[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.

Possible ways to understand "***virginity***" : - Some people may define it as no sexual event whatsoever. - Some may define as not having intercourse with a male. - Some may define it as not participating in any intimate acts with a male. - Some may define it as an intact hymen. I have a problem with the last one, since a lot of girls are not born with a hymen, or the hymen can be damaged in sports activities. I can't see a logical reason to think that the Blessed mother was definitely born with one or didn't damage it with non sexual physical activity. **So, what exactly does the Catholic Church mean by the "Virginity" of Mary?**

"Crossing the Tiber" / "Swimming the Tiber" have come to be the shorthand term for converting to Roman Catholicism, as well as "Swimming/Crossing the Thames" for converting to Anglicanism. (source [*Wikipedia*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiber#History)) I wonder whether there are swimming/crossing bodies of water related terms for conversion between other branches of Christianity, especially to/from Eastern Orthodoxy? How about for conversion among Protestant branches?

### Background Early (pre Protestant Reformation) Christian writers from the 1st through 5th centuries like St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Jerome, and others seem to have universally condemned usury and defined it as charging any interest on loans, not merely excessive or extortionate rates. St. Ambrose of Milan (4th c.) explicitly stated the classic definition: > “Food too is usury and clothing is usury, and **whatever is added to the capital is usury**. Whatever name you wish to put upon it, it is usury” St. Augustine (late 4th–early 5th c.) likewise defined a usurer as anyone who expects back more than he lent : > "If thou hast given the loan of thy money to one from whom thou dost expect to receive something more than thou hast given; not in money only, but anything... **if you expect to receive more than you have given, you are an usurer**, and in this are not deserving of praise, but of censure." ### Question The practice of usury has had a mixed history in the Christian Church. How do modern Protestants define it, and do they still believe it is a sin? And what do they base their definition on? For example, is usury the collection of interest at any rate on a loan? Is it the collection of excessive interest?

Most mainstream Christian denominations refer to Christ as having a "glorified body" and teach that saved humans will have glorified bodies in the afterlife. The concept seems to be based on **Philippians 3:20–21**: > For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: > > Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his **glorious body**, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself. The word "glorious" is an adjective, meaning: "*having, worthy of, or bringing fame or admiration*", or "*having a striking beauty or splendor that evokes feelings of delighted admiration*". It is used casually, without further explanation, yet today the term seems to be used quite freely in many publications, as if everyone understands that it means something very specific and very different from the basic meaning of that adjective. For instance, [*A Glorified Body: The Necessity of Our Resurrection*](https://www.gty.org/blogs/B130701/a-glorified-body-the-necessity-of-our-resurrection#:~:text=They%20will%20be%20real,and%20glorified.) says that glorified bodies: > will be real, physical, genuinely human bodies — the very same bodies we have while on this earth—yet wholly perfected and glorified. What exactly is the definition of "glorified body", and what is the origin of this term, the concept and doctrine that it will be physical? --- Note that I'm not asking for what scriptures are consistent with this belief, I'm asking for the history of its development.

The term 'substitutionary atonement' has been used within Trinitarian, Protestant, Reformed Baptist circles for some time, and it is those I wish to examine in this question. But the word 'substitute' does not translate a Greek word found in scripture, nor does the term 'atonement'. The word 'atonement' is found once in the KJV, Romans 5:11, but it is a clear mis-translation of the word καταλλαγην, *katallagen*, in all other places rendered 'reconciliation'. Both words are vague in meaning. Nor does 'substitute' or 'substitution' convey a concept that the apostolic epistles express, the emphasis of the doctrine of Christ being union with Christ (in his sufferings, in his death and in his resurrection) rather than some kind of 'exchange' (another word never found in Greek except μετηλλαξαν, *metellazan*, in Romans 1:26). The word 'atonement' has a weak etymology and an ill-defined concept, its meaning a loose 'at-one' derivation and its application being a very general and overall term for the both the sufferings and death and resurrection of Christ that is never found in the greater precision of the apostolic writings. What exactly is being conveyed by the term ? When was the expression first coined ? What error was being resisted by the introduction of this couplet ? Again, I am looking for a response in regard to Trinitarian, Protestant, Reformed and Baptist usage of the terminology. -------------------------- EDIT upon comment : I believe that 'Christ died for our sins, according to the scriptures'. I believe that 'Christ gave his life a ransom for many'. I believe that 'He bare our sins in his own body on the tree'. I believe that 'he was made sin for us, who knew no sin'. But the scripture never uses the word 'substitute' to express that. I am questioning the terminology, not the doctrine of Christ. Further explanatory EDIT : My concern has always been the *emphasis*. If I have no relationship with Christ, if I am not in union with Him, if I know not his presence before my face when I pray, then *the facts* of his sufferings, death and resurrection are just that - historical facts. The terms 'substitute' and 'exchange' are distant terms. But kinsman-redeemer, for example, (*gaal* in Hebrew) conveys a relationship that exists *before the redemption takes place*, (see the book of Ruth, on this). And one is chosen 'in Christ' (not apart from him) before the foundation of the world. These are my concerns and the reason for my question.

Is **Hebron** referred to **Hebrew**? In **Genesis 39:17** → *The Hebrew Servant* → Here Joseph is called as a Hebrew. So this is my understanding that → Joseph's great grandfather Abraham was from Hebron → referred to Hebrews → often used with Israelites. It's usually refers to the descents of Abraham. **Hebrew** is → geographical reference whereas **Israelite** is → lineage reference Please correct me if I am wrong.

I have heard the term "Lordship Salvation" several times now, including in an answer I read recently. Can anyone explain to me what this is? Is this the official position of any major churches? Is this a term only used by critics of the view? (Like "easy believism" or "cafeteria Christianity" - terms nobody would actually associate ***themselves*** with!)

During much of the 20th century "Fundamentalism" was serious movement in Christianity. According to Britannica: > The term fundamentalist was coined in 1920 to describe conservative > Evangelical Protestants who supported the principles expounded in The > Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth (1910–15), a series of 12 > pamphlets that attacked modernist theories of biblical criticism and > reasserted the authority of the Bible. Fundamentalism affirmed principles such as biblical inerrancy and the truth of Christian doctrines such as the Trinity, the incarnation, physical resurrection, the rapture and the Second Coming. It grew up in particular opposition to modernist ideas like Evolution, in the wake of Scopes "Monkey Trial." It also became influential in politics through movements such as Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority. It seems to me, however, that the term has fallen out of favor, especially as a result of Islamic fundamentalism and its terrorist political ramifications. Indeed, I found only two questions in this entire site with titles including the word "fundamentalism" or "fundamentalist." Questions: Do fundamentalists, still use that term to describe themselves? Would it be offensive these days to call an anti-modernist Evangelical Christian a "fundamentalist?"

"Sanctified Unity Ecclesiology" was a phrase used in a couple of comments on Stack about seven years ago. One person asked what the O.P. meant by it. The response was that it is a name given for the pursuit of attaining Christian unity, while seeking to harmonize divergent views. In the OPs question there were answers with premillennial and dispensational views (which has nothing to do with this question here). The OP was happy to consider both them and amillennial and non-dispensational views. Sanctified Unity Ecclesiology was said to be one of “various tools of interpretation for understanding the scriptures.” Searching on-line only brought up links and books on the doctrine of ecclesiology and the doctrine of sanctification. I found nothing about “the pursuit of attaining Christian unity while seeking to harmonise divergent views.” Can anyone explain what this, as a title, has sprung from, and how it is used as a tool to interpret the Bible, plus whether there are any particular denominations involved in this? There is a p.d.f. with this link from a newsletter giving a review of a book on Early Holiness-Pentecostalism 1880-1909 by Joseph L. Thomas, "Perfect Harmony". The review gives that very phrase. https://urbanatheologicalseminary.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/201409-The-Flame.pdf Thanks to Grateful Disciple for providing this.

Encounters with God (the Father) are called *Theophanies*, encounters with Jesus are called *Christophanies*, but what about encounters with the Holy Spirit? Is there a specific term for an encounter with the third person of the Trinity? **Note**: by encounter, I mean any sort of self-authenticating experience through which a supernatural being makes its existence or presence known, obvious and clear (i.e. reveals itself) to a person. _____ Related: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/86291/50422

It is common to associate Abraham as "father of the faith" and the first Jew. However, since Abram's family came from the land of Ur, isn't it more accurate to say that he wasn't a Jew but - in reality - a Babylonian that **became** a Jew because of his faith in God? This is open for answer by all denominations. I would like to hear their thoughts on the matter.

If Moses was of the tribe of Levi from both parents Exodus 2:1-3, and he never lived in Judah/Judea, in what way was he a Jew/Judean G2453 or "Jewish"? I have an understanding based on crystal clear scripture, and I've been told it's a false interpretation, so I am here looking for actual experts who can offer sound scholarship. Any takers?

I was wondering what the different names of the various hours mean in the liturgy of the hours? Where did they come from and what is their significance? They sound badass, but it would be nice to know why they are called what they are called. The hours: - Matins - Prime - Lauds - Terce - Sext - None - Vespers - Compline (I have a hunch that "None" is etymologically related to the english word "noon", seeing as this hour is prayed close to noon)

I was watching a well-known sermon by Paul Washer: ***[Shocking Youth Message (2002) | Paul Washer | HeartCry Missionary Society](https://youtu.be/HkPFv7v9CkY?t=1902)*** . At minute 31:42, Paul Washer says: > Brother Paul, it’s absolutely absurd. It is impossible, Brother Paul, to have an **encounter** with something as large as a logging truck and not be changed. > > And then my question would be to you: **What is larger—a logging truck, or God?** > > How is it that so many people today profess to have had an **encounter with Jesus Christ**, and yet they are not permanently changed? So my questions are: - What does Paul Washer mean by an "encounter with God" or "encounter with Jesus Christ"? How is this different from a "false" encounter with no lasting impact? - What is the scriptural support for the idea of having such "encounters"?

In common parlance, prophecy is often considered to be "predicting the future." For some, it conjures up images of telephone psychics and the like. Others might envision a crystal ball. It generally has a mystical connotation of some type. On the other hand, the "prophets" of Scripture (e.g. Malachi, Habakkuk, Jonah) seem to be doing something different. Making explicit predictions about the future seems to be a small part of their function as a "prophet." So my question is: **Biblically speaking, what exactly is prophecy?** Is there a Biblical definition that matches the actual practices of the prophets? ------ *If possible, please support your answers using the 66 books of Scripture that are found in the Protestant Bible.*

When I medidate on the Passion of Christ, I end up falling into the same doubts about the atonement, which I want to ask. The Catholic Church denies the penal substitutionary atonement, i.e. the notion Jesus presented himself before the Father so that He may be punished in our behalf. Instead, to atone for an offense is to offer to the offended something that he love equally or even more than he hated the offense, and so, because sin is an offense to God, the Church teaches that the sacrifice of Christ to the Father is this offering on our behalf, which, in virtue of Christ being the Son of God, is more pleasing to the Father than the whole collective of sin of human kind. Furthermore, the suffering, crucifixion and death of our Lord were meritorious of all grace to us, this making sense of the seven sacraments, the sacramentals and the spiritual authority of binding and losing of the Church. **My question:** I admit that my doubts, and thus my question, is half driven by emotions. My doubt is this: "Sacrifice" in more general therms can just mean offering for the sake of the one to whom we offer, e.g. I can offer to God my time in prayer and meditation, or my intellect in faith, or my will in obedience, for the sake that He is God, is the ultimate object of my desire. Then why did it needed for Christ sacrifice be in the sense of given His life to suffer and die on the cross, and not just an offering of Himself in this less bloodsheded way? I know that God could save us in any other way for Her is omnipotent, and that He choosed the cross because He thought of it as the fittest way. However, on this I reach another face of my doubt, i.e. when Christ was on the Getsemani He said: > Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me, but not as I will but as You will. Implying that His death on the cross was of the will of the Father. So, how then the Father pleases in the sacrifice of His Son that He wills? For, when I imagine my son sacrificing for the sake of another, I truly understand and can't help but to love my son for it, but not as my son sacrificing himself for the sake of my will. Again, this is half driven feelings, but these often get in the way of my spiritual life so I thought of getting rid of these. I appreciate any comment, and God bless.

In trying to understand various trinitarians theologians like Karl Rahner/Karl Barth, the concept of "subsisting" often comes up. I'm really not sure what to make of it, initially I imagined it means (because of the "sub" prefix) what is the substance something is made of, or more likely a quality of an entity that exists within. But I'm really trying to wrap my head around what's the difference between saying: 1. There's one God who subsists in three persons 2. There are three persons who subsist in one God. Does the first affirm that there really is only one God, as in one person, who inside lives as three? And then the second to mean that there really are three distinct persons, but who inside live as one? Because my trinitarian theology is more western, I'd appreciate (and I've tagged this question) for Catholics and Protestants – as, again, that's what I'd wish for – but Eastern-Orthodox are also welcomed to respond as long as they keep my background in mind.

Recent personal experiences have made a close relative question their Christian beliefs to a far extent. They still believe in the possibility of an all-knowing God but question specific characteristics of Protestant-Christianity such as Priesthood. They strongly believe every Christian should have equal and direct access to God, preferring to align towards agnosticism. From the perspective of protestant-catholicism (Anglicanism) can this individual be said to be an unbeliever?

Below are several excerpts from Christian websites that discuss the idea of "paying the price" in a spiritual context: > God is a God of process. The major problem with this generation is that men are not ready to **pay the price** to have spiritual power and experiences. But the truth is, if it is genuine, there will be **a price attached to it**. Jesus told the disciples in Luke 24:49 to tarry in Jerusalem until they were endued with power from on high. So, where did you get the version of your divine power without divine process? **Anything valuable always has a price tag**. If you see anything that is valuable, that is cheap, it is either somebody paid for it, or it is stolen. **Authentic power has a price tag**. > > There is a **price you will have to pay** to walk in the authentic power of God. If you see a man that works in supposed power and you don’t see a price in his life, it’s false power he’s working with. The man that God will work with must **pay the price** for spiritual experiences. Specific callings and specific anointing call for specific **prices that we must constantly be paying**. May the Lord find you dependable to carry His power these last days. > > https://spiritmeat.net/2024/06/22/22-june-2024-the-price-for-spiritual-power-and-spiritual-experiences-pay-it-mark-314/ > Every day we need to be watchful by **paying the price to buy the Spirit as the golden oil** so that we may supply the churches with the Spirit for the testimony of Jesus and be rewarded by the Lord to participate in the marriage dinner of the Lamb. > > Our urgent need today is to gain more of the Spirit; we need to live a life of **buying** an extra portion of the Spirit to saturate our entire being. > > Day by day we need to live such a life, a life of **paying the price** to gain the Spirit not only in our spirit but also in our soul, being saturated with the Spirit in our vessel. If we have a day when we don’t **pay the price** to gain the saturating Spirit, that is a wasted day; we do not want to have any wasted days! > > For us to gain more of the Spirit in our soul we need to **pay a price**; we need to **pay the price** of giving up the world, dealing with the self, loving the Lord above all things, and counting all things loss for Christ. > > Day by day we need to **pay the price** of losing our soul life and denying the things that we want to do so that we may pray more, even persevere in prayer and watch unto prayer, so that we may gain more of the Spirit. > > If we don’t **pay the price to buy the oil today**, we will have to pay it after we are resurrected; sooner or later, we will have to **pay the price** – so why not today, why not in this age? > > https://agodman.com/paying-price-buy-spirit-oil-vessel-word-prayer/ > The wise virgins told the foolish virgins to go buy their own oil. When the Bible speaks of the oil, it refers to the Holy Spirit. You may ask, “But, how is it possible to buy the Holy Spirit?” > > Jesus is referring to a person having to **pay the price**, which means denying their will, obeying the Word of God, being faithful, sacrificing and keeping constant watch. > > All those who truly want the presence of God should be aware that **there is a price to pay**. The wise virgins, certainly, **paid the price** (sacrificed) with the time they waited for the bridegroom. Surely, they prepared themselves by investing in their spiritual lives through prayer, fasts, consecration and surrender, not allowing the light of the Spirit to burn out. > > On the other hand, there are those who aren’t willing to **pay that price**. They live according to their fleshly desires, refuse to stop living in sin, are in the church but far from God, have the lamp, which is faith, but don’t have the oil, which is the Holy Spirit. > > https://www.universal.org/en/bispo-macedo/pay-the-price/ Is the idea of "paying the price" for greater spiritual power, anointing, or a deeper experience of God a common teaching across all Christian denominations, or is it emphasized primarily within certain groups? For example, is it widely taught that Christians must *pay a price* to receive more of the Spirit, more anointing, or greater spiritual authority? What is the biblical basis for this teaching?