In Exodus 4:22, God tells Pharaoh: >“Israel is my firstborn son.” Later, in the New Testament, believers in Christ (the Church) are described as being adopted into God’s family and as the bride of Christ (Romans 8:15–17, Ephesians 5:25–27). My question is: if Israel is explicitly called God’s firstborn, how should Christians understand the place of the Church? Does the term “firstborn” imply that the Church is “another child” of God, perhaps a “later-born,”? How do different traditions reconcile Israel’s “firstborn” status with the identity of the Church in salvation history?

Both the Four Horsemen (Rev. 6:1-8) and the Two Witnesses (Rev. 11:3-12) of the Revelation have a lot in common. 1. Both are strongly associated with the Cherubim who are "standing before the Lord of the earth" - Horsemen: Rev. 4:6, Zech. 6:5 - Witnesses: Rev. 11:4, Zech. 4:14 2. Both are actually four - The Two Witnesses "are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks" (Rev. 11:4) 3. Both have the ability to kill ungodly people and smite the earth with plagues - Horsemen: Rev. 6:4, 6:8 - Witnesses: Rev. 11:5-6 The Four Horsemen are sent on their way by the Four Living Creatures in Heaven, most probably Cherubim (Ezek. 10:19), but are said to be withheld by Angels (Rev 7:1 four winds, Zech. 6:5 four spirits or winds) until given power (Rev. 11:5). So, is it possible that the Four Horsemen and the Two Witnesses are actually the same?

In the New Testament, in addition to the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, The Acts of the Apostles, and the Epistles written by Paul, there are other letters (epistles) written by James, Peter, John and Jude. Do we know definitively in what order these letters were written?

The [Hebraic Roots Bible](http://www.coyhwh.com/en/bible.php) makes the claim, > The original New Testament was not written in Greek, but Aramaic. I thought that only the Gospel of Matthew might have been written in Aramaic, and that the rest of the NT was originally written in Greek. There is also the strange claim that the name Yahshua (Jesus) appears in the Old Testament: > There are also almost 100 scriptures in the Tanach (Old Testament) that personify our Savior’s name. Due to the fact that most translations do not use our Savior’s original Hebrew name they totally miss this fact. This is impossible because the Old Testament was written before Jesus was famous. Perhaps the word in these passages that the Hebraic Roots Bible translates as Yahshua should be translated as a simple word, not a name, as it is in other translations.

According to ChatGPT-5, "both numbers are thought to be examples of gematria ", which is a system where "letters also stand for numbers": Meaning the name of a person can be expressed as a number. However I've searched online and can't see how you can get to "Nero" from these numbers? Is it all pseudo-science? Again, according to ChatGPT-5: 666: Often interpreted as referring to Nero Caesar when written in Hebrew letters (נרון קסר = 666). 616: Matches the same name Nero Caesar but in a slightly different spelling (the Latin form without the final “n”: נרו קסר = 616). It concludes: "So both numbers likely point to Nero, the Roman emperor infamous for persecuting Christians." Does gematria really point both of these numbers to "Nero"?

The God described in the Old Testament can be violent and vindictive and seems to hold to a different set of moral rules than the God we see in the New Testament. How does the Catholic church explain these differences? A few of the better known examples of the more violent nature of the Old Testament's God are: 1. God asks Abraham to sacrifice his son (Genesis 22:2 ) > 2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of. This is then revealed to have been a "test" of Abraham's faith (Genesis 22:12 ) > 12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me. Since, by definition, the God of the Judeo-Christian faith is omniscient, this is not a test that could have provided Him with new information. It seems like a particularly horrible thing to do to a father. It is also at odds with the loving God of the later Christian faith. 2. The story of Lot (Genesis 19 ). Two angels have visited Lot's house and he treats them as honored guests. The men of Sodom ask him to let them "know" them: >5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. Lot wants to protect his guests and so, instead, offers up his virgin daughters: > 8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. This is treated as a perfectly natural offer. Any father who would offer up his daughters for rape today would be considered the lowest of degenerate criminals, yet Lot is portrayed as the only righteous man in Sodom and the only one, along with his family, who is spared by God. The story of Lot also has two other examples of the extreme violence that the Old Testament God was capable of. The very smiting of the, presumably, hundreds or even thousands of inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the turning of Lot's wife into a pillar of salt for the rather innocuous sin of looking back at her home while it was being destroyed: > 24 Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven; > 25 And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground. > 26 But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt. > 24 Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven; > 25 And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground. > 28 And he looked toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the plain, and beheld, and, lo, the smoke of the country went up as the smoke of a furnace. 3. As a final example, the scourges of the Pharaoh. Each and every one of them is an action that does not square with the forgiving, loving and fundamentally good nature of the Christian God, but the following is particularly cruel (Exodus: 11 ): > 5 And all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the first born of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even unto the firstborn of the maidservant that is behind the mill; and all the firstborn of beasts. This is a kind and loving God who will kill innocent babies. What's more, His wrath is not restricted to the children of those, like the Pharaoh, who oppressed his people but extends to ay and all Egyptians and even goes so far as to include their animals. Clearly, a sheepherder living out in the middle of nowhere who has never seen any of the Jews living in Egypt cannot be blamed for their oppression under the Pharaoh. Yet, even this innocent shepherd is not spared God's wrath. Now, I imagine that all of these examples has been extensively debated and there will be various interpretations and apologetics for each. My question, however, is whether Catholics believe that the _nature_ of God has changed between the Old and New testaments. Jehova seems to be a very different God from the one described in the New Testament, how is that dealt with in the Catholic faith? PS. I have restricted the question to the Catholic church so it is not too broad bu welcome answers that also mention the positions of other denominations.

In the Revelation chapter two verse thirteen Jesus refers to Antipas being martyred: Revelation 2:13 KJV >I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth. Mickelson lists the original Greek word as: Ἀντίπας Antipas (an-tee'-pas) n/p. Antipas, a Christian The Greek revised version also uses that same word αντιπας and is also defined as a Christian. So I am confused as to whether Jesus is referring to a specific person named Antipas or simply saying one of his followers, was slain among them.

In Judaism you repent to get back to "normal" or back to God. Another reason is to stop the consequence of sin. So you have Thesuva (repenting) for a week before Yom kippur in order that God will bless you with a good year. Since the roots of Christianity comes from the Jews. And that the RCC see tradition and the mystical as something important just as in judaism. In the Old Testament repenting has to deal not only with your heart and emotions but also your actions, you had to pay for your mistakes not just change your mind and look forward. If not there will be a negative consequence but if one do repent God will heal the land. Almost every Church will teach that Jesus did take away the sins of the world, but He is also presented as the Lamb and did teach about repenting. So Is repenting the same as it always has been, or do we In the New Covenant repent in another way after the Cross? > Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near. (Mark 3:2) According to the RCC.

What does teaching morality result in?

Yet 1 John 1:9 is widely taught as conditional forgiveness for the Christian when the passage of 1 John 1 is directed as an invitation to Gnostic Jews to become believers.

Not rightly dividing the word of truth is a major source of confusion in Christianity today.

There appears to be some discussion about the name of Jesus of Nazareth in that some are suggesting the proper way to refer to him would be by the name/title '*Yeshua*'. I am interested in the reason for this and would be grateful for some references to those who argue for it. Below, I list out the reason why this appears to be about the Deity of Christ. Please note, I am not wishing to enter into discussion or to hear people's thoughts on the matter. My objective is to see references to the argument for so doing, citing the words of those who suggest that this should be done. -------------------------------------------- In Acts 7:45 and in Hebrews 4:8 we see a person named who, in context, is the man who accompanied Moses in the wilderness, commonly called, in English, 'Joshua'. The Greek of these two texts reads '*Iesous*' or, as we say in English 'Jesus'. This person was called Oshea at birth and was later re-named by Moses, Numbers 13:16, 'Jehoshua' which is two Hebrew words attached together, *Jehovah* and *yeshua*, God and salvation. As such, he is named again 'Jehoshua' in the historical chronicle, 1 Chronicles 7:27. Commonly, he was called 'Joshua'. ------------------------------------------ The first use of the word '*yeshua*' in Genesis 49:18 is when, amidst his blessing his twelve sons before his departure from this life, Israel (Jacob) cries out : >I have waited for thy salvation, O Lord [KJV] I have waited for thy *yeshua*, O *Jehovah*. ------------------------------------ So, when the angel, Gabriel (who stands in the presence of God) states to Mary : >Thou shalt call his name 'Jesus' for he shall save his people from their sins [Matthew 1:21 KJV] why is it that some people wish me to use the word '*Yeshua*' (which means 'salvation') rather than the word 'Jesus' which comes from the wording 'Jehoshua' (Jehovah plus salvation). Thus the word 'Yeshua' loses the reference to 'Jehovah'. Is this the reason that it is being done : to remove the reference to 'Jehovah' from the name 'Jesus' ? --------------------------- Again, I must ask not for personal opinions as to what is right, but I am seeking references as to why those who do this, propagate the concept.

How often do you replay your day's mistakes to try see how you failed in comparison to how you did well?

Which books functioned as the New Testament in the ancient Church of the East ? For example, what would they have been in Mongolia in the days of Genghis Khan ? The books of the Catholic and Protestant and Orthodox New Testament were fixed after the Church of the East split from the other branches of Christianity. So I wonder what became the set of the standard books for them.

My friend is a Progressive Christian who says that the bible doesn't condemn or even mention sex outside of marriage in the bible. Is this true? If not, what is the Biblical basis for condemning sex outside of marriage?

One of the arguments made by those who believe that the gift of speaking in tongues has ceased (cessationists) is that the "tongues" spoken of in both Acts and 1 Corinthians 12–14 are "real" human languages. For example, C. Norman Sellers, in *Biblical Tongues*, writes: > The New Testament references to tongues require that we understand them as referring to real languages [...] There is sufficient scriptural evidence to prove that the tongues in 1 Corinthians are the same as those in Acts chapter 2 and refer to real languages. Charismatics will generally reject this analysis; J. Rodman Williams, for example, argues that "it would have been pointless to speak foreign languages" at Caesarea ([Acts 10:45–46](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+10%3A45-46&version=ESV)) and Ephesus ([Acts 19:6](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+19%3A6&version=ESV)) in *Renewal Theology* (II, p214). In light of this disagreement, I wonder – **did any church fathers clearly and specifically indicate that the "speaking in tongues" of either Acts or 1 Corinthians was *not* a "real" human language?** Here are some clarifying parameters: - I'm interested in church fathers as typically defined – those who followed the apostles up to John of Damascus. I'm fine with including Tertullian and Origen in this group. - From my reading I don't think any pre-Augustine authors clearly make this connection, so I'm asking about church fathers more broadly. But writings of the early fathers would be particularly interesting. - By "clearly and specifically," I mean that the writer *goes beyond* the biblical text and indicates that the "tongues" were not human languages. - Charismatics might argue that the biblical text itself is clear on this point, and that therefore if a church father merely quotes the biblical text, it indicates that he believes that "tongues" were not exclusively human language. I want more than that.

Most Christians do not doubt the authenticity and inspiration of the New Testament. Most Christians agree that the New Testament should be treated as inerrant and authoritative. Most Christians know as a historical fact that the ancient united Church carefully determined which New Testament books were canonical. And most Christian also know that this same Church also confessed God as Holy Trinity, among many other canonized teachings and doctrines. But, if one does not want to interpret the Bible through the hermeneutic of Nicaea-Constantinople... or through the hermeneutic of the other canonized doctrines and teachings... how can you accept the New Testament at all? After all, neither the Old nor New Testaments fell from the sky. --- P.S. I am **not** referring to any councils after 1054 AD (Great Schism). So let's all understand that this is not about "the Western/Catholic/Roman church" nor "the Eastern/Orthodox/Byzantine Church" which then started to exist independently of each other.

Muslims believe that Jesus was not crucified but someone instead replaced Jesus Christ during the crucifixion, Surah An-Nisa - 157-167 states that: > and for boasting, “We killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the > messenger of Allah.” But they neither killed nor crucified him—it was > only made to appear so.1 Even those who argue for this ˹crucifixion˺ > are in doubt. They have no knowledge whatsoever—only making > assumptions. They certainly did not kill him. > > Rather, Allah raised him up to Himself. And Allah is Almighty > All-Wise. Is there any historical evidence outside of the bible that i could use to prove to Muslims that Jesus Christ was crucified?

*Edit* > "This question is similar to: Are the words that Jesus spoke the > Logos?. If you believe it’s different, please edit the question, make > it clear how it’s different and/or how the answers on that question > are not helpful for your problem."* This isn't the same. The answer is inadequate with no "scriptural" basis, explanation for Exodus 3:15, and is based off of sheer conjecture. ---------- Greetings and peace be with you. I hope this isn't too controversial, for all I care about is the truth. I was an atheist for over 20+ years who "converted" just 3 years ago. Not seeing "jesus" in the original Greek writings, and the nomina sacra being used in the Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus instead of "ΙΗΣΟΥΣ" led me to a deeper study. It goes from "IY"(Nomina Sacra), "ΙΗΣΟΥΣ/Ἰησοῦς", "Iesus", and then to "Jesus". But what really matters is The Word itself. What does the Word say? John 1:1 > In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word > was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through Him all things were > made, and without Him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In Him was > life, and that life was the light of men. "Word" is from the Greek word "Logos", that is normally translated as "Word", but can also be as "Speech". HE was Elohim(God) and with Elohim from the beginning. The Son was the first "born" over all creation, meaning HE was not "created".(Colossians 1:15) Through Him all things were made, and without Him nothing was made that has been made. HE was called "The Author of Life".(Acts 3:15) HE even calls HIMSELF "the Originator of God’s creation".(Revelation 3:14) Paul even says HE was, "Given The Name above all Names". We are told that YHWH is the Most High over all, for David said, "For You, O YHWH, are Most High over all the earth; You are exalted far above all gods."(Psalm 97:9), as just one example. HE is also "The Prophet" who was told to come as Israel's mediator just like Moses.(Deuteronomy 18:15-19, Acts 7:37) We see that YHWH created the Heaven and Earth by HIS Voice... The "Logos", or the Hebrew equivalent "Dabar". Psalm 148:5 > Let them praise the name of YHWH, for He gave the command and they > were created. Genesis 1:3 > And Elohim(God) said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. So according the the writings(scripture) The Son is the literal Voice of Elohim(God). Who was born, not created, meaning the first thing The Father did was speak. Then, everything made through that Voice(The Son). The question is wouldn't that mean HE, The Son, told Moses HIS Name in Exodus 3:15? Can we now take John 5:43, and John 17:11-12 literal? Exodus 3:15 - Literal Standard Version > And God says again to Moses, “Thus you say to the sons of Israel: > YHWH, God of your fathers, God of Abraham, God of Isaac, and God of > Jacob, has sent me to you; this [is] My Name for all time, and this > [is] My memorial, to generation [and] generation. John 5:46 > If you had believed Moses, you would believe Me, because he wrote > about Me.

While acknowledging that the Gospels likely contain **most** of the key events of Jesus' life... > Has the Vatican ever acknowledged that the New Testament may be missing **some** key parts of Jesus' life? Emphasis: The original authors of the Bible, who trace their lineage to the Evangelists, did the best they could to compile accounts of the *key* parts of Jesus' life, they could not (and in fact did not) bear witness to Jesus' entire life. And consequently, they may have unknowingly omitted key parts of His life.