1. A circular argument (apocrypha are not scriptural -> God was silent 400 years -> in those 400 years no inspired scripture was written -> apocrypha are not scriptural) or 2. There must be another reason to believe God was silent for that period. This reason would break the circle in (1) and make the stated argument valid. **My Question: What biblical basis give adherents of a large time of Gods silence between the Prophet Malachi and John the Baptist beside the (perceived) fact of missing inspired scripture in that period?** A best answer could simply cite the prophet X in saying: "Listen, God will be silent for 400 years before the fulfillment of time." and then stating that this fulfillment of time has come with Christ. But there may be more to say to that matter ...