Is there the expectation among the early Christians to give a 10% of their income to the Church?

I was speaking with a Dispensationalist pastor and he made the claim that "the Old Testament always defines Israel as genetic Israel". I mentioned Josh. 8:33 as a counterexample, but he said that that verse is talking about the "assembly of Israel" which should be distinguished from Israel proper, which he claims must be genetically defined. Notes from a friend of mine who attends his church similarly say that "Every time ‘Israel’ is read in the OT, it only ever means a genetic descendant of Jacob (and sometimes it means a subset of this group—northern 10 tribes) – ethnic Jews." This strikes me as particularly radical--even for Dispensationalists--since it would exclude converts to Judaism from Biblically defined "Israel". Is there any basis for these assertions? Unfortunately, I was unable to ask the pastor about where he got this idea from. It strikes me as incompatible with Josh. 8:33-35. Exodus 12:42-49 and Ruth 1:16 are also relevant. I know that Dispensationalists don't all emphasize *genetic* Israel the way this pastor did, since some of my dispy friends also were surprised by this claim. **Are there other Dispensationalist authorities that would make the claim that "Israel" in the Bible is always be defined genetically?** If so, what reasoning is used to justify it? If not, then what Dispensationalist doctrine might this pastor have been misinterpreting? ***Update:*** This article by Thomas Ice seems to also take this view, especially the quotations from Fruchtenbaum's book *Israelology: The Missing Link In Systematic Theology* and Ruthven's *The Prophecy That Is Shaping History: New Research on Ezekiel’s Vision of the End* seem promising. However, I'm not sure sure if these works emphasize the *genetic* aspect (i.e., excluding converts to Judaism). Do either of these works actually define "Israel" this way, and if so, how do they justify it?

From the answer to another question , someone suggested that the LDS (Mormon) church teaches that Jesus is distinct from God—that though He is a part of the Godhead, the Godhead is not a Trinity defined by the "Three-in-One" idea. What specifically, then, does the LDS Church teach about who Jesus is and where He came from? Is He eternal, not eternal, uncreated, created?

I have the following piece of report from the year 1596 about a wooden parish church located in southern Lesser Poland region, which I struggle to understand, because curical words related to 'sepultura' thing have several meanings and I'd need to have some historic background on the topic: > Item habet proventus communes pro aedificatione sui: vaccas quatuor (a singulis lactantibus duodecem grossorum, a sterilibus sex grossorum solvuntur), a sepulturis in ecclesia media marca solvitur, sed medietatem plebanus tollit in porticu nihil. > (...) > Quod reformationem attinet: (...) A sepulturis in porticu duae saxagenae tegularum conferantur. It is about church income which could be used for construction works (e.g., the parish had a few cows which were rented by local people). But then there is something about 'sepultura'. My initial, naive understanding would be that for being buried in that church it costed 1/2 'marca' (i.e. «grzywna», a unit of exchange) for a place in the nave, while a place in the porch was for free. However, it was a small wooden church, so I doubt there were some huge crypts (if any) in either the nave or the porch. To complicate matters even more, 'in porticu' can either mean 'in a porch', but also 'within «*soboty*»' (a wooden portico surrounding the church, see here: [*soboty*](https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soboty) . This particular church had «soboty»). However, even within «soboty» there was not enough space to bury many people (and I doubt there were any burials there since they were often paved with stones). The church could look like this one (but likely was smaller): I suppose that 'sepultura' can mean not only a grave, but also burial, or funeral obsequies (see: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sepultura#Latin ; http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=sepultura) and in this case the last meaning seems to be the most appropriate. I've read somewhere that in those days the distance between a coffin and the main altar marked the importance of the deceased person and that in Orthodox church funeral in the nave was reserved only for clergy... Does anyone know something about funerals/burials in Catholic churches in old times and could help me with understanding the above-mentioned passages?

We are aware from the recordings in the Gospels of the Christians that phenomena such as an ***Earthquake*** shook (Matthew 27:51), and that there was ***darkness*** (Matthew 27:45). And other posted question have dealt with these in relation to Secular or Extra-biblical confirmations. But were there ***other happenings*** that could be considered the result of (caused by) the crucifying of Jesus, that are also recorded in extra-biblical documents and ancient writings? Especially events related to Jewish ritual or Temple worship? ***The Crucifixion of the Lamb of God*** is the linch-pin of Christianity. It is the crux of the message of salvation for the whole world! Jesus's cross contains the transom of history upon which balances the whole redemption story of God's love toward mankind. So one would justly conclude that there would be ***many significant events*** accompanying this event, pointing to its importance, and underscoring its uniqueness in the long history of mankind.

Jesus was God's fullness as far as God can be expressed bodily (Col 2:9). > Col 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. As such, it is evident that He possessed every Spiritual Gift. He could speak in "Tongues" and "Interpret" the Messages. While He was physically on earth He humbled Himself and demonstrated the "fullness" of God while in a physical Body. > Jn 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. The Father is greater than Jesus, Jn 14:28. The "Word" was with the Father (John 1:1) before being "Incarnate" as Jesus. He returned to that state of existence after His earthly life (John 17:3). Christians are told to walk as Jesus walked in 1 Jn 2:6. > 1 John 2:6 KJV — He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked. As the "Model" of Christian Living, Jesus demonstrated the Spiritual gifts and their use.

While researching for [this answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/60491/16938) and reading different posts on this site over the past few days, I've come across some criticisms of the NIV I'd never heard before. I've seen articles claiming that it changes the Bible to make it more friendly to homosexuality, but these claims were more general and more significant. For example, the one that stuck out to me the most was where someone said that the NIV translators knew no Koine Greek, just modern Greek, and that they used two secular translators to translate the NT into modern Greek. These are some pretty serious claims. I've never liked the NIV myself, but that’s never been anything but my personal preference. I'd link to the places I saw these claims if I could remember. What arguments exist against the NIV? I'd like to find reliable references if at all possible. I’m not looking for small, minor issues like [a few missing verses](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/13962/niv-hidden-bible-verses) . I’m looking for larger, more significant problems that could conceivably affect the integrity of the text as a whole. I'm not just looking for valid arguments; I'd also love to hear about any well-refuted claims against the NIV, so long as they had some intelligent basis in the first place. I know this question seems a bit open, but if any of these claims are true, I want be sure to avoid using an unreliable translation of God's words. I’m sure the same goes for others on this site and across the Internet.

For members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Is Jesus a created being? What is the official church doctrine in relation to this? John 1:3 states "All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made." In light of this verse, what would be the LDS resolution of the biblical data? Please provide LDS scripture references or quotes from latter day prophets and apostles. If you are not LDS and attempt to answer for them, the same source is required of you. An obscure quote of the personal belief of a single individual is not sufficient to claim a thing is an official teaching/doctrine of The Church.

Susanna 1:32 states that part of her piety was covering her face, and that the elders wanted to uncover her. Why is she not depicted that way in Iconography? (At least in the iconography I can find)

Is God still creating new things in outer space or other dimensions? Or did the Bible definitively state that He is done creating and that He is resting comfortably in Heaven admiring His Creation?

> Every branch in me (εν έμοι ) that beareth not fruit, he taketh it away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he [the Father, v1] cleanseth it, that it may bear more fruit. (John 15:2, ASV) Some reformed like James White say that once someone is “in Christ” they are eternally saved. But Jesus said that some branches in him that don't bear fruit will be removed from him and burned. (15:5) How do reformed theologians reconcile John 15:2 with the doctrine of “once saved always saved"? ----- 3) the phrase en Christo (in Christ) or its equivalent in Him, is central to Paul’s thought. All of salvation takes place only “in Christ.” (https://reformedspirit.blogspot.com/2015/08/god-is-redeeming-for-himself-people-and.html?m=1)

I'm looking for an English translation of Martin Luther's notes in his German Bible translation. Or maybe it would be called his preface. My understanding is that he included personal notes before each book in the New Testament. Does anyone know what I am talking about or where I could find it? Thanks.

**What are the correct liturgical bows that the clergy and faithful expected to do in Catholic churches and while at mass?** When I was younger, all Catholics that entered a Catholic church always genuflected towards the Blessed Sacrament, before going to their place and knelt down in prayer. At one time, priests always genuflected before entering the sanctuary. This would be true for readers and extraordinary ministers. Nowadays things seem to have all changed. Almost everyone seems to just do some sort of little head bowing, if they do anything all. There seems to be a lack of concrete liturgical rules gouverning external gestures at Catholic masses and in Catholic churches. Are there any liturgical rules concerning bowing in church and mass. I would be greatly interested in knowing what are the liturgical bows of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass (Mass of Pope St. Pius V) and the Ordinary Form of the Mass (Mass of Pope Paul VI).

I've been looking specifically for a PDF version of the Martin Luther 1534 translation of the Bible with a Parallel English translation (preferably KJV, but any edition will do). I've been hitting a serious brick wall in finding any such composition. Does such a creature exist? I have a Crossway hard copy edition, but the Martin Luther translation is a revised edition and of course it's physical - I need a PDF for portability and markup purposes (using Liquid Text for markup and note taking): 

From what I have found the nature of prayer in the early church seemed to be mostly recited prayers. Prayers originating from either the psalms, early prayer books, or sometimes personal prayer books. I’ve also found that off-the-cuff prayer in front of other believers was seen as a spiritual gift. Would the type of prayer were you spend many minutes or hour(s) praying to G-d about your day, wants, emotions, etc be seen by the early church as a normal practice?

What amongst the five Solas and the TULIP concepts are incompatible with Dispensationalism, which I simplisticly understand to mean that the Church has not replaced the literal land and nation of Israel, and the Jews, as the object of God's pronouncements recorded in the Old Testament? My understanding of the Bible and the Gospel would be described as Calvinism before I discovered what Calvinism was! To me it appeared to be the only coherent set of fundamentals, anchored in God's Sovereignty, for Christianity to be internally consistent. My view of Israel flowed from my own, similarly independent conclusions as to the reliability of Scripture, and that was that God would be "dealing" with Israel (the land, the nation, the Jews) per the Old Testament. I saw no inconsistency there whatsoever. Are there **fundamentals** that I don't appreciate in Calvinism and Dispensationalism that make it logically or at least epistemiologically incoherent to "agree" with both?

We see God determining the name of some before they are born, like in the case of Jesus (Matthew 1:21) and John the Baptist (Luke 1:13). As for persons chosen for a specific mission, God changes their name, for instance: from Abram to Abraham (Gen 17:5). However, in the case of Moses whose name (literally meaning 'drawn out of water', Exodus 2:10) was chosen by his adoptive mother namely, daughter of the Pharaoh, God continues to call him by his original name (Exodus 3:4). Moses, inspite of having fled as a young man after killing an Egyptian, is sent back at the age of 80 years to the Pharaoh to negotiate for the release of Israel. Carrying on with his Egyptian name would put him in trouble. In spite of such a prospect, we do not see God giving Moses a new name. **What according to scholars, could be the reason for that?**

Daniel 8:11 > It became great, even as great as **the Prince of the host**. And the > regular burnt offering was taken away from him, and the place of his > sanctuary was overthrown. Daniel 8:25 > By his cunning he shall make deceit prosper under his hand, and in his > own mind he shall become great. Without warning he shall destroy many. > And he shall even rise up against **the Prince of princes**, and he shall > be broken—but by no human hand. Daniel 9:25 > Know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word to > restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of **the Messiah, the Prince,** > there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built > again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time. Daniel 10:13 > The prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me twenty-one days, > **but Michael, foremost of the chief princes**, came to help me, for I was left there with the kings of Persia, Daniel 10:21 > "But I will tell you what is inscribed in the book of truth: there is > none who contends by my side against these **except Michael, your > Prince.**" Daniel 12:1 > “At that time **shall arise Michael, the great Prince who has charge of > your people**. And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never has > been since there was a nation till that time. But at that time your > people shall be delivered, everyone whose name shall be found written > in the book." From these six key passages, we learn that the Messiah is the Prince, and that Michael is our Prince. How can this be, and does this imply that we have two princes, or that the Messiah is the incarnation of Michael?

As I understand it, when Adam and Eve committed the Original Sin, God cast them out from the Garden of Eden to live in the planet we have now. To cast someone out, means there must be 2 places, here and there. This gives me the impression of the Garden being a separate place from current Earth. If that is the case, why make a planet as big as ours is (in relation to its then-current inhabitants), only to focus on a Garden? Why not make a whole perfect planet? If the entire earth was the Garden, how does one get cast out of it? Is it just a fancy way of saying "So God made the planet kind of sucks in comparison"? That is my opinion, which I have shown some reasoning for. However, I seek to know if the Bible's account can be shown to support this, or if it does not allow for any such idea.

Jesus taught the message of ***love*** when he told the disciples to let the kids come to him for to such innocent children and child-like people the kingdom of God is theirs. Jesus was a man known to hang out with people society deemed bad like; 1. The woman caught in adultery 2. Zachaeus the Tax collector 3. He was crucified in the midst of two thieves 4. Tolerated Julius's lies, stealing, and other sins even as it directly harmed His mission and His disciples. Does His example require us and all we love to risk increase crime, sickness, poverty, homelessness, further loss of our once Trusting society, neighbors that hate our society, resent and hate us, cripple public services, drive down wages, .., for the vane disOrdered unJust unTrue destructive false display of virtue? So, when a ruler like Trump gives out an order to build a wall, is he acting out of prudence, in Protecting and Providing for the Nation as in a father-like Duty, or with a similar spirit that incited the disciples to prevent the kids from coming onto Jesus? How would Jesus guide President Trump in this issue once he takes Office? Jesus sought to welcome people from all walks of life, because he loved everyone, would He shun from erecting structures such as walls that 'seem to' divide rather than unite people? | little kids | immigrants | | -------- | -------------- | | The disciples tried to block their access to Jesus physically |leaders block their access to America by ordering a wall constructed | Provide biblical references and-or any Chrisian sect's Doctrines that best supports what is the correct response to our open-boarder situation as it stands today.