So I'm guessing The Resurrection of Jesus refers to his physical body, where did he go after? Did he ascend into Heaven?

There is this book that is about the history of a bunch of religions and the paperback is blue and white with a pyramid on it or something ?? I think it’s starts with an a not too sure lol sorry this is so vague

>“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;

with painful labor you will give birth to children.

Your desire will be for your husband,

and he will rule over you.”

Now most women are going to see relationships as transactional, trying to seek the most competent male.

"He will rule over you" will make women more picky. It should inspire fear in the once equal with Adam, Eve? Who wants to be ruled by the poor, stupid, bad character male or the mediocre?

>“Cursed is the ground because of you;

through painful toil you will eat food from it

all the days of your life.

18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,

and you will eat the plants of the field.

19 By the sweat of your brow

you will eat your food

until you return to the ground,

since from it you were taken;

for dust you are

and to dust you will return.”

Now, most men have to work hard to support a woman and themselves who thinks the relationship is a shortchanged/bad one.

If I'm not seeing this correctly, why not?

I am not a religious person by any means. I have self-described as an atheist since adolescence, but the lore associated with the bible and the general history of religious development in Southwest Asia is something I am interested in.

Do you think I would benefit academically from reading the bible, or are there other texts which would fulfill my desire more effectively?

If the policy Trump implements leads to the construction of the third temple does that make him the Messiah?

I am a Christian who has been going through what most would call deconstruction though I personally wouldn't use that term.

Lately I have been thinking about Christianity in relation to other faiths. For a long time I held the belief that Christ has the fullness of truth specifically while other religions likely can reach God in some way. However I can't rest in this conclusion because it feels intellectually dishonest. I am sure many people of other faiths would say the same thing but for their faith instead.

So because of this I am feeling like I am being intellectually dishonest for being a Christian instead of a more pluralistic faith like Bahai or just general Thiest. That being said I also don't believe every religion is equally valid because some claims between faiths cannot both be true. Though I would personally say that I find faiths like Hinduism to be much more valid than say scientology or Mormonism even.

How have you dealt with this problem in your life?

What if I said I believe in God but I don't believe in the Bible because it was written by man?

I'm not sure this is the best place to ask so forgive me if I'm off base, but how do Christians justify violence when it comes down to kill or be killed? If all people are deserving of love and forgiveness how do you biblically justify self defense? Thanks in advance.

If our morals are a sense of right and wrong, does/should the event be a thing to reference or interpret? Per my moral compass, enslavement is wrong, as is infanticide. But if one is righteous comeuppance for the other, what's proportionally equal as response to genocide?

I’d like clarification on why the Catholic Church is so different and has expectations of believers to atone for sins that, from my understanding as a relatively new Christian, Jesus forgave with his blood as the blemish-less sacrificial lamb. And now through grace only will humans, in our imperfect nature and flesh that sins, be forgiven and no longer required to go to a temple, go through a middle man like a priest or perform a sacrifice to please God, be connected to God and be a follower of Christ.

Do Catholics interpret the tearing of the veil differently, or why Jesus was sacrificed? Why do they have this hierarchy and give power to the leaders, like the Pope and Archdiocese? And praying to saints instead of God? Not trying to critique Catholicism or say it’s flawed, just trying to understand how it came to be so complex and seems to function more like OT Judaism instead of NT Christianity in practice and structure.

I don't think all Abrahamic faiths do include belief in a literal devil, and obviously those that do don't consider it to be a god. But on a definitional level, how is Satan different from a pagan deity? He's supposed to be an extremely powerful supernatural being, and many Christians believe that you can worship the devil to get magic powers. It seems to me that he's functioning exactly the same way as any other deity, he just happens to be evil and less powerful than the good one. But there are lots of deities in polytheism that are malevolent and less powerful than others.

I seem to remember that there is a word specifically referring to the semi-eternal or semi-immortal nature of the soul, that it has a beginning but no end. Unlike God who is eternal properly speaking, having no beginning and no end. I don't think it was aveternal, which is what I keep finding when I try to search for it, as that refers to something else, a particular perspective of time.

Is there such a word, and if so, I would greatly appreciate if someone could tell me what it was?

Thank you!

My girlfriend is an atheist, and I fear that if she were to die she wouldn’t make it to heaven. Could she still make it as an atheist?

I'm not sure if I'm wording this properly.

I'm no longer Christian exactly, but I was raised in a very liberal UCC church. I was taught that the point of Christianity was to or learn how to be loving, compassionate, etc. Basically, I was taught to look up to Jesus because of that message of universal, radical love. That's what "The Word" meant.

But later I learned that many (perhaps most) Christians don't see things that way. They look up to Jesus because of divine authority and would follow anything God allegedly said regardless of the content, on the basis of authority alone.

Now, the perspective I learned still centered divinity as a moral authority, but the assumption was that an ultimate moral authority would promote compassion. Stories where God was cruel were therefore assumed to be myth (or what they referred to as "stories of truth" in contrast to "true stories".) So, Jesus was still looked up to because of divinity, but divinity was defined by compassion rather than by authority, and if something wasn't compassionate or had bad consequences then this was evidence that it wasn't God's will. This was also the justification for changing with the times and being progressive, with the common refrain, "God is still speaking," meaning that there's always room for new interpretation and growth.

Anyway sorry for the lengthy post, I wasn't sure how to condense it. Basically I'm wondering if there is a word distinguishing these two approaches? I'm also curious how far back in history the approach I learned goes?

Like intentional vs unintentional, mortal versus venial, willful versus doing so out of weakness, persistent and habitual versus occasional.

Could it be that God let evil exist so that humans can participate in creating the world by removing evil? Are there any theologians who wrote about this idea?

Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.—Romans 10:4

It seems like requiring belief is a law. I'm a believer who gets stuck on these kinds of verses.

I'm finishing up my Masters in Theological Studies and already have a BA in Religious Studies specializing in Christian Tradition. I want to be able to teach graduate courses in both systematic theology (Doctrine of Creation, Theological Anthropology, and History of Modern Systematic and Constructive Theology) and Comparative Religious Thought (Evangelical and Liberation theologies in the late 20th century to the contemporary period). It seems like in order to be able to teach both subjects at the Graduate level I would need a second PhD. The programs I am applying to don't enable for a joint PhD in Systematics and Religious studies and I am location restricted because of my partners job within a city government. The closest I've been able to find would be a Joint PhD in Philosophy and Religion where I focus my dissertation on the Religious Epistemology employed upon Theological Anthropology in the two different streams of Christian thought I want to compare.

I do not need a second PhD for academic or niche specific training to do research as I am already starting to have some abstracts and smaller papers be well received by my colleagues and will hopefully have my first formal publication in 2025-2026 range.

I'm strictly asking about whether or not a second PhD would be necessary to take on PhD students in both systematics and comparative religious thought.

DId Jesus think Heaven could be a place on Earth the more we step into Christ consciousness, or was he talking about Heaven as a place we go after we die if we step into our Godliness enough on Earth?

Why is it that the OT (e.g. Lev 26:40-44) and the NT (Matt 6:12) refers to the forgiveness of sin merely based on repentance, without the need for blood/death, and yet other verses in the NT make it a requirement?

People often interpret it as God's response to people's arrogance or threat to overthrow him. It's funny, because nothing in the chapter seems to support this view. All it says that one day people got together and, looking to make a name for themselves, built a city and a tower to stand out. God said that lest they become too powerful and nothing is no longer possible for them , let us confuse their languages and scatter them across the earth. Why did God want people to "fill the earth" at expense of their unity? Does it have anything to do with making way for Israel as a nation to be set aside?

My father and mother are 84 years old and have never taken the time to read the Bible, a few days ago my mother saw a documentary and understood what Islam and Judaism meant, so she convinced my father to catch up with the Bible but unfortunately they don't know how to start reading it, we were never attached to the Christian religion which is the predominant one here so I don't know how to consume it either.

First I would like to clarify that we really have no knowledge of other religions outside of Protestant Christianity which is known for removing or decanonizing several biblical texts, so to avoid this, I would really like to find a way to read the entire biblical story regardless of whether they are apocryphal or canonical texts, books of Islam, Catholic or Jewish like the Torah and its differences that include touches of magic? Which are not in other religions as far as I know, I have also heard that prayers, names and words have been censored over the years, such as the words that must be said to the "toll collectors" at the time of dying that Christ mentioned and the church censored or according to what I read, the elimination of the name of God in most current Bibles, so the ideal is to read it without this censorship, in the most original way possible, I also read that a certain extremely erroneous translation, which takes texts from the New and Old Testament and distorts and changes them consciously, began to be reproduced in the 17th century and that today it is the most well-known and popular, I also know that now certain biblical texts are beginning to be translated that had not been found before, so it would not be bad to have a book that translates those texts.

I’ve been doing some research on my own and found that one of the best translations was the KJV, however it does not include certain apocryphal texts such as Enoch, which I consider crucial today, has this version also been censored? By removing all the apocryphal texts in its recent version, or for example the version: The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha: New Revised Standard Version, which although it includes the apocryphal texts, they are molded into a form of writing that makes it seem like God does not exist. This is most noticeable in the footnotes, which state things like “the serpent was crafty” for bringing civilization to the world, poor translation, etc., making it difficult to search in a sea that seems dead. I don't mind spending a few thousand dollars to buy several Bibles that contain only the texts that the churches consider canonical (which I read was over 100, then 74, then 66, and finally I think 33) and then buying each text if it is for my parents and what appears to be their last wish to be entrusted to me.

People with DID(Multiple Personality Disorder), share multiple personalities within one body. If one were a faithful believer, and another a bad person, where do religious people believe the personalities will end up. Do their souls get split and sent to different places, or are they condemned together due to sharing a body?

Note: Please don't downvote me if I am on the wrong subreddit for this question. If I am in the wrong place, please let me know.

In a search for a scholarly foundation for belief in Christianity, I have primarily found believers using the bible as justification for their beliefs and agnostics pointing out the circular logic behind such thought.

I am seeking evidence beyond faith and citing Jesus as a historical figure. I will admit that this interest is borne out of a concern about an afterlife and my mortality so I have turned to the only thing in my life that has served me in the past: pursuing more knowledge.

I don't know if this is the right subreddit so if it isn't please point me in the right direction. Basically, I am interested in a genealogy and a broad overview of Indian religions, primarily but not limited to Hinduism and Buddhism. I'm comfortable with stuff geared toward a more academic audience or a lay audience, I'm just interested in learning more.

Is John 10:30 a divinity claim?