>1 Peter 3:18-20: Because even Messiah once suffered for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to Elohim, having been put to death indeed in flesh but made alive in the Spirit, 19 in which also He went and proclaimed unto the spirits in prison, 20 who were disobedient at one time when the patience of Elohim waited in the days of Noaḥ, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight beings, were saved through water, This seems to disprove consciousness ceases at death.

In Romans 11, Paul describes Gentile believers as being “grafted in” to the olive tree of Israel. If Gentiles are joined to Israel spiritually, why does circumcision — a covenant sign originally given to Abraham and his descendants (Genesis 17) — no longer apply as a requirement for salvation or covenant membership? How do Christian traditions theologically reconcile the Abrahamic circumcision command with the New Testament statements that circumcision is not required (Acts 15, Galatians 5)?

The Babylon spoken of in Revelation chapter 14;8 KJV is clearly labeled as a city, and in Chapter 18:1 & 2 it seems to be more of a systematic degradation of God's holy words. In chapter 19:1, 2 & 3 God is judging Babylon which would lead me to believe that it would more suit judging Satan and his minions. Rev_14:8 KJV And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication. Rev 18:1 & 2 KJV 1 And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory. 2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird. Rev 19:1, 2 &3 KJV 1 And after these things I heard a great voice of much people in heaven, saying, Alleluia; Salvation, and glory, and honour, and power, unto the Lord our God: 2 For true and righteous are his judgments: for he hath judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand. 3 And again they said, Alleluia. And her smoke rose up for ever and ever. David Gusik puts forth these words in his commentary on Revelation 14:8; >Revelation 14:8 An angel announces Babylon's fall. >And another angel followed, saying, "Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she has made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication." Babylon is fallen: More on Babylon will come in Revelation 17. For now, it is enough to see it representing mankind in organized rebellion against God. "Prophetically, 'Babylon' sometimes refers to a literal city, sometimes to a religious system, sometimes to a political system, all stemming from the evil character of historic Babylon." (Walvoord) Because she has made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication: When we are told that Babylon has led all nations into fornication, the main idea is spiritual fornication - the worship of other gods. However, we are never surprised to see spiritual fornication accompanied with literal immorality. Revelation 18 - The Fall of Commercial Babylon A. Announcing the fall of Babylon. 1. Introduction: is this the same Babylon as is described in chapter 17? a. Good scholars see the issue differently. Some point to two manifestations of Babylon, one religious and one commercial or material. Others see the two as one, both being judged at the same time. b. There are definite similarities between Babylon as described in Revelation 17 and Revelation 18. Both are under the rule of Antichrist, and have ruling queens; both are filled with blasphemy; both hate the saints, and shed their blood; both are associates with kings in fornication; and both are under judgment and destroyed. c. However, there are also some significant differences: Religious Babylon (Rev. 17) Commercial Babylon (Rev. 18) 1. Mystery Babylon 1. Great Babylon; Babylon the Great 2. Symbol: a harlot woman 2. Symbol: a great city 3. Identified with Rome (inland) 3. Identified with a port city 4. Woman, whore, and mother 4. Habitation, great city, market place 5. Guilty: religious 5. Guilty: greed, self-indulgence abominations 6. Destroyed by a political 6. Destroyed by a sudden act of God power that previously supported her d. In my view, it is best to see them as intertwined, yet somewhat distinct. Religious Babylon of Revelation 17 is judged at the mid-point of the seven- year period of tribulation. Commercial Babylon is judged at the end of that period.< Those and other commentaries I have studied have caused me to wonder if they were the same or one religious and one Commercial Can anyone recommend any sources for further study on this subject?

Acts 15:19-21 (NIV, Emph mine) > 19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. **21 For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.**” This verse is used for and against observing law. Seems like this could mean either, "There are enough people following Moses and observing the law, so no need for more people to follow the law." or "The law is repeated in synagogues and new believers will go to synagogues, so they'll learn and follow them later."

The Bible speaks of the Nephilim as the offspring of the “sons of God and daughters of men” in books such as: Genesis, Enoch, and a couple others. It does explain that they bred from evil beings, but it doesn’t specify if they themselves were evil or not, and even if they were supposed to be “evil”. Were they **all** evil?

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?

There's a Christian podcast on YouTube named [*A Stronger Faith*](https://www.youtube.com/@AStrongerFaith/) , which also has a [website](https://www.astrongerfaith.org/) . The podcast focuses on interviewing Christians about their spiritual experiences, conversion experiences, their testimonies, and so on. The host is [Stacy McCants](https://www.astrongerfaith.org/about) . My question is motivated by Stacy's reference to John 17:3 in this [short video](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/5Ctpqezp0Nk?feature=share) : > You can experience God, so whatever doubts you might have in your mind of "am I just believing something that I've been taught because just in case there really is a hell I don't wanna go there" or have an encounter and experience him. You experienced God. People kind of get in our comments sometimes and talk about "don't be trying to go for the emotional experiences." I think God wants us to experience him. I think a lie of the enemy is that we should not seek experiences with God. That it should just be from an intellectual "just get the book, believe what the book says" perspective. And I can't read what Jesus said in John 17:3 and then say he doesn't want us experiencing him. He says "this is eternal life, that they know you, the one true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." Not that they know *about* you, and *about* Jesus. He says that they *know you*, and know his son. You cannot know somebody without experiencing them. Stacy posits that you cannot know someone without experiencing them. If we apply this to God, then John 17:3 would implicitly suggest that eternal life involves knowing God and Jesus, which, by his logic, means we ought to experience God and Jesus. Interestingly, Stacy McCants's podcast *A Stronger Faith* largely revolves around spiritual or supernatural experiences shared by the Christians he interviews. I suspect Stacy is a charismatic Christian, which might suggest a charismatic bias in his interpretation of John 17:3. **What are the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church's interpretations of John 17:3? Is knowing God and Jesus typically understood as involving experiences, and if so, what kinds of experiences are usually understood to be implied?** **Are there significant differences and/or similarities between both churches as to how they interpret John 17:3?**

> And Darius the Mede received the kingdom, being about sixty-two years old. [Daniel 5:31] I have read much about the possible identities of Darius the Mede; to me, the most convincing alias is that of Gabaru (mentioned in Nabonidus Chronicle column iii line 20). However, there are a number of other theories, and it causes me to wonder: _Who exactly was Darius the Mede?_ I know we cant know for sure (?), but what would make the most sense, in light of our faith?

In Reformed teaching, how can we discern when a doctrine is genuinely grounded in Scripture versus when we’ve gone beyond what the text actually says (1 Cor 4:6)? As a lay student seeking to handle God’s Word reverently, how can I develop the habit of distinguishing between what Scripture explicitly states and what comes from common assumptions or inherited interpretations—so that I do not “go beyond what is written,” especially on topics that the Bible addresses only briefly or selectively, particularly from a Reformed view?

> 13 When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. 15 So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16 To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!” 17 His disciples remembered that it is written: “Zeal for your house will consume me.” - John 2:13-17 NIV This passage can easily be read to be a "violent" reaction from Jesus. Leaving aside Niebuhr and pontifical statements *against* Christian Pacifism, how do Christian Pacifists interpret and apply this passage of scripture?

According to orthodox trinitarian doctrine, the Father is God, Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. Jesus is co-eqaul, eternally begotten, not made. With that in mind, how could Jesus have a God? For instance, how do Trinitarians explain verses such as the following verses in a way which is consistent with their doctrine? John 20:17 (KJV) > Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my > Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my > Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. John 17:3 (KJV) > "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true > God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."

[Isaiah 42:19](https://biblehub.com/isaiah/42-19.htm) says: > “Who is blind but my servant, and deaf like my messenger whom I send…?” When I read this alongside the rest of Isaiah 42:18–25, I struggle with whether this “servant” is meant to describe: 1. Israel as a spiritually blind people, 2. the prophetic servant/Messiah, or 3. both in different senses. My specific concern is this: If Christians interpret Isaiah 42 as a Messianic prophecy fulfilled in Jesus, how should we understand verse 19 describing the servant as “blind” or “deaf”? Does the text imply any lack of understanding in the servant, or is this metaphor meant in a different way? I’m looking for an explanation grounded in the text and Christian theological interpretation, especially regarding how the “blindness” metaphor can be reconciled with Christian beliefs about Jesus’ perfect obedience and knowledge of God’s law.

We hear that we are no longer under the law. It even says so in Galatians: >[Galatians 3:23-25](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galations%203:23-25&version=NIV)
> Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian. It seems [1 Corinthians 10:23](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2010:23&version=NIV) also supports this. But yet, Jesus said that he did not come to abolish the law: >[Matthew 5:17-18](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:17-18&version=NIV)
>“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." **What did Jesus mean that he did not come to abolish the law, but fulfill it**, especially since it seems from later in the Bible that he *did* abolish the law.

Romans 8:3 says that God sent His Son “in the likeness of sinful flesh.” How is this phrase interpreted in historic Christian theology regarding Christ’s humanity and sinlessness? I’m looking for one well-supported interpretation from any mainstream tradition (Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox), grounded in Scripture or established commentary.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says >“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God” (Matthew 5:9). However, in some situations, people might use deception to bring about peace — for example, concealing the truth to prevent violence or lying to stop conflict. From a Protestant theological perspective, would such a person still be considered a “peacemaker” in the sense Jesus describes in Matthew 5:9? Or would the use of deceit disqualify them from that blessing, given the biblical prohibitions against lying (e.g., Proverbs 12:22; Ephesians 4:25)?

Most Christians and leaders seem to quote inspirational verses out of the prophetic books consistently. The issue is that they are taking lots of verses out of context. Recently, I've been wondering how we correctly read the 17 prophetic books. These books seem to only be written for 1. the people at the time 2. descriptions of the Messiah 3. descriptions of The New Heaven and New Earth Outside of this, I have also seen that these prophecies include 1. Double References (Isaiah 14 talking about Satan and a king) 2. Insight into God's Creation (Jeremiah 4) [the Book of Job also does this, but that would of course be poetry and not prophecy] 3. Showing the character and demonstrations of God But what exactly does someone do when they want to read through the Book of Ezekiel or any other book? I have oftentimes been led of the Holy Spirit to see new things in the Prophetic Books, but for the most part, if I have to be honest, it seems like the entire Body of Christ just steers away from these books because of the level of confusion that comes from reading them. Why are they in the Bible? What do they do for New Testament Believers? How does it bring us into the full stature of Christ (2 Timothy 3:16-17)? I understand that there is historical evidence for the prophecies and that we can see what makes God angry, but there has got to be more reasoning behind having 17 books written in this style than just those things. What should I be able to pick up from these books that is beyond what my eyes can see? I cannot find a single answer online, so please know that I did my research before posting here. Thank you.

In Luke 2:26 the text states that Simeon would not see death before he had seen τὸν χριστὸν κυρίου (‘the Christ of the Lord’). How can Trinitarian theology reconcile the genitive construction — ‘of the Lord’ — which implies belonging or being sent, without diminishing Christ’s ontological equality with the very Kyrios? (Lk. 2:26 BGT) > καὶ ἦν αὐτῷ κεχρηματισμένον ὑπὸ τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ ἁγίου μὴ ἰδεῖν θάνατον πρὶν [ἢ] ἂν ἴδῃ τὸν **χριστὸν κυρίου**. Luke 2:26 (KJV) > “And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord’s Christ.”

In *Acts 2:38–39 (ESV)*, Peter says: >“Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” Some Christian traditions—such as the Reformed, Anglican, Lutheran, and Catholic—practice infant baptism (paedobaptism), while others—such as Baptist and Pentecostal churches—practice believer’s baptism (credobaptism). How do these two traditions each interpret this passage (and similar texts) when justifying their baptismal practices? In particular, how do they understand the phrase “for you and for your children,” and how does it fit into their broader theology of baptism?

The Bible reveals the year and month of the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. But does anyone have an idea of ​​the exact day and hour?

Genesis 4 discusses the descendants of Cain: >"Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. When he built a city, he called the name of the city after the name of his son, Enoch. To Enoch was born Irad, and Irad fathered Mehujael, and Mehujael fathered Methushael, and Methushael fathered Lamech. And Lamech took two wives. The name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah. Adah bore Jabal; he was the **father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock**. His brother's name was Jubal; he was the **father of all those who play the lyre and pipe**. Zillah also bore Tubal-cain; he was **the forger of all instruments of bronze and iron**. The sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah." Genesis 4:17-22 Why are we given details about what the descendants of Cain did? Is there some special significance to these details?