According to Wikipedia : > The modern Jewish Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread is seven days, starting with the sunset at the beginning of Nisan 15. and > According to some interpretations, the Gospel of John (e.g., 19:14, 19:31, 19:42) implies that Nisan 14 was the day that Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem. The article mentions that this was the first Easter controversy which petered out around the 4th century and that "Jehovah's Witnesses continue to celebrate the memorial of Christ's death on Nisan 14." Recently, an answer on Biblical Hermeneutics asserted that Jesus was crucified on Nisan 14. This indicates the interpretation is still supported in some modern traditions. Are there any denominations that interpret John 19 as placing the crucifixion on Nisan 14? Do the Jehovah's Witnesses base their memorial on John 19?

### Introduction The Law of Moses/Torah of Moses are a body of commandments and laws which were given to the nation of Israel at Mount Sinai by God. Observant Jews continue to follow these laws as understood through rabbinic traditions and interpretations, while most major Christian denominations more or less do not. The Old Testament/Hebrew Bible contains many scriptures which seem to indicate that the Mosaic law is eternal and uses the same word used elsewhere that describes God being eternal: **Exodus 31:16–17 (NRSV)** indicates observance of the Sabbath is an eternal activity: > Therefore the Israelites shall keep the Sabbath, observing the Sabbath throughout their generations, as a **perpetual covenant**. It is a sign **forever** between me and the Israelites that in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed. **Leviticus 16:29-34** indicates Yom Kippur should be observed forever: > This shall be a statute to you **forever**: In the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you shall humble yourselves ... This shall be an **everlasting statute** for you, to make atonement for the Israelites once in the year for all their sins. And Moses did as the Lord had commanded him. **Deuteronomy 29:29** seems to indicate that all the words of the law should be followed for all time by the children of Israel: > The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the revealed things belong to us and to our children **forever**, to observe all the words of this law. **Jeremiah 31:31** makes a promise that the Jews will have the Mosaic law written on their heart in the future: > The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant that I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt—a covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, says the Lord. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: **I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts**, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. No longer shall they teach one another or say to each other, “Know the Lord,” for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the Lord, for I will forgive their iniquity and remember their sin no more. **Esther 9:28** says the celebration of Purim will never end: > These days should be remembered and kept throughout every generation, in every family, province, and city, and these days of Purim should never fall into disuse among the Jews, nor should the commemoration of these days cease among their descendants ### Question Do Christians believe that the Hebrew Bible prophesied that the commandments it called eternal would one day end? Is there an Old Testament basis for believing observance of the Mosaic law would not be forever? Views from all denominations welcome.

What does virginity really mean? It appears to me either not to be a categorical variable, or an arbitrary state. My commonplace understanding of virginity would mean that someone had no sex so far; that would lead to virginity being a continuous variable instead of a categorical one, as sex can mean anything between fingering, licking, masturbation, penetration and so on. In the reception history, virginity seems to be a testable claim (see e.g. Jeanne d'Arc). We know now that there is no test for virginity. We could also assume that virginity is a state of mind, but that would make it kind of arbitrary if we do not assume asexuality. There could be another definition, but I doubt that that is how it could be interpreted in our times, and that would be based on the value of a woman for marriage, which would boil down either to the possibility of pregnancy outside of wedlock or sexual experience of any sort, depending on why virginity has such a high value in certain cultures regarding marriage. I am sure I missed something. How do different denominations teach this? What errors did I make in my naive pre-assessment?

I know that there are a respectable number of denominations that hold to the idea that the scriptures aren’t innerant (free from error). But are there any that go as far as to teach that the scriptures aren’t inspired?

The Bible records many accounts of angels physically manifesting themselves to people, whether for the purpose of delivering a message, or to get them out of trouble, etc. [It also appears that most Christians believe these kinds of manifestations probably still happen today, although in extremely rare circumstances](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/86132/50422) . But when it comes to demons, besides Satan's taking the form of a serpent to tempt Eve, I'm not aware of any other cases where a demonic entity materialized in a bodily form in the physical. Of course, there are demon possessions, but those technically speaking belong to a different category, as demons do not manifest their own bodies -- they just usurp someone else's. By the way, as I say this, I notice that I'm making the assumption that demons must have some sort of spiritual body they can physically manifest at will in the first place, but I don't think this is an unreasonable assumption to make, considering that angels can do it, and also what 1 Corinthians 15:40 says: *There are **heavenly bodies** and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of another*. Do any denominations believe these kinds of physical demonic manifestations are possible and do happen from time to time?

I was wondering which church denominations have a very strong emphasis in the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation since it seems they are linked to one another?

Rabbi Yosef Massas (1892–1974) writes in responsa *Mayim Chaim* vol. 2 (*Yoreh Deah* §108:2) that he spoke to a Christian (possibly Catholic) priest who claimed that they only worship the One God and that when they say that Jesus was a son of *Elohim* this means "angel" not "God". Accordingly, this sect believed that Jesus was a son of an angel, not son of God. Does anybody know of a Christian denomination/sect which fits this description? (Rabbi Massas lived in Morocco and in Algeria if that helps)

Are there denominations that emphasize apologetic sermons?

Of course many (if not most) denominations believe that what they teach and believe as doctrine critical to salvation is, in fact, critical to salvation. Most denominations also teach and believe many doctrines that they will admit as being 'secondary' and debatable or uncertain. Often a doctrine critical in one denomination is secondary in another. In my experience most official members of particular denominations, while not asserting that only they are completely correct, would be comfortable as classifying their denomination as 'the most correct'. Most folks would not assert that *only* their denomination can attain salvation however, since theirs is *most correct*, they would be comfortable asserting that, when all come to face to face with God, they will all come 'round to that *most correct* view. My question is: Are there denominations that officially teach that God will have respect toward one denomination over another such that one denomination gets a 'blanket pass' based upon membership whereas others might undergo individual evaluation?

So I'm curious if there exist any Christian sects which deny the physical birth of Jesus, i.e. that Jesus was born from Mary. Perhaps such a sect would say that Jesus simply appeared from the Heavens and didn't need anyone to bring him into the world.

[Christian atheism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism) is the practice of following the teaching of the Christian bible, or Jesus, without believing in the existance of God or that Jesus is the son of God. Do Christian atheists have denominations, and if so, what are those denominations? I will accept *either* actual denominations of Christian atheists, or denominations of Christians who believe in God but who nevertheless have members who identify as Christian atheists, however, I am primarily interested in the former.

Are there any Christian denominations that believe certain scientific knowledge is leading humanity away from the truth of God? Especially where that piece of technology has been used for evil exploitation?

There are a multiplicity of contemporary claims regarding Jesus made by folks who refer to themselves as Christian. 1) Jesus was and is both God and man. 2) Jesus was and is only man 3) Jesus was an angel, became a man, and is an angel again. (Or was and is both.) 4) Jesus was a man and now is God. These are, perhaps, not all of the options and certainly not all of the nuances. What I have not come across is a contemporary claim that Jesus was God only and not really man at all. Docetism is one form of the sort of thing I am referring to but I am unaware if Docetism is still alive under the umbrella of claimed Christianity: > In the history of Christianity, docetism (from the Koinē Greek: δοκεῖν/δόκησις dokeĩn "to seem", dókēsis "apparition, phantom"1 ) was the doctrine that the phenomenon of Jesus, his historical and bodily existence, and above all the human form of Jesus, was mere semblance without any true reality.[3] Broadly it is taken as the belief that Jesus only seemed to be human, and that his human form was an illusion. - Wikipedia I have seen articles describing "docetic christianity " wherein the importance of being led of the Spirit becomes so magnified that human responsibility to any sort of biblical hermeneutic disappears: > On this view, it becomes unimportant whether Jesus lived or died according to the Gospel records. What matters is the ethical and existential message of the stories about him; how the story affects my understanding of myself. This begins to sound like what I have seen described as Christian Atheism in practice, but theologically cannot be since Christian Atheism denies the existence of God: Are there any contemporary denominations who claim to be Christian and whose theology holds that Jesus was God only and not really human?

The Second Commandment warns against making “graven images” or likenesses of anything in heaven, on earth, or in the waters below. Some Christians apply this very strictly to artwork, icons, and statues. With modern technology, it’s now possible to create humanoid robots, androids, or AI-powered machines that imitate human appearance or behavior. **Do any Christian denominations or traditions teach that creating such human-like robots violates the commandment not to make graven images?** If so, what is their reasoning or theological basis? If not, how do theologians distinguish robots from prohibited “images” in Exodus 20:4?

Some Christian interpretations connect human knowledge with moral decline, often drawing from passages such as Genesis 3 (the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil), Ecclesiastes 1:18 (“For with much wisdom comes much sorrow”), or 1 Corinthians 8:1 (“knowledge puffs up, but love builds up”). Are there any recognized Christian denominations or theological traditions that explicitly teach—or have historically taught—that an increase in human knowledge (scientific, philosophical, or technological) directly leads to an increase in immorality or moral corruption?

Below are several excerpts from Christian websites that discuss the idea of "paying the price" in a spiritual context: > In this sermon, the speaker shares a powerful testimony of a meeting where the glory of God was experienced. It started with one person praying and soon others joined, resulting in a powerful outpouring of the Holy Spirit. The meeting lasted for over four hours, with people confessing their sins and seeking God's presence. The speaker emphasizes the need for the glory of God to return to our churches and lives, and encourages repentance, prayer, faith, and identification with Christ **as the simple yet costly price to pay for experiencing God's glory**. > > https://www.sermonindex.net/sermons/XuEeri0s1gBZfmHq > God is a God of process. The major problem with this generation is that men are not ready to **pay the price** to have spiritual power and experiences. But the truth is, if it is genuine, there will be **a price attached to it**. Jesus told the disciples in Luke 24:49 to tarry in Jerusalem until they were endued with power from on high. So, where did you get the version of your divine power without divine process? **Anything valuable always has a price tag**. If you see anything that is valuable, that is cheap, it is either somebody paid for it, or it is stolen. **Authentic power has a price tag**. > > There is a **price you will have to pay** to walk in the authentic power of God. If you see a man that works in supposed power and you don’t see a price in his life, it’s false power he’s working with. The man that God will work with must **pay the price** for spiritual experiences. Specific callings and specific anointing call for specific **prices that we must constantly be paying**. May the Lord find you dependable to carry His power these last days. > > https://spiritmeat.net/2024/06/22/22-june-2024-the-price-for-spiritual-power-and-spiritual-experiences-pay-it-mark-314/ > Every day we need to be watchful by **paying the price to buy the Spirit as the golden oil** so that we may supply the churches with the Spirit for the testimony of Jesus and be rewarded by the Lord to participate in the marriage dinner of the Lamb. > > Our urgent need today is to gain more of the Spirit; we need to live a life of **buying** an extra portion of the Spirit to saturate our entire being. > > Day by day we need to live such a life, a life of **paying the price** to gain the Spirit not only in our spirit but also in our soul, being saturated with the Spirit in our vessel. If we have a day when we don’t **pay the price** to gain the saturating Spirit, that is a wasted day; we do not want to have any wasted days! > > For us to gain more of the Spirit in our soul we need to **pay a price**; we need to **pay the price** of giving up the world, dealing with the self, loving the Lord above all things, and counting all things loss for Christ. > > Day by day we need to **pay the price** of losing our soul life and denying the things that we want to do so that we may pray more, even persevere in prayer and watch unto prayer, so that we may gain more of the Spirit. > > If we don’t **pay the price to buy the oil today**, we will have to pay it after we are resurrected; sooner or later, we will have to **pay the price** – so why not today, why not in this age? > > https://agodman.com/paying-price-buy-spirit-oil-vessel-word-prayer/ > The wise virgins told the foolish virgins to go buy their own oil. When the Bible speaks of the oil, it refers to the Holy Spirit. You may ask, “But, how is it possible to buy the Holy Spirit?” > > Jesus is referring to a person having to **pay the price**, which means denying their will, obeying the Word of God, being faithful, sacrificing and keeping constant watch. > > All those who truly want the presence of God should be aware that **there is a price to pay**. The wise virgins, certainly, **paid the price** (sacrificed) with the time they waited for the bridegroom. Surely, they prepared themselves by investing in their spiritual lives through prayer, fasts, consecration and surrender, not allowing the light of the Spirit to burn out. > > On the other hand, there are those who aren’t willing to **pay that price**. They live according to their fleshly desires, refuse to stop living in sin, are in the church but far from God, have the lamp, which is faith, but don’t have the oil, which is the Holy Spirit. > > https://www.universal.org/en/bispo-macedo/pay-the-price/ Is the idea of "paying the price" for greater spiritual power, anointing, or a deeper experience of God a common teaching across all Christian denominations, or is it emphasized primarily within certain groups? For example, is it widely taught that Christians must *pay a price* to receive more of the Spirit, more anointing, or greater spiritual authority? What is the biblical basis for this teaching?

When I say “conservative”, I’m thinking along the lines of a church that holds to Biblical Innerancy, the virgin birth, and Trinitarian doctrine. Are there any such denominations that adhere to those things and universalism?

Imagine Bob. Bob was, at some point, Christian. Perhaps he was raised that way, or perhaps he came to faith later in life, but at some point, he was confirmed, communing regularly, professing Christ, and has felt God's Presence in his life. Then, something happened. Some event caused Bob to turn away from Christ to pursue a different path. Maybe the breakup was public, or maybe it was just in the privacy of his heart, but at minimum, Bob said to God, "go away; I don't need or want you". ---- A certain user cited Hebrews 6:4-6, claiming that Bob, having apostatized, can no longer be redeemed: > 4For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 5And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, 6If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. (KJV) However, this seems contrary not only to Scripture (with God, all things are possible), but to God's own nature (God is patient, wanting everyone to be saved). Indeed, most sects as far as I can tell teach that there is no sin from which one cannot repent, and that it is only by remaining in sin that one cuts *one's self* off from Salvation, essentially by refusing to accept the free gift. Logically, moreover, this teaching would suggest to Bob that God despises him and that not only should he not bother to seek God, he might as well do all he can to be God's enemy since he has nothing to lose. **Which sect(s) teach that one who has fallen off the path cannot be called back?**

AFAIK, most Christians would agree that animals don't have souls in the sense that people (humans) do. Many would say further animals don't have free will. Thus, AFAIK, most Christians would say that animals don't "go" to heaven. There are also strong implications that there will be animals *in* heaven (various verses about heaven mentioning them¹, heaven being a restoration of the original Creation which had animals). Presumably, these animals will, like people, be immortal. **I am not asking about any of the above points.** Are there any (non-LDS¹) Christian groups that believe that *specific, individual* animals will "go" to heaven? In other words, are there any Christian groups (not just individuals) that believe in the possibility of a human in heaven being "reunited" with e.g. a beloved pet, or that believe in any form of resurrection for animals? (An acceptable "no" answer should cite sources from most major denominations.) ---- (¹ See [Isaiah 11:6](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2011%3A6&version=ESV) , [Isaiah 65:25](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2065%3A25&version=ESV) and [Hosea 2:18](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hosea+2%3A18&version=ESV).) (² An LDS perspective can be found [here](/questions/62291). However, LDS have notions about heaven that are wildly different from all other groups calling themselves "Christian". Accordingly, I am not interested in LDS perspectives.)

According to Wikipedia, the doctrine of [Perseverance of the saints](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perseverance_of_the_saints) is: > [...] a Christian teaching that asserts that **once a person is truly "born of God" or "regenerated" by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, they will continue doing good works and believing in God until the end of their life**. On the other hand, the doctrine of [Eternal Security](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_security) is defined as follows: > Eternal security, also known as "once saved, always saved", is the belief that **from the moment anyone becomes a Christian, they will be saved from hell, and will not lose salvation**. **Once a person is truly "born of God" or "regenerated" by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit**, nothing in heaven or earth "shall be able to separate (them) from the love of God" (Romans 8:39) and thus **nothing can reverse the condition of having become a Christian**. So it appears that *Perseverance of the saints* is about unshakable **sanctification** after true conversion, whereas *Eternal Security* is about unshakable **salvation** after true conversion. So there appears to be a very subtle distinction between the two doctrines. **Question**: are there any denominations that believe in one doctrine while denying the other? Is it even possible to endorse one doctrine without endorsing the other?