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.

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.

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.

Many depictions of the nativity have both the shepherds and the wise men at the stable on the night of Jesus' birth. However, it is commonly held that the wise men did not arrive until several months after the birth of Jesus. What specifically is the basis for this belief?

## Background Inspired by https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/29919/what-important-mormon-doctrines-are-taught-in-the-book-of-mormon-that-we-couldn The Hebrew bible contains history , religious laws , sensual poetry , creation stories, and more. But scholars have long noted a lack of systematic theology compared with other religious books (not that there isn't theology contained in the Hebrew bible). On the other hand, authors of the New Testament make extensive and explicit theological arguments, a clear example is *Epistle to the Hebrews* which marked the line in the theological sand between proto-Christianity and 1st/2nd Century Judaism. ## Question What are doctrines or ideas, small or large, which are only found in the New Testament? I am interested in all perspectives on doctrines, theology, etc that are 'new' in the New Testament. This question will require an amount of good faith from any answerers, since a *post-hoc* reading of the Hebrew bible ***could*** gin up support for any number of NT innovations. I'm looking for ideas that are clear in the NT but unclear or not found in the Hebrew bible. ## Example answer An example could be: >> For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it *James 2:10* > The idea that breaking any one of the commandments is equivalent to breaking all of them is not found in the Hebrew bible and appears to be a new doctrine found only in the New Testament

We read in Mk 12:41-42(KJV): > And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much. And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing. There are also other occasions- both in NT and OT- where certain women are identified as widows without their introducing themselves as such. In the foregone days, widows in some societies were mandated to have a dress code, say white in colour, rough in texture and modest in appearance. It was more of a voluntary practice than of a compulsory requirement . My question is : According to Bible historians, did the widows of Israel have a mandatory or voluntary dress code ?

The Apostle Paul said, "All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." (2 Tim 3:16-17 HCSB) Now, I am aware of the canonization of the New Testament. This was done some 300 plus years after these letters were written. Now, some of these letters do contain scripture references in them but to call them the word of God. I don't think that was the intent of the writers. Why do scholars today say that the whole Bible is the word of God?

For reference, here's Luke 13:28, ESV: > In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God but you yourselves cast out. All remaining references to the place of weeping and gnashing of teeth leads to the idea that "that place" is hell. References are as follows: >Matthew 8:12 > >But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” >Matthew 13:42 > >They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. >Matthew 13:50 > >and throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. >Matthew 22:13 > >“Then the king told the attendants, ‘Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ >Matthew 24:51 > >He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. >Matthew 25:30 > >And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’