Genesis chapter 42 - 45 recount story of Joseph tricking his brothers who are in Egypt to buy grain, into going back and forth several times from Canaan to Egypt in an attempt exonerate themselves in the (feigned) accusation from Joseph of being a spy. Eventually Joesph reveals himself as their brother, and Jacob and his family move to Egypt as a result. Why did Joseph trick them in this way? I can think of only a few reasons: - He wanted to get all of his brothers and father back to Egypt before he revealed himself. - He distrusted his brothers, since they had tried to kill him, and sold him into slavery years prior to this event, he was trying to ascertain if his younger brother and father were in fact still alive. - He was punishing his brothers by making them suffer this way in an act of revenge. In any event the author of Genesis spends a lot of precipitous time and space recounting this deception, is there some cultural aspect to this that I am missing? Is there some context to the story that would reveal more about the characters involved or the nature of God or their relationship to him?

About what ancient temples does Clement of Alexandria talk about in (Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 7.7.43–46) - (It sounds to be the pagan temples?) and additionally he mentions (facing the images) what are these images? - there seems to be similarity in the book - **De architectura Chapter V** As far as I know from what I have read it seems that God had only one temple - the Jerusalem Temple Deuteronomy 12:5-14; 1 Kings 9:3; 2 Chronicles 6:6; Psalm 132:13-14; 1 Kings 8:29-30; 2 Chronicles 6:20-21; and the Jewish prayed towards the Hollie of Holies in the temple, if I am not mistaken, this is towards the West when the person is in the Jerusalem Temple and pray towards the Hollie of Holies, this person may have faced West I think? The Jerusalem Temple had entrance from the East, so in the temple people may have prayed towards the West - towards the Hollie of Holies where I think was God's presence Leviticus 16:2; Exodus 25:22; Numbers 7:89; - I think that this was the reason the Jewish prayed towards the Jerusalem Temple - because of the Hollie of Holies where should have been God's presence? - if they turned to pray towards the East (Ezekiel 8:15-16) in the Jerusalem Temple they may have prayed turned with their backs to the Hollie of Holies (*Spiritually Jeremiah 32:31-33 and Physically Ezekiel 8:15-16*?) - where God's presence should have been? If I am wrong somewhere please let me know. (Clement here is talking about temples not single temple, so I assume that he is talking about the pagan temples. Also he says - "the most ancient temples looked towards the west" this is the opposite of the Jerusalem Temple that looked towards East since the entrance was from the East I think - if this is the case then why would any true Christian look to the pagan temples in order to be taught to pray towards the East facing the images ?) - ("the most ancient temples looked towards the west") - ("that people might be taught to turn to the east") - ("when facing the images") **(Comparing this with the pagan - De architectura CHAPTER V)** > CHapter V How the Temple should Face > > 1. **THE quarter toward which temples of the immortal gods ought to face** is to be determined on the principle that, if there is no reason to hinder and the choice is free, the temple and the statue placed in the cella **should face the western quarter of the sky**. This will enable those who approach the altar with offerings or sacrifices **to face the direction of the sunrise in facing the statue in the temple**, and thus those who are undertaking vows look **toward the quarter from which the sun comes forth,** and **likewise the statues themselves appear to be coming forth out of the east to look upon them as they pray and sacrifice.** > > 2. But if the nature of the site is such as to forbid this, then the principle of determining the quarter should be changed, so that the widest possible view of the city may be had from the sanctuaries of > the gods. > > - [The Ten Books of Architecture](https://www.chenarch.com/images/arch-texts/0000-Vitruvius-50BC-Ten-Books-of-Architecture.pdf) **Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 7.7.43–46;** > In correspondence with the manner of the sun's rising, prayers are > made looking towards the sunrise in the east. 2. Whence also the most > ancient temples looked towards the west,**(Pagan temples?)** **(Maybe - (De > architectura CHAPTER V))** 3. that people might be taught to turn to the > east when facing the images. Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 7.7.43–46; **The book:** [Clement of Alexandria *The Stromata*](https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/clement-stromata-book7.html) - [The Stromata (Book VII)](https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02107.htm) (Should I understand that Clement of Alexandria here is teaching that the Christian is taught to pray towards East by the orientation of the pagan temples?)(So the pagan temples are pointed as reason?) **If this is the case what could we say about** **2 Cor. 6:15-18** > **15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial?** or **what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?** > **16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols?** for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in > them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my > people. > **17 Wherefore come out from among them,** and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you. 18 > And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, > saith the Lord Almighty. How should we understand this. - is this practice pagan or Christian? - is it appropriate for a Christian to practice it or is it not? Having in mind Matthew 15:9; Matthew 15:13; Matthew 7:19. The most wide and accepted interpretation today I think is the second coming from East as reason for praying towards the East. But this interpretation seems to be not that ancient, I have yet not found ancient church father that mentions the second coming from East as reason for the worship towards the East - since Basil and the rest before him does not mention that Christ will come from East and that this is the reason to pray towards the East. It seems that this interpretation gets widespread after John Damascus, but I am not sure. Maybe he was influenced by the Didascalia from probably around 4c.AD. But I still can not find any ancient church father that points to the Didascalia or mentions this interpretation, the first that mentions this is I think John Damascus after the Didascalia.

For Catholics we've got a lot of cool call and response stuff built into our liturgies that can easily translate to everyday life. So if someone in a truck shouts at me "Dominus Vobiscum", I know to say "Et cum spiritu tuo”. I was wandering around down in the southern US a few day ago and someone in a truck yelled at me "Jesus Loves You". I thought that was wonderful and it really cheered me up. I waved and said "thanks". Is there a cool thing that Protestants say (like "ping" - "pong" on IRC or that cool sign Harley guys do)? I know Bill Cosby thought it was cool that Protestants say "Amen", but I don't think that's an "Amen" moment. I want to say "Thanks for remembering me, Jesus loves you too!", I don't want to say "I know, ain't I cool". Also, and this may be pertinent information to the question at hand, I really did look like a hobo at the time. I was walking from a Motel 6 to a Wafflehouse wearing 3 shirts, a jacket, a scraggly beard a stocking cap and carrying a mug and I'd just been camping for the weekend, the fact that I left my sleeping bag and over-stuffed backpack in the hotel room didn't seem to improve my appearance.

Is there a reason why female Mormon missionaries wear such varied dresses but male Mormon missionaries wear uniforms? I see male missionaries often. They are easily recognizable, because they all wear uniform outfits - white t-shirt, black pants, and a clean tie to finish. When I go on the Mormon site, the dress code for men seems more varied than what I previously thought, and the dress code for women is not only more varied but also more colorful and vibrant. My question is, is this true? Do Mormon missionary women get to wear more varied and colorful clothing than Mormon missionary men? And why do the men on the website wear more varied clothing with different-colored ties but the men on the street wear *exactly* the same style?

Was Jesus the only Roman crucifixion victim who was made to wear a crown of thorns? Are there historical references as to how often this action was done on political victims?

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?

The earliest Christian writings, notably the writings of Paul in his letters and of Luke in the Acts of the Apostles, address issues of multiculturalism in the relationships, beliefs, and practices of Jews and Gentiles. Based upon extra-Biblical sources and the histories of other religions, what evidence is there to support (or refute) a claim that Christianity was the *first* intentionally multicultural religion?

This is an odd question I know and I'm not very hopeful I'll find a good answer. But has it ever stricken you odd that in Luke 7, the woman who comes to see Jesus just straight walks into the Pharisee's house unannounced? I'm an American, and I could never imagine a random stranger walking into anyone's house and it be acceptable. So, was this a normal thing in Jewish culture at this time period?

I am an atheist and Ex-Hindu. I used to watch Stephen Colbert (American and Catholic) on comedy central before his current more famous tv show. In one of episodes, he was talking about Hinduism, and said "Hindus worship the wrong gods" (google search would back me up on this), which I found fascinating -- This point of view about other religions. I admit that Hinduism seems to have a lot of issues, such as infamous cast system. I would like to know if this point of view was intended as a joke, or do people think that there is such a thing as "worshipping the wrong gods" I hope this is a right forum for this. Please edit my question, if necessary, to make the question suit the forum.

I just can't wrap my head around this. I was raised Christian, but haven't been one for decades. I still kept going to church though long after my conversion just to remain undercover. I remember an evangelical preacher, who let's say wasn't exactly the most tolerant or moral person (this man was an open wife beater, and his entire congregation was 100% fine with this to give you a idea). He thought the idea of a "cultural Christian" was absurd. Loo-loo as he was, I see no reason to disagree with him. Christianity is centered around belief. Christians define themselves as people who "believe in Jesus", believe in God, the Exodus, etc. I even had one person one *Reddit* once asked me if I kept to the tenets of Christianity, and then proceeded to list nothing but beliefs on history and how the universe works. Not one thing about morality or behavior. Yes, Christians *do* have behaviors and practices, but they all come from how they believe the universe works. They evangelize because they believe non-Christians all go to hell. They campaign against the LGBT movement because they believe the Bible says it's wrong. They oppose the teaching of evolution because it contradicts the narrative given in Genesis (though the 'old earth' theory itself also poses some logic problems). If you don't believe any of this stuff, I don't see how you can be a "Christian". What, are you going to be a homophobe and go around trying to convert people to Christianity when you're not a Christian yourself? Are you going to deny evolution when you have no practical reason to do so? Are you going to continue to believe in the historicity of the Exodus despite evidence to the contrary (granted, I myself kept believing that the Exodus was a historical event until rather recently, minus the supernatural bits of course). Based on my own upbringing, I don't see how you can be a "cultural Christian". Christianity hinges too much on how you believe the universe works. If you ditch all that, how can you be a Christian? That makes no sense. What else is there to Christianity outside of its beliefs? What, are you going to be unlike other atheists and appreciate Christian art rather than blasting it simply because it was made by Christians? That's the only thing I can imagine: a "Christian" taste in aesthetics. Although I don't see why a person like that would still call themselves a "Christian" in any other capacity.

I have read in a few places the LDS Church has at least a general practice, if not an official teaching, that prohibits men from growing facial hair--at least for men in any position of leadership. Apparently, Joseph Smith was "clean shaving", but many of the other prophets and leaders in times past did have significant beards and moustaches. So, my question concerns what the basis is for this teaching and when that basis came about. Is it an official church teaching or an unwritten policy, and is there any reason given for why facial hair, which God seems to have intended for men in some way, is inappropriate or wrong?

I've heard many stories of people who abandoned their role-playing hobby, or burned their fantasy book collections, on the grounds that these were opposed to their Christian faith. What is it that causes some Christians to be concerned about fantasy and role-playing? What are the sources** for these concerns? **Not just Biblical sources, but also the people that promoted the concern within the Christian community.

I attended a ceremony held at the Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore in Rome on 07/12/2021, and the last chant really impressed me, but I have no clue on how to go to find it. I tried searching an enormous list of Gregorian chants online, but nothing. I also cannot understand the words, and so I ran out of ideas on where to go from here... This is the link to the small segment I recorded: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yuM8OF7bIVDzRSvOum7OkEudP5V0xjn1/view?usp=sharing Can anyone help me here? Any ideas where should I look to find it?

I watch “Christian” movies sometimes and am inspired and filled - popular film, historical fiction or other fiction genres. Sometimes the movie ends up being propaganda pushing un-biblical heresy, or anti-Christian in other subtle ways. The reviewers themselves are not immune to this issue, and “family friendly” is not a guarantee. What person or group would be best, or even good, for correctly telling us in advance?

Biblical "street preachers" gathered interested and/or interactive crowds, often followed by mass conversions. We could *conceivably* chalk some of this up to the "signs and wonders" they tended to perform; but even on that note, it's oft-noted in scripture that belief precedes the signs and wonders. Hence, the crowds must have gathered *first*. Even the Biblical preachers who worked no signs and were abrasive gained a lot of positive attention. Consider John the Baptist, who stayed in the desert/wilderness and told everyone they were sinners -- folks went, presumably out of there way, [into the desert to see him!](http://usccb.org/bible/matthew/3:5) Modern street evangelists don't appear to garner many converts. They're commonly portrayed as lunatics and nuisances. And in general, they don't seem to gather the crowds of Biblical proportions, or even small crowds or *anyone* in most cases. Why the difference? Is it cultural? Are the modern evangelists saying or doing different things? Were early evangelists more like the well-known motivational or expert speakers of today? Is there sound evidence to suggest that the Biblical "street preaching" was a normal means for content/news delivery? And/Or was their delivery different than a modern street-preachers?

The Jehovah's Witness denomination has been preached in more than 300 different languages, apparently using the English text as the base instead of directly from the original biblical languages. Surely, there must be some East Asian believers. The reason why I raise this concern is that "filial piety" is the dominant cultural value of East Asia and overseas East Asians. In regards to Christianity, there was the Chinese Rites Controversy , which was resolved by Pope Pius XII, in which he declared that traditional Chinese Confucian practices were tolerated, as they did not conflict with Catholicism, and these practices were embedded within the culture. Among South Korean Catholics, they practice *jesa *, but the Roman Catholic Church has no problem with it either, seeing it as a part of the culture that does not conflict with (Catholic) Christianity. Also, I searched "filial piety" on the Watchtower Online Library, and only two articles discussed it, and the two articles seemed to use filial piety only when it served the interest of the church. > **Cultivating Faith in the Creator** > > As an old Chinese saying puts it, Among a hundred virtues, filial > piety is the foremost. Surely it is proper that children know their > father and honor their parents. (Ephesians 6:1-3; Colossians 3:20) > **Can the Dead influence the Living?** > CAN THE DEAD INFLUENCE THE LIVING? > MANY people have a morbid fear of the dead. Some believe that spirits > of the dead can either protect them as their guardians or harm them as > vengeful ghosts. Many Chinese worship their ancestors as a way of > showing filial piety (devotion to parents) and of ensuring blessings > for future generations. Though such beliefs are common, the Bible > clearly shows that the dead cannot in any way influence the living. > > Source: http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/s/r1/lp-e?q=filial+piety&p=par The author(s) of the two articles fail(s) to recognize that filial piety can actually manifest itself in both, which may hint that the denomination merely uses it to serve its own interests. In addition, as a sub-question, how does the Jehovah's Witness denomination deal with the filial piety among its East Asian believers (and those in the diaspora) in cases of disfellowship and shunning? Given that the JW denomination has a hierarchical church polity, has there been an official church pronouncement about this cultural value that may or may not conflict with this church denomination? So, does the Jehovah's Witness Watchtower have anything to say about the likely conflict between its own tradition and traditional Chinese beliefs and practices?

Before I start, I realize that this question is *related* to another question . However, this question is more concerned about the **custom** of wearing one's "Sunday best", which usually means a nicely brimmed Sunday hat and modest-looking dress. This has been portrayed in literature and in movies. Example: *Chicken Sunday*, written by Patricia Polacco, and *Bridge to Terabithia* (2007 movie). Is this solely an American Christian custom? Are there examples in other Christian cultures? How did this custom come about, and how did it evolve over time?

I happened to learn that Christian black/death metal bands, along with their niche community were a thing, and was curious when this started and what lead to such a movement, especially since the combination seems so fascinatingly oxymoronic. Is there actually a known rationale/history behind how Christian Death Metal came to be?

He grew up as a missionary in a different culture than his own and speaks the language, is it sinful for him to want to marry one of that race rather than one of his own race? (no bias toward his own or any other race). If he knew it was God's will he would marry whomever God wants, whether of that race or not. But to him he naturally likes the culture, language, etc of the race he grew up in.

Is there any internal or small external evidence of Abraham's existence? I have heard a claim from skeptics that Abraham is just flat out invented figure who never existed and even COULDN'T have existed. > Not only has archaeology not proven a single event of the patriarchal traditions to be historical, it has not shown any of the traditions to be likely. - Thomas L. Thompson, [*The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives: The Quest for the Historical Abraham*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Historicity_of_the_Patriarchal_Narratives) (BZAW 133, De Gruyter, Berlin and New York, 1974), page 328 Is this valid? *Note that I am not asking for extra-biblical mentions of Abraham.* I am realistic, he was unimportant nomad in illiterate world. However, I am asking, is there any evidence for events and places and customs described in Genesis? Is there any internal evidence in the text itself like criteria of embarrassment or something that must be historical? I have always seen Abraham's life as too simple and non-embellished and non-fantastical for him to be made up. Beyond that, I never saw any other evidence for his historicity.