There are a handful of prophecies that Christians consider as having "dual fulfillments" - one at the time, and one in the future. Matthew 24, Isaiah 7:14, etc. are examples. Where did this method of interpretation originate, and more importantly upon what foundation / first-principles does it rest? One could say, let's give it three interpretations, or let's say it was a failed prophecy, or let's say the original prophecy was fulfilled - but in a different way, etc. but instead Christians choose to utilize this Dual Fulfillment method on many prophecies. The explanation I've come across typically goes something like: "the first prophecy did not fully come about, so we'll see it fully happen sometime in the future." But, that's an obvious False Dilemma , as there are many other ways to explain the first prophecy not being "fully fulfilled". Would appreciate someone with more expertise chiming in.

In Matt 16:24 Jesus tells His disciples to pick up their crosses and follow Him. How would the apostles have understood what He was saying? He spoke these words before He was crucified, so the mention of a cross is a bit strange to me. The Greek word is "stauros" or "stauron" which means an upright stake. Jesus does tell the apostles in verse 16:21 what would shortly come to pass (His crucifixion) but the verse doesn't make any mention of crucifixion. We could surmise that Jesus told them that He would be crucified and the text just doesn't explicitly mention it, that could be a reasonable explanation, but what if He didn't give them those details? It creates a dilemma of sorts. I'd be interested in hearing how other people understand this passage.

How can the following verses be reconciled? Matthew 5:18-20: >“Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever obeys and teaches these commandments will be called greatest in the kingdom of heaven. I tell you, unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew 23:1-3: >”Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying, “The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice” Matthew 12:1-4: >”At that time Jesus was going through a field of grain on the sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick the heads of grain and eat them. When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, “See, your disciples are doing what is unlawful to do on the sabbath.” He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he and his companions were hungry, how he went into the house of God and ate the bread of offering, which neither he nor his companions but only the priests could lawfully eat?”

Jesus in Matthew 12 appears to give a compelling argument against the possibility of demons casting out other demons: > 22 Then they brought him a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute, and Jesus healed him, so that he could both talk and see. 23 All the people were astonished and said, “Could this be the Son of David?” > > 24 But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, “It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons.” > > 25 Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand. 26 **If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself**. How then can his kingdom stand? 27 And if I drive out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your people drive them out? So then, they will be your judges. 28 **But if it is by the Spirit of God that I drive out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you**. > > [Matthew 12:22-28, NIV] In other words, demons are cast out by the power of the Spirit of God, and in the case of Christians, in the name of Jesus. That said, according to the Wikipedia article on [Exorcism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exorcism) , exorcisms have been practiced since antiquity in other religions. And I find this problematic, because if we think about it, non-Christians do not have the power of the Spirit nor the name of Jesus to drive out demons during an exorcism. And they can't be using the power of Satan either, as per Jesus' argumentation in Matthew 12:22-28. So there appear to be no other options left, and we are faced with a dilemma. **Question**: How do Christians make sense of exorcisms in other religions? Are exorcisms in other religions compatible with a Christian worldview? ____ *Note: I'm not sure if I should request answers from a specific denomination or Christian group for this one. I would imagine that most Christians believe that demons exist and can be cast out, and I'm not sure if there is a specific denomination with an official position regarding exorcisms in other religions. But in any case, if this question needs editing, feel free to let me know or go ahead and edit it yourself.*

We have in Matthew 1 the Genealogy of Jesus. Though Israel followed a patriarchal lineage, the names of five women find a place in the Genealogy. They are: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba, and Mary. Of course, Mary, being the Blessed Virgin Mother of Jesus, is an indispensable figure in the Genealogy. But, what is the relevance of the mentions of the other four women? Is the significance the result of a common attribute, or is it specific to each?

Were the names Matthew, Mark, Luke and John common names in the time of Jesus? If not, what were their real names and why were they changed?

In an example of exceptional cases, NIV of Mtt 27:17 reads: > When the crowd had gathered, Pilate asked them, “Which one do you want me to release to you: Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus who is called the Messiah?”. < The Gospels sometimes use the nick- names of persons, for instance, Thomas which literally means 'the twin '. Now, Barabbas is a prominent figure in the Passion . The literal meaning of the name is ' Son of the Father, implying that his father was equally or more notorious as a criminal. But, then he was not born a criminal, and the nick-name Barabbas was probably imposed on him after he started showing his true colours! So, what was his given name ? In case Jesus shared his given name with the person nicknamed Barabbas, Pilate in the capacity of the judge in the capital punishment proceedings had to be extremely careful in identifying each of the two convicts before him. Is that the reason why he used the attribute of Messiah for Jesus ? Are there any apocryphal writings or scholarly views on the topic ?

We read in Mtt 26:3-5(NIV); > Then the chief priests and the elders of the people assembles in the palace of the high priest, whose name was Caiaphas, and they schemed to arrest Jesus secretly and kill him. “But not during the festival,” they said, “or there may be a riot among the people.” < But we see Jesus getting arrested on a day of Passover and getting crucified on the Day of Preparation ( Jn 19:14) Apparently, the Jewish leaders had a change of mind vis- a- vis their original apprehension in Mtt 26: 5. The Gospels do not record the reason for the shift. Are there any apocryphal writings on the subject ?

This question (and its answers) indicate that, according to Roman Catholicism, the two witnesses prophesied to come in Revelation 11:3 will almost certainly be Enoch and Elijah (Elias). > And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth. Part of the reasoning leading to this notion is that neither of these man died physically but both were taken up into heaven alive and, since it is appointed for man once to die and then the judgement (Hebrews 9:27 ), it is within the integrity of Scripture for them to return where they will eventually be killed by the beast from the bottomless pit. > And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them. And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified. And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves. And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth. - Revelation 11:7-10 This is coupled with the prophet Malachi (4:5) declaring: > Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: With the conclusion being that, even though they are not named in the Apocalypse, Elijah will almost certainly be one of the two end times witnesses because he has yet to die in fulfillment of Scripture and he is prophesied in Scripture to come again. Jesus, however, in Matthew 11:10-15 , clearly said that John the Baptist was the prophesied appearance of Elijah and directly quoted Malachi. We also know from Matthew 14 that John the Baptist was put to death by beheading. Additionally, at the transfiguration event recorded in Matthew 17 wherein Moses and Elijah appeared with Jesus to three of the disciples, the disciples asked specifically why the scribes say that Elijah must come first and, once again, Jesus declared that John the Baptist **was** that coming of Elijah: > And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come? And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things. But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist. - Matthew 17:10-13 My question is: According to Roman Catholicism, since Elijah has already come back and died (fulfilling Malachi, Hebrews 9, and the RC argument literally), how many more times is Elijah coming back to earth to be killed and why?

Matthew 19:29 : >And every one that hath left **house**, or **brethren**, or **sisters**, or **father**, or **mother**, or **wife**, or **children**, or **lands** for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall possess life everlasting. Mark 10:29-30 : >Jesus answering, said: Amen I say to you, there is no man who hath left **house** or **brethren**, or **sisters**, or **father**, or **mother**, or **children**, or **lands**, for my sake and for the gospel who shall not receive an hundred times as much, now in this time; **houses**, and **brethren**, and **sisters**, [Is the omission of "fathers" here significant?] and **mothers**, and **children**, and **lands**, with persecutions: and in the world to come life everlasting. It seems the ordering is from most long-living to least long-living ties. A household (οἰκία) lasts the longest, many centuries. Brothers and sisters are longer-lasting ties than parental ties because siblings are coeval with each other; such ties are lifelong. Children are with their parents longer than with their wives. Lands are the least long-lasting ties, as some people are migratory. Or perhaps the ordering relates to the order of charity ? Have any commentators interpreted the meaning of the ordering of these things? And what about the omission of "wife" or "fathers" in St. Mark's account? cross-posted on Biblical Hermeneutics StackExchange

According to **Matthew** *(chapter 21)* the prophecy of **Zechariah 9:9** is fulfilled in Jesus' entry into Jerusalem. This makes Jesus the King of Zion: Matthew 21:1-5 >**1** And when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem, and were come to Bethphage, unto the mount of Olives, then sent Jesus two > disciples, **2** Saying unto them, Go into the village over against > you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: > loose them, and bring them unto me. **3** And if any man say ought > unto you, ye shall say, The Lord hath need of them; and straightway he > will send them. **4** All this was done, that it might be fulfilled > which was spoken by the prophet, saying, **5** Tell *ye* the daughter > of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an > ass, and a colt the foal of an ass. Zechariah 9:9 >Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass. So according to the prophecy of **Zechariah** (and the gospels of **Matthew** and John), those who recognize their King and Savior "arriving, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass." are identified as the "**daughter of Zion**". To my knowledge, Christians are the only peoples holding this belief, wouldn't that make Christians the "daughter of Zion"?

The First Reading and the Gospel Reading of Roman Catholic Holy Mass for October 8th have a parable each on the vineyard. The first one is Isaiah 5:1-7 which speaks of wild grapes that grew on good vines. In the second one from Matthew 31:33-43, Jesus speaks of the unfaithful caretakers who go to the extent of killing the son of the master. The settings of the parable from Matthew are the same as those of Isaiah. But the climaxes are different. Jesus gives a twist by including himself as a character of the parable, which was not there in Isaiah. Are there any comparative studies involving the parables of the vineyard, as presented in Isaiah and Matthew? Inputs from scholars of any denomination are welcome.

Matthew lists Rahab the prostitute of Jericho as one of Jesus' ancestors. I've sometimes wondered why. Yes, she risked her life to save the spies sent by Joshua to Jericho. But would that be enough for her to be included among the other women in Matthew's list along with such famous women as Mary, Ruth, Bathsheba and Tamar? All of these except Mary are mentioned in the OT as having clear ancestral ties to the Davidic lineage. So why did Matthew include her, while Luke did not? I discovered some rabbinical legends yesterday that may shed light on Matthew's decision: namely, Rahab became the wife of none other than Joshua and the mother of famous prophets including Jeremiah, Huldah and Ezekiel. The story can't be confirmed biblically and the rabbis disagree about Joshua's marrying her, but I think it is likely that her fame would be known to Matthew. Luke, on the other hand might not have known of it or might decide not to include it since his audience would not be aware of Rahab's story, let alone that of the other women mentioned by Matthew. > Eight prophets, who were also priests, descended from Rahab the > prostitute, and they are: Neriah; his son Baruch; Seraiah; Mahseiah; > Jeremiah; his father, Hilkiah; Jeremiah’s cousin Hanamel; and > Hanamel’s father, Shallum. Rabbi Yehuda said: So too, Huldah the > prophetess was a descendant of Rahab the prostitute… Rav Naḥman responded... Rahab converted and married Joshua, and therefore Huldah descended from both Joshua and Rahab. (Megillah 14b) Did Matthew know of the stories that underlie these reports in the Talmud? I also wonder if the story of Rahab's marriage to Joshua and her ancestry of important prophets was known to any of the Church Fathers, or if there are references to her history (other than her role in protecting the spies in Jericho) in other early Christian writings.

There is a question listing out the Beatitudes in the link below. I'm interested in these because according to the Bible, these eight things will make everyone happy! Can you help me interpret these in layman's terms, so they are easily understood? Please look at my interpretations below each and make any corrections and/or expand on what I have. The more answers the better, because, in life, there isn't just one correct answer. https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/61188/what-are-the-beatitudes Please be very specific about which ones are from the first person, second person or third person, or a combination thereof. I did not put this much thought into it yet, because I was afraid of getting it wrong. The first person is the I/we perspective. The second person is the you perspective. The third person is the he/she/it/they perspective. For people with empathy, they feel what the other person they are with is feeling. So in a sense, they both share the same feeling. But in order to achieve the feeling (either when together or in prayer or thought), I need to know which person the beatitude is happening to, and which person the beatitude is being observed from. The Beatitudes (Matthew 5:3-12) >**3** Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. - people who recognise their own spiritual poverty, their need for God >**4** Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted. - feel regret or sadness about someone else, but not ourselves >**5** Blessed are the meek: for they shall possess the land. - quiet, gentle, and easily imposed on; submissive to others >**6** Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice: for they shall have their fill. - fairness in the way that people are treated >**7** Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. - being compassionate and forgiving when someone else does not deserve it >**8** Blessed are the clean of heart: for they shall see God. - speaks of our motivation, our desires that move us to act and seek a place and purpose in the world >**9** Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called children of God. - a person who brings about peace, especially by reconciling adversaries >**10** Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. - if someone is harassed or punished in a manner designed to injure, grieve, or afflict, then heaven is on the way soon for them >**11** Blessed are ye when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against - you, untruly, for my sake: **12** Be glad and rejoice, for your reward is very great in heaven. - to express disappointment; to harass or punish;

To whom or what is Jesus referring in this passage when he speaks of “something greater than Solomon”? > The queen of the South will rise up at the judgment with this > generation and condemn it, for she came from the ends of the earth to > hear the wisdom of Solomon, and behold, something greater than Solomon > is here. (Matthew 12:42, ESV) I have always assumed it was Jesus, but much of Matthew 12 is about the Holy Spirit. Solomon was a wise counselor and the Holy Spirit is the Counselor that Jesus would send. Do any theologians hold that Jesus is speaking of the Holy Spirit and not himself?

In its [Introduction to the Gospel of Matthew](https://bible.usccb.org/bible/matthew/0) , the website of the US Council of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) states: > *The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of > Jesus named Matthew (see Mt 10:3) is untenable because the gospel is > based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark* (almost all the > verses of that gospel have been utilized in this), and it is hardly > likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an > account that came from one who admittedly never had such an > association rather than rely on his own memories. The attribution of > the gospel to the disciple Matthew may have been due to his having > been responsible for some of the traditions found in it, but that is > far from certain. In so saying, the USCCB website also accepts the theory of Markan priority and the existence of the hypothetic Q source, consisting of material not found in Mark but shared by both Matthew and Luke. In other words, they hold that Mark is the oldest Gospel and the other two synoptic writers expanded it by using the Q material together with their own unique sources and perspectives. > The unknown author, whom we shall continue to call Matthew for the > sake of convenience, drew not only upon the Gospel according to Mark > but upon a large body of material (principally, sayings of Jesus) not > found in Mark that corresponds, sometimes exactly, to material found > also in the Gospel according to Luke. This material, called “Q”... represents traditions, written and oral, used by both > Matthew and Luke. Mark and Q are sources common to the two other > synoptic gospels; hence the name the “Two-Source Theory” given to this > explanation of the relation among the synoptics. The website does not state whether this introduction is to be considered authoritative. **How do rank-and-file Catholics, scholars and other Christians respond to this apparent teaching of the USCCB?**

It's said in *Summa Theologica* that the trinity ist eternal, three persons each one being G'd a well known fact in Christianism. I'd like to know, what is the greek explanation or the following (**Matthew 28:19**) and if it was very changed (by translation): > Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the > name of the **Father** and of the **Son** and of the **Holy Spirit**, (ESV) And we see a distinction amongst three words, why this happens if indeed G'd is One, and why would it be that they would be G'd if G'd is **One**, Aquinas says that He is one times one times one, this is, He isn't three as a number, but I'd like to point out that even though this seems true, isn't there a dialectic thinking in this? And in **Ephesians 4:6** the following, just as a reflection: > One God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. More, I'd like to add the following: *if G'd is One, then isn't everything and everyone G'd? For if they weren't Him, then He wouldn't be One (the contrapositive)*, then if this stands, meaning that there is just Him, why is there a perception of evil which isn't Him? *obs.: the title is called if trinity is eternal as a way to say if it's the reality that trinity attempts to explain or G'd He Himself in an absolute manner*

In Matthew 5:38-40 Jesus Christ tells us that if someone hit you on the right check that you the other check to him also, does this means as Christians that we are supposed to remain pacifist and that we are not allowed to fight back if somebody attempts to attack us? Because in Matthew 5:38-40 Christ says: > 38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a > tooth for a tooth: > > 39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall > smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. > > 40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, > let him have thy cloak also.

From the Wikipedia article on [the Great Apostasy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Apostasy) : > The Great Apostasy is a concept within Christianity, identifiable at least from the time of the Reformation, to describe a perception that the early apostolic Church has fallen away from the original faith founded by Jesus and promulgated through his twelve Apostles. Protestants used the term to describe the perceived fallen state of traditional Christianity, especially the Catholic Church, because they claim it changed the doctrines of the early church and allowed traditional Greco-Roman culture (i.e., Greco-Roman mysteries, deities of solar monism such as Mithras and Sol Invictus, pagan festivals and Mithraic sun worship and idol worship) into the church on its own perception of authority. Because it made these changes using claims of tradition and not from scripture, the church – in the opinion of those adhering to this concept – has fallen into apostasy. A major thread of this perception is the suggestion that, to attract and convert people to Christianity, the church in Rome incorporated pagan beliefs and practices within the Christian religion, mostly Graeco-Roman rituals, mysteries, and festivals. For example, Easter has been described as a pagan substitute for the Jewish Passover, although neither Jesus nor his Apostles enjoined the keeping of this or any other festival. > > The term is derived from the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, in which the Apostle Paul informs the Christians of Thessalonica that a great apostasy must occur before the return of Christ, when "the man of sin is revealed, the son of destruction" (chapter 2:1–12). The Catholic Church, Anglican Church, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches have interpreted this chapter as referring to a future falling-away, during the reign of the Antichrist at the end of time. However, Jesus said: > And I tell you that you are Peter, and **on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.** (Matthew 16:18 BSB) **Question**: According to believers in the Great Apostasy of the Church, how can there be a Great Apostasy if the Church is built on a rock against which the gates of Hades shall not prevail?

>(Exodus 31:13-17) What is God's Sign?-The sign of obedience is the observance of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment.If men keep the fourth commandment,they will keep all the rest(Letter 31,1898)(7BC 981.5) The above comment is from E G White commenting on Revelation 14.She articulates that those who observe the fourth commandment(Sabbath) will also keep the rest But in many instances the pharisaic order who were keen observers of the Sabbath were lambasted for observing the Sabbath while neglecting the other laws. Luke 6:1-2 NASB >Now it happened that [a]Jesus was passing through some grainfields on a Sabbath, and His disciples were picking the heads of grain, rubbing them in their hands, and eating them. 2 **But some of the Pharisees said, “Why are you doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?”** Luke 6:6 NASB >On another Sabbath He entered the synagogue and taught; and a man was there [c]whose right hand was withered. 7 **Now the scribes and the Pharisees were watching Him [d]closely to see if He healed on the Sabbath, so that they might find a reason to accuse Him**. Even when the greatest commandments are mentioned the Sabbath is conspicuous by its absence from the list Matthew 22:36-40 NASB >36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the great and [u]foremost commandment. 39 The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 Upon these two commandments [v]hang the whole Law and the Prophets.” Mark 10:19 NASB > You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not give false testimony, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.’” How then can one understand the assertion that those who keep the fourth commandment will also observe the other laws How can one understand this assertion?