The word offense partially stems from Latin "offensa", meaning harm done to someone. Here is the crux of my confusion. When humans commit an act that violates God's laws, it obviously is an offense in the legal sense of breaking a rule. And when done against another person or animal, it does cause harm. But I fail to see how it applies to the Lord.

People do plenty of terrible things, but it is almost always caused by a survival instinct and a drive for self preservation. Now, this doesn't exonerate anyone of what they've chosen to do, but the point is that our behaviors are influenced by our mortal constraints. We become angry because we feel that we or someone else has been treated unfairly or denied something that we need or want.

In Christian theology, the death of Jesus was the ransom that spares us from the price we owe and could never repay, that was caused by our sins. At least this is my understanding as an atheist, feel free to correct me of course. My genuine question is: Why does God need to forgive us at all? Not that we don't need to be forgiven, but why does God feel the need to do so? Especially having created us flawed in the first place?

Thank you for taking the time to respond. I look forward to hearing what y'all have to say. And feel free to correct me on any point where I may have misrepresented Christian theology or belief.

More than 55% of people today identify with an Abrahamic faith, and it’s been estimated that sales of the Bible (Christianity, Judaism), Quran (Islam), and the Book of Mormon (Mormonism), sit around 5 billion, 800 million, and 120 million, respectively - that’s nearly 6 Abrahamic Holy Books for every 7 people alive today. Historical context aside (i.e. the Crusades, Inquisitions, etc.), why were these religions - primarily those of Christianity and Islam - able to succeed over the belief systems that preceded them (such as traditional Greco-Roman mythologies), and to a greater extent than Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.? Is there something intrinsic about the Abrahamic faiths that make them more likely to attract/persuade new believers/converts?

My father had a story that reflected Jesus feeding the. 5,000. Dad was hitchhiking in a pickup bed full of people, had crackers in his pocket and decided to share with everybody else because he was very hungry but reasoned he would be unable to eat without feeling bad if he didn't share.

Well, everybody else had some food and they ended up having a meal from it all.

This colored his interpretation of the feeding on the mount. He responded that the people had brought food with them, and that they were sitting there hungry because they were afraid if they began to eat, then there simply wouldn't be enough and some people would starve or try and eat their food...

Then Jesus comes along and the disciples share, they pass around the meal and everybody is taking some and putting some back into the flow. Then they ended up with more than they had started with simply because people had behaved reasonably when presented with what I would compare to the illusion of scarcity. They basically feed each other (like the moral story in The Bean Trees)

The basket thing was kind of a joke because once my dad mentioned to another churchgoer that he had a question about the feeding on the mountain and the other guy blurted out "I do too. Where did all the baskets come from?" Which has always been one of my father's main points regarding his interpretation. Now that I'm looking it up I see the word "basketful" which might relate to the amount of bread, and not the container used to hold it.

I would like to know what the... "official" explanation and interpretation is, and what it allows for in terms of these experiences (or if this interpretation is wildly off base). Because I have been explicitly told that it is basically blasphemous (my word, not his)to interpret that as a miracle of humanity, which I think is wrong but it's that guy's opinion. I honestly think it seems good and in good faith to look for where scripture seems to miraculously point is in a better direction, morally speaking.

Isn't this a rule breaker? As soon as you start incurring the Judgment of God, you get judged (and presuming the Judgment of God can hurt), by the only person or entity whose judgment actually holds any weight

So how can a Christian believe in God and still say "abortion is wrong" or "gay people don't go to heaven."

Does this passage basically get ignored? If not, is there another interpretation of it? Thank you

I’m the book of Exodus, when Moses is starting to deliver the plagues to Egypt, the text says that one of the first was turning the water of the Nile into blood. Beyond the significance of the Nile in and of itself to ancient Egyptian culture, is there basis in the thought that this was a reference to the previous Pharaoh’s edit to throw Hebrew babies into the Nile? Sins coming back to haunt and condemn the Pharaoh?

Not to be too broad, but I've just learned Jesus is in the Quran. Is it the same account? Seems like the Bible was written 300 years before, so if the account differs a little bit then Muslims who believe the Quran is the literal word of God, might disagree with Christians regarding details about Jesus. The only theological difference that I know of between Islam and Christianity is that according to Christianity, there can be no prophet after Jesus Christ, but according to Islam, Mohammed came after Jesus and was another prophet chosen by God. If I'm right and this bars Muslim theology from being consistent with Christian theology and vice versa, then doesn't the "prophet" Joseph Smith also need to get called out by Christianity, so to speak? According to my father, Esau and Isaac represent the splitting off point between Islam and Christianity, like Muslims are from Esau? but idk

I've also recently learned that Rastafarians trace their lineage to the line of Solomon, and therefore Abraham; AND that "Ja" is "Jehovah" or "Jahweh"... I'm not sure if those accounts are consistent or coherent with the Bible, or not. I read a biography of Bob Marley and I believe it was Haille Selassie or Ras Tafari whose ancestor supposedly had a one night stand with King Solomon, creating a new line of prophets. However this account to me is highly suspect; and yet, don't they still believe in and worship through Jesus and God?

So I don't know, what exactly matters here according to the people involved in terms of who does or doesn't fit? What makes the I've Christian but the others not - or are they?

Thanks a lot

I would like to know more about the connections because i

Apologies in advance for the big umbrella question... I'm extremely nascent in my current walk with Christ and want to do all of the things honorably/in accordance with how it should be done. As someone that doesn't belong to a specific denomination or a church, this is a bit tricky at the moment.

I see that fasting with no meat/fish/dairy is the oldest documented tradition (going back to the council of Nicea), but this was made moot with the advent of Calvinism (which I can safely say I do not follow). In the faith I was raised, the ashen cross with abstinence of something was customary and I LOVE the idea of openly proclaiming my faith, but what is proper and how are we defining/justifying that?

What, in all of this, is walking within God's Law vs. the traditions of man(for Lent now, but also in other observances) and what are the applicable boundaries of those?

I'm under the impression that it is not 100% accepted that Adam is the first human being, which is a common narrative taught to people's kids..

I'm also under the impression that Moses is told by God to abandon the people of Israel once they've made the golden calf. Is that right? Then Moses prays for forgiveness from God.

This seems to be to be reflected in the story of Jesus who, being the ultimate prophet, died for humankind's sins. Is that right? So would Jesus have had to come down if Moses' people had been less... in my book it says stiff-necked.

?

1. Why did worshippers believe that blood "make 'sacred' or 'holy'"?

2. Why did religionists believe that consecrating something with blood "render a thing inviolable from profane use of men and evil influence of men or demons"?

3. How's any of this related, at all, to the blood of Christ?

The streaking of the lintel and doorposts with blood, Exodus xii. 23, to mark them as holy to the Lord and inviolable by the destroying angel, was apparently the kind of idea expressed by blóedsian in pre-christian times..

1. In its earliest attestations in the OED, bless and blood continued to coincide with each other. Once an entity was consecrated with blood, it was thought to rid off evil influences of men and demons. When used in this context the entity know [sic. I think this is a typo for "now"] is controlled by God’s prospering care, which can be linked to the present day use of bless before dinner, when praying over food. The OED dates this documented history back to the eleventh century.

2. This usage of bless, which is “to sanctify or hollow by crossing yourself,” can be linked back to the first entry. The cross is put up in the defense of evil, and the usage started to circulate in circa 1225. Using the cross as protection can visually imitate the power of God to rid of evil, and is similar to the act of consecrating an entity with blood to gain God’s favor over it.

Smith, Ranesha, "The Etymology of bless" (2014). 2014 IPFW Student Research and Creative Endeavor Symposium. Book 14. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/47232289.pdf

Anatoly Liberman wrote about the etymology of "bless" on October 12th 2016. See also Etymonline.

1. Undeniably, the heart can't physically cause the sins quoted below, as in the Matthew 15:18-20. Crimes against the person (manslaughter) are committed usually with the limbs and hands. False pretenses, fraud, perjury with the vocal tract. Sexual crimes with the penis or vagina.

Last but not least, in Anglo-American jurisdictions, crimes require mens rea. Thus if not the organs aforementioned above, it would be more sensible and realistic to attribute sin to the brain or mind. Why then does the Bible attribute sin to the heart?

2. Is the Bible's attribution of sin to the heart related to why, in Chinese, 心 (heart) is the semantic component of 惡 which means evil, wickedness? Perhaps the Chinese gleaned this attribution from Christianity or Christian missionaries.

All Sin Originates in Our Heart

As authentic disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ we must understand all sin comes originates from the wickedness of our hearts. Jesus said in Matthew 15:18-20, “But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man.”For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. “These are the things which defile a man, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man.” We often forget about the motives of our hearts, our attitudes, and the words we speak reflect the attitude of our hearts.

7 Sins Of The Heart That Christians Overlook Daily

Mark 7:21-23 For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come–sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and defile a person.

Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?

Genesis 6:5 Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

And the Lord saw that the sin of man was great on the earth, and that all the thoughts of his heart were evil.

#1. There were to be exactly 12 apostles.

And when it was day, he called his disciples to him; and from them he chose twelve whom he also named apostles. Luke 6:13

So Yeshua said to them, “Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of his glory, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” Matthew 19:28

Now the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. Revelation 21:14

#2. Paul was UNQUALIFIED to be an apostle. He could not take Judas’ place.

So Yeshua said to them, “Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of his glory, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” Matthew 19:28

“Therefore, of THESE MEN WHO HAVE ACCOMPANIED US ALL THE TIME that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John to that day when he was taken up from us, ONE of THESE MUST become a witness with us of his resurrection.” Acts 1:21,22

Peter clearly indicated there were a number of others who were qualified to be an apostle because they had been there, but there was only one vacancy that needed filling. Paul didn’t even qualify because he hadn’t been there.

Neither Jesus nor any of the original 12 apostles EVER referred to Paul as an apostle! Paul referred to himself as an apostle 20 times.

#3. Paul said Yeshua abolished the Law of Moses, but Yeshua said do not think he came to do any such thing!

“For he himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of division between us, having abolished in his flesh the enmity, that is the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in himself one new man from the two thus making peace,” Ephesians 2:14,15

“Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ.” Romans 7:4

“For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.” Romans 10:4

“Therefore, the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.” Galatians 3:24

But Jesus said: “DO NOT think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I did NOT come to destroy, but to fulfill” (“fulfill” Strong’s 4137: Thayer’s: To ratify, to execute fully.). “For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all* is fulfilled”. (“fulfilled”= Strong’s 1096: Thayer’s: completed, done). Matthew 5:17,18

4. Paul made a claim concerning Abraham that was simply not true.

“And not being weak in faith, he did not consider his own body, already dead (since he was about a hundred years old). And the deadness of Sarah’s womb. He did not waver at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God.” Romans 4:19, 20

5. Paul believed his testimony should be considered as reliable as the testimony of three separate witnesses if he gave his testimony on three separate occasions!

“This will be the third time I am coming to you. ‘By the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established.’ I have told you before, and foretell as if I were present the second time, and now being absent I write…” 2 Corinthians 13:1,2

Jesus: “Moreover, if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. But if he will not hear you, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’” Matthew 18:15,16 (Deuteronomy 19:15)

Why did worshippers believe that blood "make 'sacred' or 'holy'"? Why did religionists believe that consecreating something with blood "render a thing inviolable from profane use of men and evil influence of men or demons"? Is this related at all to the blood of Christ?

The streaking of the lintel and doorposts with blood, Exodus xii. 23, to mark them as holy to the Lord and inviolable by the destroying angel, was apparently the kind of idea expressed by blóedsian in pre-christian times..

1. In its earliest attestations in the OED, bless and blood continued to coincide with each other.

Once an entity was consecrated with blood, it was thought to rid off evil influences of men and demons. When used in this context the entity know [sic. I think this is a typo for "now"] is controlled by God’s prospering care, which can be linked to the present day use of bless before dinner, when praying over food. The OED dates this documented history back to the eleventh century.

2. This usage of bless, which is “to sanctify or hollow by crossing yourself,” can be linked back to the

first entry. The cross is put up in the defense of evil, and the usage started to circulate in circa 1225. Using the cross as protection can visually imitate the power of God to rid of evil, and is similar to the act of consecrating an entity with blood to gain God’s favor over it.

Smith, Ranesha, "The Etymology of bless" (2014). 2014 IPFW Student Research and Creative Endeavor Symposium. Book 14. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/47232289.pdf

Anatoly Liberman wrote about the etymology of "bless" on October 12th 2016. See also Etymonline.

https://discord.gg/zEq7ru4sbF

​

Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. (Matthew 10:28 – New International Version 1984).

​

29 If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell. (Matthew 5:29-30 – New International Version 1984).

This may be a contentious question that involves several aspects of history, including ancient conceptions of ethnicity, community, and universalism.

In the Old Testament, is the covenant only between God and the Jewish people? I feel like this is a traditional understanding of Judaism but it seems incomplete. Israel is chosen, but does that mean they're the only ones who matter? The only ones who will be saved? The Jews lived in an increasingly cosmopolitan world after the Babylonian captivity and Alexander's conquests of the Near East, so this seems hard to grasp. Race obviously is a modern concept, but how much of the OT is just contract with a very specific group of people bounded by ethnicity and descent? Are God's laws meant for all people or are the Jews the only valuable people and everyone else just doesn't matter?

Even Christianity in the Gospels seems to be very anti-universalist. Christ himself seems to think his message is only for Jews or the Jewish-Christians who see him as a Jewish messiah. It took Paul to make Christianity a message of universal salvation for all mankind. So is the real break from Judaism Paul? And is the OT a story of intolerant ethnicism?

I'm reading the NT in Greek and I'm thoroughly confused by the transition of events in John 1.

So there was a man sent by God to witness, and this man was John. Is this basically just the author of the gospel of John? But this seems to get complicated when we get to John 1:19 at he says "This is the testimony of John" and suddenly he's talking about baptizing and it becomes apparent that this is John the Baptist. What's with the strange transition? Is this the same John who came to witness or is it now John the Baptist? How is the John who testifies the same as the baptist?

​

Also, towards the end, where the issue of the beloved disciple comes up, is this supposed to be John as well? The account is based upon the beloved disciple, who has to be John, right?

And their eyes were opened. And Jesus sternly warned them, saying, “See that no one knows it .” Matthew 9:30 NKJV https://bible.com/bible/114/mat.9.30.NKJV I have searched many commentaries and the majority's kind of go with the interpretation that by they (healed blind men)sharing Jesus healing miracle gave the Pharisees reason to watch Jesus closely to the point of accusing Jesus But the Pharisees said, “He casts out demons by the ruler of the demons.” and that way began a more aggressive persecution. Matthew 9:34 NKJV

Other commentaries suggest that by the witnessing of Jesus miracle it would flame a revolt against Rome since their expected Messiah have arrived to liberate them from the invasion and not from sin (the Lord's kingdom is a spiritual one) Those 2 perspectives are more or less the ones theologians apparently agree with.

But I have a hard time with this possible explanations to the Lord's command of , “See that no one knows it ." in order to remain somehow anonymous when Jesus have already performed greater miracles and directly confronted and condemned the Pharisees hypocrisy. Earlier on Matthews 9 narrative The Lord heals a paralytic during an argument with the Pharisees; and in the same chapter he heals the women with the 12 year blood flow and restore a young girl to life. Which on my opinion are more extraordinary then healing 2 blind dudes.

Also they received their miracle/sight with the only condition that when Jesus pray for them their miracle will depend on their real faith of the Lord power to heal.

When Jesus departed from there, two blind men followed Him, crying out and saying, “Son of David, have mercy on us!” And when He had come into the house, the blind men came to Him. And Jesus said to them, “Do you believe that I am able to do this?” They said to Him, “Yes, Lord.” Then He touched their eyes, saying, “According to your faith let it be to you.” And their eyes were opened. And Jesus sternly warned them, saying, “See that no one knows it .” Matthew 9:27‭-‬30 NKJV

Why would The Lord give a commandment not to share what He did for them? How would that be apply to us today?

I've just started reading the bible and I have a question of sorts. In the beginning with adam and eve and the fruit. It reads as if god set the whole thing up. He put the tree there and put the serpent there. Or is god the serpent?

I was brought up atheist, by parents that were equally scarred by their harsh and poor colonial catholic upbringing. Whom In turn wanted nothing but to give their children the opposite of a reflection of their childhood. Which has now left me with an incredible want for knowledge. Of the things I never knew but saw had such immense impact on peoples lives; religion. An Incredibly (as i saw and still do, see it) farfetched story of the creation of the planet and its beings. But also a general interest of modern history and it's most influential books ie, the judeo-Christian bibles. I have just started the judeo bible (the obvious choice in chronological order), a few pages into Genesis and I am already filled with questions.... I plan on sticking it out, reading through, documenting my questions and hopefully the answers that come. Is this the best place to ask these questions? There are questions that I had before this (which I'll probably discuss) but this is one from the first few pages that I almost said aloud in jest: Genesis 4:17 Cain knew his wife.... Where did Cains wife come from?

Please help! I remember learning about this no longer accepted Southern Baptist doctrine when I was an undergrad and I can’t remember the name of it. The idea is that all members must be baptized in the church they are a member of. I seem to remember that it was founded or popularized in West Tennessee. Does anyone know what I’m talking about?

Of course, theism is broad, but I'm interested in learning how people came to their beliefs.

Check out a rundown of the best biblical studies and theology blogging over the past month. There are also some giveaways and deals.

Biblical Studies Carnival 169

The sort of thing I'm asking about would have been seen as important by some churches but the concept would have been lost by the modern era. I'm not referring to churches that would have been outside of the empire's territory, as I would not expect them to be canonical. I'm interested in the loss of things that would be considered fairly important by early empire-friendly Christian churches (not groups that were outside of the empire's territory). If there are any specific verses that can be cited as having a forgotten meaning that would be of particular interest.

Here is a great video which I think supports the argument that most Christian's don't actually follow Jesus:

https://youtu.be/eri5p54nLbE

It uses the teaching of Jesus as proof of this point found in Matthew 23:9 "Call no man on earth father"

I don't know whether God does or doesn't exist. I don't even know why monotheism should be an obvious choice over polytheism. If there's one thing I think/feel strongly, however, it is that the model of God that many Christians adopt (the all-good, all-powerful and all-knowing entity) doesn't seem at all convincing. I don't think this disproves Christianity per se (unless you say the three assumptions are absolutely critical to Christianity and disagreement on any one of them (ceteris paribus) results in a religion inherently un-Christian).

Basically I've been wrestling with the problem of evil. Particularly in respect to natural evils. And I would like arguments that can reconcile the Christian God with the reality that life, for a lot of people, has been and is chock full of suffering. This seems to me to be the only real contradiction within popular Christianity and the reason why I'm sure it isn't true. And not only is this suffering a times horrendous, but it's unevenly distributed. Some people's lives are the pits, and other's are paradises. Putting myself in the position of a suffering individual, I find it hard to see any justification for this that allows for an omni-benevolent deity. Personally I favour cutting out the omni-benevolent attribute. Not to say God is malicious, but he certainly isn't as good as he could be.

You could also point me to resources. That would be nice too.

Does God hate the Devil? Or does He feel pity towards His fallen creation? Or does He just regard Devil as "failed experiment"?