There is a religious group that believes that angels were pre-existent as humans. While researching the Scriptures to refute that, I found this quote, which confirms what I personally found in my own study: >Though the doctrine of angels holds an important place in the Word of God, it is often viewed as a difficult subject because, while there is abundant mention of angels in the Bible, the nature of this revelation is without the same kind of explicit description we often find with other subjects developed in the Bible: Every reference to angels is incidental to some other topic. They are not treated in themselves. God’s revelation never aims at informing us regarding the nature of angels. https://bible.org/article/angelology-doctrine-angels I didn't find anything of usefulness to this topic in the OT. This is what I found so far in the NT, with why I think the verses address the nature of angels: Matt. 13:38-39: "The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels." This is about the final judgement, of all the men on earth. How can the angels, then, be the reapers? Matt. 16:27 "For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works." This implies that the angels are a separate class of creation than man. Matt. 22:30 "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." This says they are as the angels in heaven: that is, *like* them, not that they *become* them. Matt. 24:36 "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only." This is saying no man knows, no angel knows, only the Father knows, differentiating the beings. Luke 12:9 "But he that denieth me before men shall be denied before the angels of God." Luke 20:36 "Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection." equal unto - become *like* angels, not *become* angels. 1 Cor. 4:9 "For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men." 1 Cor. 6:3 "Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?" Indeed, many believe that man will ultimately be higher than the angels. Two separate orders of creation. Heb. 2:16: "For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham." 2 different natures. Jude 1:6 "And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day." Kept not their first estate. Not their second estate. Now my question: since the OT really didn't address, as far as I could see (and I welcome anyone else's findings), I wondered if, and what, the ancient Jewish scholars wrote about concerning the nature of angels. They might have been privy to lost documents, or just understood the Hebrew differently than we do today. I am not looking for denominational positions, just really information that any OT or ancient religious history scholars on this site might have. Thanks.

In the book of Genesis, Adam speaks directly with God—receiving commands, instructions, and even judgments. This kind of divine communication is often associated with the role of a prophet throughout the Bible. Yet, Adam is not explicitly called a prophet in Scripture, nor is he commonly regarded as one in most Christian traditions. Why is that the case? Does the biblical or theological definition of a prophet involve more than just direct communication with God—such as delivering God's message to others, foretelling future events, or leading a covenant community? I’d appreciate perspectives from Scripture, early Church Fathers, and major Christian traditions.

UPDATE and Final question: **Genesis 17:13**: > He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. **Isaiah 56:6-7**: > Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; > > Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people. NEW................................................. The question - After trying to understand all this I figured out the question what it should be - Are strangers / sojourners that are serving the Lord in the Old Testament saved by not being circumcisioned and only obeying the rules dedicated for the sojourners and not the children of Israel. If someone knows the answer let me know. Thanks in advance. OLD ------------------------------------------------------------ The question: Does the rules for the sojourners in the Old Testament - save the pagan sojourners and if yes or no - does this make them part of the Old covenant? Is was thinking if the Isaiah 56:6-7 is relevant for the pagan sojourners? - I don't think that it necessarily mean that the pagan sojourners have chosed to serve God and without circumcision they can be saved. More then one "?" but related to one question. **Background:** How are the rules for the sojourners in the Old Testament? They are not necessarily servants of God right? They could be pagan sojourners? - uncircumcised without being part of the Old Covenant? If they are pagan sojourners that are not serving God as contrary to Isaiah 56:6-7 (where strangers have chosed to serve God and I believe they are circumcised? Genesis 17:13), but the sojourners that are just passing the land of the Jews, according to the Old Covenant would they be saved by the rules for the sojourners back in the Old Covenant without them being circumcised? In the Old Covenant could there be servants of God without being circumcised and be saved? Could a person back in the days of the Old Covenant be part of the Old Covenant without being circumcised? I am asking this questions since there is a person that is applying to himself the rules for the sojourners from the Old Covenant probably without him being circumcised, but observing the sabbath - probably saying that this saves a person when part of the New Covenant. These rules for the sojourners were they not rules for pagan sojourners too that did not serve God, and how could they be saved in the Old Testament days, if they did not serve God, and how possibly these rules could help a person to be saved in the New Testament since these rules did not save the sojourners in the Old Testament? I am not sure if you understand what I mean. I am not familiar so much with the Old Testament this is why I ask here this question. I am not sure if I am wrong somewhere please let me know if I have wrongly understood the rules for the sojourners or anything else. With my current understanding and knowledge this above sounds strange to me. I think that if a person even not a Jew wanted to be saved in the days of the Old Testament must have been under the Old Covenant circumcised observing all the customs, not only the rules for the sojourners? Thanks in advance.

In 2 Samuel 12:23, David says about his deceased infant son: >*"But now that he is dead, why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me." (ESV)* Many Christians interpret this as David expressing confidence that he would see his child again in the afterlife. This is often cited as evidence that infants who die are in God’s care and go to heaven. - Does it imply that children who die before reaching an age of moral accountability are saved? - Is David speaking about the afterlife or merely about joining his son in the grave? I'd appreciate perspectives from different theological traditions, especially Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox interpretations.

I understand that from the perspective of those who take the Bible literally, the global flood took place about 2400 B.C. and that the world began about 4000 B.C., giving 1600 years of human population growth. So, what was the estimated population at the time of the flood? In other words, how many people incurred the judgment of God in the flood? Please answer according to the perspective of those who take the Bible literally and historically.

The final words of the Book of Haggai are: > The word of the Lord came a second time to Haggai on the twenty-fourth > day of the month, “Speak to Zerub′babel, governor of Judah, saying, I > am about to shake the heavens and the earth, and to overthrow the > throne of kingdoms; I am about to destroy the strength of the kingdoms > of the nations, and overthrow the chariots and their riders; and the > horses and their riders shall go down, every one by the sword of his > fellow. On that day, says the Lord of hosts, I will take you, O > Zerub′babel my servant, the son of She-al′ti-el, says the Lord, and > make you like a signet ring; for I have chosen you, says the Lord of > hosts.” The reference to being chosen as God's "signet ring" at least evokes a sense that the prophet predicted a restoration of royal authority approved by God (see Jeremiah 22:24). Zerubbabel was a descendant of King David and the grandson of one of Judah's last kings. Given his lineage and the powerful words of promise above, is Haggai expressing a messianic hope in Zerubbabel? (Note: I mean this in the sense of the Jewish messiah, who restores the throne of David, not the Christian sense, in which the messiah dies for the sins of mankind.) Related questions: whether or not this is a messianic prophecy, why does it seem it was not fulfilled. Were there events in Zerubbabel's time that fulfilled the prophecy? In what sense did he become God's "signet ring?"

In the Old Testament, we can see several places that portray God as the most gracious and the most merciful. However, when God accompanied the Israelites to their promised land, he said that he would destroy the seven nations of that area (Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Hivites, and Jebusites) so that the Israelites could take their place. Why does God love the Israelites so much that he can also show his mercy and love to all the other nations and people he created? Are only Israelites entitled to his love, and not modern-day Christians who follow the teachings of Jesus Christ? If not, then why did Jesus say he came to fulfill the laws of Moses? (In Matthew 5:17, Jesus says, "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.") Are other people not worthy of God's love?

A week ago I was reading Matthew, and at Mt 2:15 and 2:17 he write about Old Testament prophecies. Searching for it, maybe in Jeremiah, I read something like *'**we must be cautious reading the Holy Scriptures because prophets can make mistakes**'*. I found it a beautiful message, but at the time, when I was searching for the prophecy referenced by Matthew, I don't pay too much attention to it, and today I'm not able to find it again. Can someone point me the location of some versicle that could be that?

What does teaching morality result in?

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

In Genesis 19, Lot is rescued from Sodom before its destruction by fire and brimstone. In 2 Peter 2:7–8, Lot is described as a righteous man living among the wicked. Given this, I’m wondering how Christian theology interprets Lot’s story in light of salvation and judgment themes. - Is Lot considered a "type" or symbol of the Christian believer, who is saved from judgment? - Is the fire and brimstone that destroyed Sodom seen as a foreshadowing or symbolic representation of hell? - Does this event function in any way like substitutionary judgment, or is it purely a direct act of divine justice? - How is Lot’s wife understood theologically—as a warning to believers who long for or look back to the sinful life they’ve left behind (cf. Luke 17:32)? I’m looking for insight into how theologians or biblical scholars interpret the parallels between this Old Testament narrative and New Testament themes of salvation and final judgment

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.

In providing this answer with respect to recognizing the Trinity in the Old Testament, I noticed that Jesus is called the Father which could be confusing when trying to understand the Trinity. **In what sense is Jesus the Father but certainly not the Father?** >For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, **Everlasting Father**, Prince of Peace. (NIV Isaiah 9:6) **Please do not answer unless your answers uphold the doctrine of the Trinity**. I do not want the debate about the trinity to confuse the question. The answer must assume the Trinity is true, that is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are equal yet different persons that share the same single divine nature and therefore are called the One and true God.

I am wondering if there are any statements in the Old Testament which either: A) Foretell a time when the Law of Moses will be abrogated (in the way Christ does in the NT) or B) States that some of the Laws within Deuteronomy were given for the 'Hardness of Heart', as Jesus claims - or some paraphrase of that idea. Notes: I am Catholic, so I'll accept any references coming from Deuterocanonical books. The Laws I am most concerned about are the usual controversial ones which seem to our modern outlook violent or less than perfect.

After the death of Solomon the nation of Israel divided into two: the northern kingdom ruled by Jeroboam, which was called Israel, and the southern kingdom ruled by Rehoboam, which was called Judah. The reign lengths and regnal data in I and II Kings seemed and seem entirely confused. No Bible student could arrive at a credible explanation of the data until the 20th century. The first one was Valerius Coucke: in the 1920s he came up with a solution to the problems of what appeared conflicting data in the reign lengths of the kings. Unfortunately, because he published in French, his work went largely unnoticed in the English speaking world. In the 1950s Dr Edwin Thiele published the fruits of his doctorate, "Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings". Later, Rodger Young slightly modified Edwin Thiele's results, in consequence of which the work of Valerius Coucke and ET/RY are in agreement, and both now place the Exodus from Egypt in 1446 BC. It is this consensus chronology which is used in Andrew Steinmann's "From Abraham to Paul - a Biblical Chronology". Both systems rely on interpretting some of the data so that reign-lengths are measured using years starting in Tishri, while other reign-lengths are measured from Nisan. My question is, what is the evidence that the recorders of the reigns in I and II Kings are sometimes using years beginning in Tishri? Does this evidence exist, or can the data be interpretted without needing to use years starting in Tishri?

James writing to Jews, seems to ignore the value of wisdom literature: >If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him. (James 1:15 ESV) Later he gives a more detailed description of wisdom from above: >13 Who is wise and understanding among you? By his good conduct let him show his works in the meekness of wisdom. 14 But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast and be false to the truth. 15 This is not the wisdom that comes down from above, but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic. 16 For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice. 17 But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere. 18 And a harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace. (James 3) With the detailed explanation of wisdom in mind, the earlier statement, *if any of you lacks wisdom* seems rhetorical. Of course, everyone lacks the type of wisdom James describes. So everyone should realize this condition and ask God. Paul makes a similar distinction between the wisdom of God: >For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. (1 Corinthians 1:21) Paul is explicit, the world did not know God through wisdom. He continues making clear he is speaking of the Gospel which is foolishness to the Greek who seek wisdom (Corinthians 1:22-30). Therefore, in contrast to Judaism who would find wisdom in wisdom books, such as Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, the Christian whose access to God by the Spirit in the name of Jesus, would ask God. How should Christians value the relevance of Old Testament wisdom books?

There is much in scripture concerning the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple and of the city walls, and carrying more Jews into captivity. (e.g. 2 Kings 25:1-19; 2 Chron 36:18-19; Jeremiah 39, 52:7-25; Ezekiel 24:1-2, 26:1-2, 30:20-21, 33:21, 40:1). A previous question was not interested in whether it was 586 or 587 but merely sought to compare either 586 or 587 BC with the Watchtower date of 607 BC for the destruction of the Temple. This question asks: Was Jerusalem captured and the Temple destroyed in 586 BC or in 587 BC?

Who do Catholics believe that God put in charge of Judaism in the Old Covenant? I assume they believe that there was someone in charge with continuity from the time of Moses to Christ and that they know who this was, or do they believe that it perhaps wasn't as cut and dried as in the New Covenant with the Papacy? I am a bit confused because I have heard a number of figures mentioned such as the Sanhedrin, judge (Dt. 17:9), priesthood, High Priest, etc. Two things to consider are that Moses was not a priest (not a Levitical one at any rate) and that presumably whoever Mt. 23:2 is talking about weren't priests either, although perhaps they sort of depended on the priests in some way.

In Ezekiel chapter 4 the prophet was instructed to lie on his left side for 390 days, a day for each year of the sin of Israel, and then to lie on his right side for 40 days for the sin of Judah. What historical period is being referred to here? When did the 390 years begin and end? Also for the 40 year period, when did it begin and end?

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?