I was just reading about eschatology and somebody was stating that this verse suggests that there will be a one world religion, a false religion: > Revelation 17:1–18 (ESV) > > 1 Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and said > to me, “Come, I will show you the judgment of the great prostitute who > is seated on many waters, 2 with whom the kings of the earth have > committed sexual immorality ... Where is support for this concept found in other scriptures?

I have read in numerous commentaries on John 20 that Thomas first met the resurrected Christ on Sunday, the first day of the week. Here is one illustrative example, though others I've looked at are similar in substance: > Verses 26-31 We have here an account of another appearance of Christ > to his disciples, after his resurrection, when Thomas was now with > them. And concerning this we may observe,I. When it was that Christ > repeated his visit to his disciples: **After eight days, that day > seven-night after he rose, which must therefore be, as that was, the > first day of the week.** Matthew Henry's commentary on John 20 [emphasis is mine] Here are the relevant verses from the Bible: > John 20 (NKJV) > > 19 Then, **the same day at evening, being the first day > of the week**, when the doors were shut where the disciples were > assembled, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, > and said to them, “Peace be with you.” 24 Now Thomas, called the > Twin, one of the twelve, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 The > other disciples therefore said to him, “We have seen the Lord.” So he > said to them, “Unless I see in His hands the print of the nails, and > put my finger into the print of the nails, and put my hand into His > side, I will not believe.” 26 **And after eight days His disciples were > again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came,** the doors being shut, > and stood in the midst, and said, “Peace to you!” Perhaps I'm being naïve, but starting from the Lord's day, Sunday, I count "and after eight days" (Greek: "καὶ μεθ’ ἡμέρας ὀκτὼ") to mean the Monday of the following week, that is, eight days after the first Sunday. It seems that the commentaries I've read interpret it to mean "on the eight day", which would indeed work out to the following Sunday. However, I'm having difficulty understanding how "after eight days" can be understood in this way. So, my question is: **On what day of the week did Thomas first meet the resurrected Christ? Was it on a Sunday, a Monday, or some other day of the week?** My main interest in this question is to understand if these verses in John 20 are indeed a valid support for the practice of Christians meeting on Sunday. I don't question the practice (there are many other verses in Acts, 1 Corinthians and Revelation that support it); I am simply trying to understand whether John 20 indeed displays the first case of Christians meeting as Christians on two consecutive Sundays. I'm having a hard time seeing this in this particular chapter.

Many Christians believe that the writing of the Bible was inspired by God, and that its content is (essentially) correct. I would like to understand on what this belief is based. Obviously it cannot be based on the Bible itself, this would be circular reasoning. What I could imagine: - through prayer or your personal connection with God you came to this conclusion. - there is someone (living, or from the past) that told you this and fully trust that person. - Maybe something else?

1. **God is four-in-one.** 2. **The Body of Christ is four-in-one.** The Father, The Son, The Spirit and You. There is no participation in God's essence/Godhead, only in His energies/economy by believers. Are these **two statements** orthodox, heterodox, or heresy? #### Possible Biblical Basis: John 14:20 (NIV): > On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. John 14:23 (NIV): > Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. John 17:21 (NIV): > that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 1 Corinthians 6:19 (NIV): > Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; Ephesians 3:17 (NIV): > so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, Ephesians 4:4-6 (NIV): > 4There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. #### Arguments For: - https://conversantfaith.com/2025/06/12/four-in-one-witness-lee-and-trinitarian-ecclesiology/ : > "Witness Lee’s claim that the Body of Christ is “a four-in-one organic entity” belongs within this broad and venerable stream: a distinctive, but not discordant, contribution to the tradition of Trinitarian ecclesiology." - https://www.equip.org/articles/addressing-the-open-letters-concerns-on-the-nature-of-humanity-part-3-of-a-reassessment-of-the-local-church-movement-of-watchman-nee-and-witness-lee/ : > "On first blush a skeptic might legitimately ask, “How could believers not partake in the Godhead if they partake in God’s life and nature?” The answer, however, becomes clear when Lee is read in his own context and allowed to define his own terms. When Lee refers to the “processed God,” he is clearly speaking about the economic Trinity. It is this Trinity that becomes in a sense “four-in-one.” There is no change in the essential or ontological Trinity (what Lee is here calling the Godhead) with the deification of believers any more than there was a change in the ontological Trinity with the incarnation of Christ. According to the LC, in the outworking of God’s economy or plan of salvation, there is a process that includes progressive steps in which God the Father is embodied in the Son in incarnation, Christ is realized as the Spirit in resurrection, and ultimately the Triune God is expressed in the glorified church; but in His essential nature or Godhead, the Lord remains forever unchanged." #### Arguments Against: - https://normangeisler.com/a-response-to-cri-local-church/ : > "To illustrate the absurdity of the LC position, one final citation from Witness Lee is necessary. He wrote: “Because the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are all one with the Body of Christ, we may say that the Triune God is now the ‘four-in-one’ God. These four are the Father, the Son, the Spirit, and the Body. The Three of the Divine Trinity cannot be confused or separated, and the four-in-one also cannot be separated or confused.” (Lee , A Deeper Study, 203-204). No amount of hermeneutical gyrations can untangle this theological absurdity. Clearly, Lee does not hold the orthodox view of the Trinity which allows no creature or creatures to be one with the members of the Trinity in the same sense that the Body of Christ (the Church) is one with God. Defending such a view is both senseless and useless." - https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/scotty-smith/trinity-no-4th-member/ : > "You are the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End, and everything in between. Hallelujah, many times over. As our God, you are Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—perfect Trinity. And you’re not looking to turn a Trio into a Quartet. We matter, but only you are the point." #### Witness Lee Quotations: - The Central Line of the Divine Revelation - Message 9: >"According to Ephesians 4:4-6, the Father, the Son, the Spirit, and the Body are all one. This is the oneness of the Body. It is altogether proper to say that the Father, the Son, the Spirit, and the Body are four-in-one. The Triune God is three, yet He now has a fourth part, a counterpart. However, only the first three are worthy of our worship. The Triune God and His counterpart are now four-in-one." - The Central Line of the Divine Revelation - Message 11: >"The Body of Christ, the church, is four-in-one: the Father, the Son, the Spirit, and the Body. However, only the first three are worthy of our worship; the fourth, the Body, should not be deified as an object of worship." - A Deeper Study of the Divine Dispensing - Chapter 15: >"The Triune God and the church are four-in-one. Because the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are all one with the Body of Christ, we may say that the Triune God is now the “four-in-one God.” These four are the Father, the Son, the Spirit, and the Body. The three of the Divine Trinity cannot be confused or separated, and the four-in-one also cannot be separated or confused."

It has been suggested to me that some Christians believe that rock music is inherently immoral, and as a result they believe that Christians would do well to avoid the entire genre. For example, several older Christians have told me that statements about the immorality of rock were more common back in the 60s and 70s. Apparently, American evangelist Bob Larson was against rock music, and that he was lampooned for these view by Larry Norman, a musician who wrote rock music with a gospel theme. If this perspective is widespread, are there denominations that are opposed to rock music? Is there a cross-denominational movement that objects to rock music on the grounds that the genre is in some way unholy? I met someone in my previous church who held this view, but I was never able to get a straight answer from her as to why. Was this just a personal perspective, or is this a widespread perspective amongst Christians? If there is an anti-rock music movement amongst Christians, where did it originate? What is the basis for the belief? Are there particular Bible verses or doctrinal stances that underpin the anti-rock stance? In answering the question, note that I'm not interested in debating whether or not rock music is *actually* immoral. I just want to know if / why groups of Christians believe it to be so.

---------- God sent Jonah to prophesy to the Babylonian city of Nineveh, which he did with the greatest of reluctance, thereby effecting the largest mass conversion of a city up to that time. It's possible that Nineveh was a "random" city, but that's probably not the case, given its size and strategic importance. Instead, what made Nineveh significant enough to be chosen in God's eyes? Was Nineveh the "second" city of Babylon, after the capital, in the manner of New York City versus Washington D.C.? Did Nineveh have a "Sodom and Gomorrah" reputation, making it the worst city of Babylon? Was Nineveh unusually open and "cosmopolitan," thereby making it the easiest city to convert? Or was there some other reason that I have overlooked? **Edit:** I now know that Nineveh was the former capital of Assyria, which was a very cruel, sinful city as depicted in sources such as this one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIomxIWFBsY It was conquered by Babylon, a slightly "milder" country, and was Babylon's "second" city. All this made it a plausible target for God's wrath. Facts such as those in the link make it possible to answer individual points based in the question objectively.

The previous posted question in this link, has no accepted answer yet, > https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/75449/spiritof-god-the-father-son-and-the-holy-spirit In Christianity the *"spirit of God"* is commonly viewed as the Holy Spirit, the Third person of the Holy Trinity. I am looking, for the less common view, the unpopular view that the *"spirit of God"* is related to the *"spirit of created Wisdom"* in Proverbs8:22, which Christianity also commonly viewed as personification only of Jesus Christ, and to Catholicism, a personification of the Jesus Christ and also the Blessed Virgin Mary. I am looking for denominations, theologians or biblical scholars whose biblical interpretation of *"spirit of God"*, does not point to the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Holy Trinity, but to a *"created spirit"*, a *"created spirit"* that emanates from God, a *"created spirit"* distinct from the Holy Spirit. Its like, how the Book of Wisdom described it in Wisdom Chapter 7 and Book of Proverbs, a *"created spirit"*, but not the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Most Holy Trinity. Douay-Rheims >*For she is a vapour of the power of God, and a certain pure emanation of the glory of the almighty God: and therefore no defiled thing cometh into her.* -Wisdom7:25 New American Standard Bible >*“The LORD created me at the beginning of His way, Before His works of old.*-Proverbs8:22 The view that the *"spirit of God"* is distinct from the Holy Spirit will support the narration, if we continue to read the whole chapter 8 of Book of Proverbs, that speaks of the *"spirit of created Wisdom"* as a beloved companion of God, a beloved daughter, and an *"artisan"*. >30 then was I beside him as artisan;* i >I was his delight day by day, >playing before him all the while, >31 Playing over the whole of his earth, >having my delight with human beings.-Proverbs8:30-31 Looking at Wisdom7:25, Proverbs8:22, Proverbs8:30-31, the uncommon view that the *"spirit of God"* is not the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Holy Trinity can be seen. In closing, I would like to repeat, for clarity sake, that I am looking for views and teachings, who sees the *"spirit of God"*, as a *"created divine or holy spirit"*, distinct from the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Most Holy Trinity.

Psalm 2:7 says: “I will declare the decree:The Lord has said to Me,‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You"... See also Hebrews 1:5; 5:5 (and compare with Mark 1:9-11). Psalms 2:7 (ignoring those that say it talks about David); and Hebrews 5:5 - clearly speak in terms of "TODAY" I have begotten thee". (emphasis on "today"). What was the relationship of Jesus to God "the father" before the day Jesus became a begotten son of God? NOTE: I have taken care to read the posts that speak about Jesus as a son of God. They don't ask the same question as to what he was before. Edit: Question is addressed to those who believe that Jesus is "the word" spoken of in John 1:1; those who accept him to be the "only begotten son" or the second person in the Trinity. I am not sure whether only Trinitarians subscribe to these ideas. My understanding of "mainstream" Trinitarian Christianity is that God has always been "the father", "the son ("word")", and "the Holy spirit". When one reads Hebrews 5:5: "Today I have begotten you", it signifies a change in relationship. Does it mean that before "THAT day", divine Jesus or "the Word" was something else to God but not a son? That is the relationship I am inquiring about.

From the [Cannons of Dort](https://www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/confessions/canons-dort) 2nd Point of Doctrine, Article III > This death of God’s Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world. This is from a Calvinist perspective, but I assume that most Christians hold that Christ's atonement for man is infinite and unlimited in time and in power. My question is about where this belief was sourced from. Is it somewhere I don't know about in the Bible or from early Christian creeds/councils? So what do Calvinists point to as the origin of the belief of an infinite atonement?

When you read Numbers 25 and then view the middle east through that lens….. the actions of the middle east don’t feel as extreme. I definitely do not agree with the extremes of the middle east culture, but I am also shocked and dismayed at the extremes of what are written in Numbers 25. Yet God said…. > 4 ……. “Take all the leaders of the people and execute[b] them in broad daylight before the LORD so that his burning anger may turn away > from Israel.” > > 7 …….Aaron the priest, saw this, he got up from the assembly, took a > spear in his hand, 8 followed the Israelite man into the tent,[c] and > drove it through both the Israelite man and the woman—through her > belly. > > 11 …….Aaron the priest, has turned back my wrath from the Israelites > because he was zealous among them with my zeal,[d] so that I did not > destroy the Israelites in my zeal.* > > 17 “Attack the Midianites and strike them dead. 18 For they attacked > you with the treachery that they used against you in the Peor > incident. How do I as a Christian, defend this to a nonbeliever (or someone who questions Christianity). “This” being the fact that the God I serve, directed this….condoned this….. and rewarded this.

Calvin, among his other points, includes the point that Atonement is Limited; i.e., that Christ's death was sufficient for all but only effective for the elect. What is the Biblical basis for this doctrine?

The "L" in the TULIP acronym of Reformed Theology stands for Limited Atonement, which the Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms defines as : > Sometimes called 'particular redemption,' the view that Jesus' death > secured salvation for only a limited number of persons (the elect), > in contrast to the idea that the work of the cross is intended for all > humankind (as in “unlimited atonement”). This view resulted from the > post-Reformation development of the doctrine of election in Calvinist > circles. Proponents claim that because not everyone is saved, God > could not have intended that Christ die for everyone. We already have a question asking for the Biblical basis **for** Limited Atonement , so my question is what is the Biblical argument **against** Limited Atonement?

**Which Churches or denominations agree that from birth to thirty years old Jesus was "Super Jesus"?** There are no passages in the Bible of a ***"Super Jesus***", who have supernatural powers from birth, and who also displayed divine powers before he was 30 years old. St. Paul's teaching described Jesus this way: >**The Attitude of Christ** 5Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus: 6Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to death—even death on a cross. - Ephesians 2:5-7 St. Paul teaches that Jesus emptied Himself of divine majesty and powers and took the form of a servant. What is a servant or servanthood according to the bible? >**Biblical Concepts of Servanthood** >**Sacrifice:** The true currency of God's kingdom is sacrificial service to others, rather than pursuing greatness. In fact in one incident in the Bible it would normally appear that Jesus who went to the Temple all by Himself and did not even took the time to inform His beloved Mother and Father, is in all honesty, not a good attitude. In my own experienced conversing and exchanging Biblical ideas and studies about Jesus, most Protestant and denominations esp. the Bible Alone Believers thinks that Jesus is a "Super Jesus" even before the Holy Spirit descended upon Him. **I am looking for Prote >**The Boy Jesus at the Temple** > > …51Then He went down to Nazareth with them and was obedient to them. But His mother treasured up all these things in her heart. 52And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.-Luke2:51-52

In a [debate](https://youtu.be/fSYwCaFkYno) between [John Lennox](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lennox) and [Peter Atkins](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Atkins) on the topic *"Can science explain everything?"*, at minute [44:47](https://youtu.be/fSYwCaFkYno?t=2687) John Lennox claims: > Lennox: "And the major reason why I believe that Christianity is true is because--and here comes science again as a base--because **Christianity is testable**." > > Atkins: "Oh nonsense. How can it be tested?" > > Lennox: "Well, Peter, let me face that head-on. Christ said that if a person considered the evidence and came to believe that he was God incarnate who was dying on a cross to give forgiveness and bring peace with God, well we can test that! I've tested it! And I've seen hundreds of people test it. I mean, take an example. I was lecturing at Harvard a while ago to a couple of thousands of people, and when I'd finished, a young Chinese student stood up and he said 'look at me!'. So we we looked at him. And I said why should we look at you? And he was absolutely beaming. He said 'you should look at me because six months ago I came to a lecture you gave at Penn State University. I was at the end. My life was in a complete mess. And something you said triggered a search. And I started to read the New Testament for myself and I became a Christian. And just look at me now.' Now ladies and gentlemen, I've seen that happen not once, not twice, dozens of times. And when you see addiction to drugs transformed at the foot of the table, when you see broken relationships mended, and you ask people what happened to you, and they say variously 'I became a Christian', 'I had an encounter with Christ', you begin to put two and two together and make four! **And I wouldn't sit here for a nanosecond if I didn't believe these promises that Jesus made actually can be fulfilled in a person's life today**. **And that's immensely important to me, the testability of Christian relationship with God**." He makes similar claims in a short 5 min long video titled [Is Christianity testable? | John Lennox at Texas A&M](https://youtu.be/MA9vqWkfrVc) . What is the biblical basis for John Lennox's view? Is this a common view? --- EDIT: for those interested in a philosophical counterpart to this question, consider visiting [Is Christianity testable? Philosophy Stack Exchange](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/105659/66156)

What does Isaiah 43:26 really means. Some persons say God said we should remind him of his word but I dont get that meaning although I reviewed several versions of the Bible. >Put me in remembrance: let us plead together: declare thou, that thou mayest be justified. [Isaiah 43:26 KJV] >Cause me to remember -- we are judged together, Declare thou that thou mayest be justified. [Isaiah 43:26 Young's Literal]

What are the Biblical arguments used by those who teach that God does not know every detail of the future? I've seen three answers as to whether God knows every detail of the future. - 1. "God knows every detail of the future, including things that He hasn't planned". 2. "God knows every detail of the future because He plans every detail of the future". 3. "While God could control every detail of the future, He does not, and sometimes things happen that He does not expect to happen". A complete response should discuss all three. **Conclusion** I accepted Kristopher's answer as it best answered the question. I awarded the 200 point bounty to Andrew Shanks as his answer and comments were most helpful in refining my answer, which was the goal of the bounty.

The question arises whether the millennium is a literal 1000 year period, or a symbolic one. Perhaps the answer could be better ascertained if we look at other prophesied time periods, ones that were already fulfilled, and see what that shows us. Off the top of my head I can think of the several below, all of them fulfilled literally; but I'm not sure how to research this and perhaps others might be able to contribute some other instances, whether literal or symbolic. Here are the instances already thought of: The dreams of Pharaoh's officials interpreted by Joseph as to occur in 3 days in Genesis 40; The 7 years of famine in Pharaoh's dreams in Genesis 41; Nebuchadnezzar’s dream about his insanity in Dan. 4; The 70 years of the Babylonian captivity as prophesied in Jeremiah 25:11-13 and 29:11; Jesus' prophesy regarding being in the tomb 3 days in Matt. 12:40, Mark 8:41, and John 2:19; The destruction of Jerusalem, occurring in the generation still living after Jesus' death and resurrection in Matthew 24:34. The question is directed to any serious student of the Bible. Note that the prophesy has to have been fulfilled already (partial fulfillment is fine), in order to evaluate whether it was literal, or symbolic. Please Note: I am not looking for a defense or rebuttal of pre-post or a-millenialism, nor for general instances of fulfilled prophesy, but for specified time periods of future events, that were fulfilled.

Do you know of any other books (besides those by John Sailhamer) that advocate for Historical Creationism?

In light of ongoing global events—such as wars (e.g., the conflict involving Russia), geopolitical instability, and widespread moral and social upheaval—many Christians interpret these as signs that the “end times” are approaching. My questions are twofold: Imminence of Christ’s return: Within mainstream Christian theology, do these kinds of events meaningfully support the belief that Christ’s return is near? How have passages such as Matthew 24; Luke 21; 1 Thessalonians 5:1–6; and Revelation 6–16 traditionally been understood in relation to historical events versus recurring patterns throughout history? Christ’s presence before the Parousia: Is there any biblical basis for the idea that Christ is presently “walking the earth” prior to His return, possibly until all believe in Him as the Christ? How do texts like Matthew 28:20 (“I am with you always”), John 14–16 (the coming of the Holy Spirit), Acts 1:9–11, and Revelation 1:12–18 inform orthodox interpretations of Christ’s presence now versus His future, visible return? I am seeking answers grounded in Scripture and recognized Christian interpretive traditions (e.g., patristic, Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant), rather than speculative or purely contemporary prophetic claims.

> Romans 12:20 - "On the contrary: "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head." > > Proverbs 25:22 - "In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head, and the LORD will reward you." Do these two verses have the same contextual meaning or are Paul and the author of Proverbs saying different things? And what might the meaning be given their context?