Happy Reformation Day to all my fellow Protestants all around the world. Let's remember and celebrate the day when it all began 507 years ago. Luther really did an amazing job. Cheers and God bless you all!

Just what the title says.

Here is a website that has information on a lot of them if you're interested.

A lot of these have been tested by scienctists, and declared to be they're miracles. How do you think this relates to the true presence vs symbol argument?

Any arguments for Protestantism and or Sola Scriptura and or Sola Fide?

One year ago on this day I quit my missionary position and shortly after I had my name removed from the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Today I reflect on that choice and the impact the church had on my life and the freedom that I now feel being away from an insatiable institution that never could have enough.

For ten years my wife and I began work as unpaid missionaries teaching English in Ukraine. From that point on, we took various calls in places like Nile Union Academy in Egypt and the Quinault Indian Reservation. In Queets we served for two two year terms. The second two year term was unpaid. We were given housing, however.

During my time in the SDA church, I was told to “never question, never research, never read anything that could be perceived as negative towards the prophetess known as ELLEN G WHITE.” After twenty years and after training at Adventist Frontier Missions, I started to question the things that I was learning about her and the church. When I came up with questions, I was told to be silent, keep my head down, and continue the work. My job was to reach into other Christ-following churches and bring them to the remnant church, which was said to be the Seventh-day Adventist church. The one that had the truth as proclaimed by ELLEN G WHITE.

When I looked into www.nonegw.org I was horrified and elated by what I saw. For years I used to read about how I was supposed to eat, how I was supposed to dress, compose myself, what I was supposed to watch, how I could not read fiction (because it would lead to insanity). I was not supposed to have too much sex or masturbate as if I did those things God would not hear my prayers. I was to make sure to give everything left over to the church, avoid amusement, carnivals, not play chess, not vote. My food could not be spicy, too delicious. Sensation of any type was to be avoided because if I did not avoid such things God would not hear my prayers and I would not survive the “time when Christ stops interceding for us.”

When I saw that ELLEN G WHITE could not follow her own rules, ate unclean meats, ate cheese and duck, ate oysters and herring, ate butter and eggs, wore fancy clothing, traveled first class, lived with servants, and traveled the world, I was elated because it meant that I could do those things without feeling intense guilt. When I brought these things up to the pastors and leaders of the church, including Native Ministries Director Steve Huey and Conrad Vine of Adventist Frontier Missions, they made excuses. I was told to keep believing and play the game. When that did not work I was threatened by Steve Huey and Monte Church. I was told that my views had bothered the local Forks Church, ran by Jay Coon at the time. As punishment, Jay Coon stopped paying the electric bill on the Queets SDA church (which was under his jurisdiction as pastor) and instead had us, unpaid missionaries, foot the bill. He would also no longer speak to us or answer our emails. Instead, he diverted Queets funds to pay for his Creation Park in Forks, WA. 

I finally had enough and left the work at this point. We were never worth paying or supporting in the eyes of the church. Rather, the name of the game was to make us stop asking questions. If you are a Seventh-day Adventist and start to question ELLEN G WHITE, you will be thrown out. Many people do not follow the Bible and “TEST THE PROPHETS” but instead are complacent because the SDA church says that ELLEN G WHITE is a prophet of God. No. She. Is Not.

Prophets don’t plagiarize. Prophets do not say over and over again that Jesus will come back in their lives. Prophets do not live lives that are the opposite of what they say to do on everything. Reading fiction leads to insanity (no it doesn’t), but Ellen White could have a library of such books that the rest of us were not supposed to read. Hypocrisy! 

Dear SDA church. You DEMANDED perfection from me in every aspect of life, yet you can’t even support your workers. You are one of the richest churches in the world, yet you hoard money like a dragon. Dear SDA church, you can’t stand someone questioning. You hide child and s*xual abuse. You only care about protecting the image of your institutions. You recruit people from other Christ-following churches claiming you are the remnant church. NO YOU ARE NOT. 

The Seventh-day Adventist church is a death cult. It is a racket made to get certain key figures wealth and power. It is hungry and insatiable. It never knows when to stop. There is little good, and nothing heavenly about this dark church.

Since leaving the SDA church I have been totally free to live my life as I choose. I am now far healthier, ironically, since I was breathing the miasma of ELLEN G WHITES health rules. ELLEN  G WHITE loathed entertainment and fun of any type. My child is now happier than ever. My relationship and marriage is now better than ever. Steve Huey and Monte Church of Native Ministries can not find a single person to put in that parsonage and run the Queets Church. Last I heard Adventist Frontier Missions was an internal mess! Adventism is a wreck!

Dear Seventh-day Adventist CULT, I am so happy to be free of you! Never again cult!  Never again! ONE YEAR FREE!!!!!

Hi I've been a sda protestant all my life and recently ive been looking into roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy I've been researching a lot about the denominations and I personally came the conclusion that it's not for me I disagree with a lot of there doctrines and core beliefs but one that stuck out to me the most is there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church and no salvation outside of the orthodox church I find it hard that a church would say without them there's no salvation they said if you know that Jesus Christ established the orthodox,church Christ established the Catholic Church and still reject it you won't be saved but Paul said if you believe in heart that Jesus Christ died for our sins your saved so my question is how do I deal with this information now I'm questioning the assurance of my Salvation I thought the body of Christ was all those who believe in him

I am an atheist, but I am interested in theology and want to hear what you guys have to say about this. It's fair to say I'm more familiar with Catholic theology than Protestant, having Catholic family members and being a student of late antique and medieval history.

My question is this. After Jesus, a lot of different texts were floating around claiming to be gospel. The Bible wasn't properly standardised until a couple of centuries after. This process was mainly done by ecumenical councils, bishops literally voting by show of hands which gospels were true and which weren't.

For Catholics, the logic of this seems ironclad. They believe that the church ie Bishops have authority in and of themselves vested by Christ himself via Apostolic succession. The church in this model is something of a Supreme Court for doctrine. So it makes sense that the church would have the role of keeping doctrine.

However, Protestants reject apostolic succession. Does that not mean the ecumenical councils had no right to determine doctrine? And even if they did have some temporal right, are we to assume that these completely fallible humans got it 100% correct with no errors? That these fallible humans didn't accidentally throw out one valid gospel or include one invalid one? That sounds like something which requires God's direct guidance, and yet, Protestants are pretty insistent that all divine authority comes from scripture, despite the fact that this can't be the case when the question is what should be considered scripture.

Also, if the ecumenical councils had no right to keep scripture, what's stopping modern Christians just declaring new scriptures? In my view, Mormonism comes fro Protestants who were willing to take this to its logical conclusion, and yet, mainstream Protestants are quite critical of Mormons, but on what grounds can they suggest this?

TL;DR: how can Protestants derive all spiritual authority from a book which required human-led ecumenical councils to derive?

As I said, I'm an atheist so I'm not convinced of any of this, I'm just curious to learn more about this.

Edit: for the sake of clarity, here's my question boiled down to a flow chart:

The problem:

1. The Bible was standardised via ecumenical councils
2. Most Christians think the Scriptures are the root of theology
3. The ecumenical councils must have had the authority to determine scripture
4. This without can't have come from the Bible (because that's what we're discussing)

Apostolic Solution:

1. Jesus granted the apostles the mission to teach the scripture on his death. On their deaths the apostles handed this role to new bishops, leading to today's church
2. This process gives the modern church authority to interpret scripture and occurs without the need for a standardised Bible.

The protestant problem with this solution: They reject apostolic succession and the authority of Bishops (or anyone) to interpret scripture without fallibility.

My question: how do Protestants solve this problem?

I live in Europe, the motherland of the Reformation, so to speak, and even though we have historically had much more difficult disputes about the right faith, the relationship between Protestants and Catholics is very relaxed. We have our different traditions and respect that.

We can talk about the different effects of our different premises without things getting heated.

The only thing that still catches fire is when you notice that the other side has adopted the Marxist reading of history or that the Enlightenment has really enlightened everything, but that can happen in both camps.

Both sides know that insults don't bring results.

It seems to be very different in the USA. Is it simply a distinct culture of conversation or debate?

Do Protestants in the USA really believe that in the last 500 years, no one has seriously thought about the Bible passages that they cite as infallible proof of the errors of the Catholic Church? Or that as a Catholic I am not aware that these passages exist, but simply interpret them differently?

Where does this aggressiveness come from and the belief that their community's interpretation is the right one within the fairly broad and diverse spectrum of Protestantism? Because let's be honest, Lutherans, Calvinists, and Anabaptists often have many fundamental doctrinal differences.
Is this related to American exceptionalism? Does it have anything to do with education? By the way, I don't expect Americans to know the intricacies of European history and geography. I'm not interested in the American Civil War either, and if you name me twenty major American cities, I'd have trouble finding them on a map.
Nevertheless, I'm often amazed that American Protestants in particular have no idea how Calvin, the Anabaptist kingdom of Münster, or the rule of Oliver Cromwell in Europe are assessed. And I don't just mean Monty Python and The Pogues.

So, what is it?

Note: For Protestants who see this as an opportunity to shout idolatry, not in the Bible, the Pope is the Anti-Christ, save your energy. I am a very happy Catholic. The Bible is our book, it was our bishops (and those of today's Orthodoxy) who compiled and preserved it. I do not assume that everything has to be explicitly in the Bible, I have great faith in providence and the presence of God in his Church. Go and attack someone else.

So I used to search up lustful things, and now that I'm getting a new phone soon, I'm scared my parents will start looking through my phone, find something, yell at me, and more. Is it a sin to clear my browsing data? Is it technically lying? Please give reasoning

I'm a sda protestant and Im looking for any recommendations thanks

Of course, the exact number changes from person to person lol.

My biggest and only real fear that I have is that I will not be with my family in heaven. The reason I worry about this is mainly on issues over the debate of abortion. I have heard many times that you cannot be Christian and pro choice, and things of the sort. Both of my parents are pro choice, and they do not believe that it is actually murder. For reference, my mother works in the nursing field, specifically delivering babies. She has much more knowledge over the subject of this matter than I do. Both of my Parents are the wisest and best humans that I know, and I love them dearly, I cannot live with the thought that there is a chance we will not be in paradise together. If abortion is truly murder, will their belief in it be morally okay damn them?

Hey everyone,

Lately, I’ve been reflecting on the way modern Christianity often frames good and evil as being in an ongoing cosmic struggle, where God is constantly fighting against Satan, and light battles darkness. I’ve come to see that this kind of dualistic thinking is deeply flawed. There is no real “battle” going on because the war has already been won. God’s light has already triumphed, and evil has no substance of its own to even pose a threat.

One thinker who really helped shape my understanding of this is Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite. In his writings, Pseudo-Dionysius taught that all creation radiates from God, who is the divine and primordial Good. Everything that exists reflects some aspect of God’s goodness, and that means there is good in everything. Evil, on the other hand, is not a thing in itself. It doesn’t have substance or being. It’s simply the absence of good, a distortion or privation rather than a force that can actively combat good.

Pseudo-Dionysius wrote, “Evil is neither a being nor is it in beings, but it is that which is contrary to being.” In other words, evil has no real existence. Since everything that exists comes from God, the ultimate Good, evil is simply a lack or a deviation from the fullness of being. It can’t fight good because it isn’t a thing. The light of God doesn’t “fight” the darkness; it simply exists, and by its existence, it transforms and dispels darkness.

This idea fits perfectly with what the early Church Fathers like Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, and St. Isaac the Syrian taught about evil and redemption. They saw God’s love as so overwhelming that it would transform and restore all things, including the devil himself. For them, the notion of an eternal battle between light and dark made no sense because God’s goodness is infinite and unchallenged.

When Christ descended into Hades after His death, He didn’t wage war against Satan; He liberated those trapped in death’s grip. The power of His love broke through the very gates of hell and destroyed death itself. As it says in 1 Corinthians 15:55, “O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?” The war against death and evil is already over, and Christ has emerged victorious.

What strikes me is that the Bible never presents Satan as an equal force to God. The “forces of darkness” are not real powers—they are distortions that cannot withstand the presence of divine light. As we read in 1 John 1:5, “God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all.” Darkness is nothing more than the absence of light, and once light is present, the darkness is dispelled effortlessly. The same is true of evil: it cannot rival good, because it isn’t something that exists in the same way that goodness does.

This is why I reject dualism. Evil can’t “fight” God because God’s very existence undoes evil. Light transforms darkness by simply being, and in the same way, God transforms evil by simply existing. Christ’s victory over death and Hades wasn’t a struggle—it was a moment of liberation and restoration.

Gregory of Nyssa and Origen taught that all creation would eventually be restored to God, and that no being could remain forever opposed to Him. Gregory even said that the end of all things would come when God is “all in all” (1 Corinthians 15:28). St. Isaac the Syrian believed that even hell wasn’t a place of eternal punishment but a temporary state of correction. He said, “Love is the fire that will burn sin,” meaning that even the darkest of places will eventually be consumed by the fire of God’s love.

For me, the victory is complete. There’s no ongoing battle between good and evil, because evil has no power to resist God’s goodness. Hell wasn’t a place for God to destroy but a place for Him to invade and liberate. The darkness is fading because the light has already come.

I’d love to hear your thoughts on this. Do you think we give too much power to the idea of evil, and how do you see God’s light transforming everything in the end?

Hello my fellow protestants,

I am a baptized protestant but went on to explore other forms of spirituality when I was fourteen years old because even the protestant church seemed to restrictive in some matters. I moved to a region that is mainly catholic which furthered my antipathy towards christianity in general. Before you try to burn me on a pyre hear me out!

I don't reject the faith in a creator god, I don't reject the idea of Christ being a saviour, I just rejected the fact that salvation in christianity is granted by god and or christ and even if you are the most kind and loving human you won't go to heaven. I found a logical solution for my spiritual struggle in buddhist believes.

Now my wife and I are going to have our daughter baptized mainly for pragmatic reason. Being admitted at a daycare center for example. But now that I have to deal with the protestant faith again I am curious. The priests we dealt with (one at the church we are having our daughter baptized in and one at our residence) were so incredibly kind, open-minded and even offered to built in some buddhist elements we might have for baptism in buddhism (my familiy consists of buddhists, protestants and catholics). I thought to myself "Wow, maybe I was wrong". I loved the idea of intercessions because they seem so buddhist and benevolent. And the vibe I got was about love and compassion. But then I started studying the Bible and christianity again and it was a big turn-off once more. There is one god, only through christ you will find salvation, everyone else is damned.

Maybe I miss some informations or interpret the scriptures in a wrong way. Maybe I am too far gone by dabbling with buddhism and other spiritual paths but how can I find my way back to faith? Can you point me in the right direction? What sources can I study?

I’m Protestant not Catholic. My views don’t align with Catholicism. However there is a Catholic Church near my college. I often just want a quiet place to get on my knees and pray. They offer adoration the days I have class. I’m probably just going to go to pray. Is there anything I should know or avoid? Thank you

A curious Catholic here, do you guys still agree with many of Martin Luther's 95 theses, and if not, what other reasons are you a Protestant?

Christianity ≠ Popular!

Christianity is not a popularity contest! We are not in it to compete with one another, let alone look down on other Christians, because of innocent disagreements. Examples include: what Bible translations we should use, what type of worship songs we should sing &/or listen to, & the list goes on. As a matter of fact, "Christianity" is the complete opposite of "Popular!" Why do you think we're being persecuted each day, because of our faith? Let that sink in for a minute.

We, as Christians, are called to stand for God's truth & call out sin & false doctrine. That is what Jesus commands all who are in him to do! However, there are other times when rebuke is highly unneccesary, & people are just being extreme & promoting legalism.

There are way too many lost souls in this world for us to bicker back & forth over unreasonable topics. Aren't we, as Christians, supposed to be the light that shines in the darkness? Aren't we supposed to reach a lost, dying world with the good news of Jesus Christ? Yet, how can we expect lost people to take us seriously if we can't even get along with ourselves?

When we decide to give our hearts to Jesus, it is no longer all about us nor what we think is best. It's about Jesus Christ, & what he has done for us on the cross. That is why we, as Christians, must get off of our high horses & stop treating the body of Christ as though it's this country club for the righteous. Because it's not! "Church" is supposed to be a hospital/rehabilitation center for broken, wretched sinners like you & me. Not the other way around! ❤️🙏✝️💒

Title: God is my Rock, my Salvation.

Q: Who was the stone that the builders rejected?

Q: Who is the Foundation Stone, The Chief Corner Stone, The Rock? Who is the stone that the builders rejected? The stone that was pierced? The Tried stone, a Precious Corner Stone.

Q: Is peter really the rock that the church is built upon?

Lets found out who this Foundation stone really is, that is the Corner Stone, the Rock that the Church is built on.

Deuteronomy 32:4

He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

Psalm 18:31

For who is God save the Lord? or who is a rock save our God?

Psalm 118:22

The stone which the builders rejected is become the head stone of the corner.

Isaiah 8:14

14 And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

Isaiah 17:10

Because thou hast forgotten the God of thy salvation, and hast not been mindful of the rock of thy strength, therefore shalt thou plant pleasant plants, and shalt set it with strange slips:

Isaiah 28:16

Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not be ashamed.

"Those that believe in Jesus shall not be ashamed."

Daniel 2:34-35

34 Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces.

35 Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.

Daniels Vision is about The great stone that comes at the end of earth after the tribulation, where that stone is Jesus, and he destroys the statue.

Acts 4:11

This is the stone that was rejected by you the builders, which was for the head of the corner.

Eph 2:20

And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

Matthew 21:42

Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?

Mark 12:10

And have ye not read this scripture; The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner:

Luke 20:17

And he beheld them, and said, What is this then that is written, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner?

1 Peter 2:7

Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,

As we can see the stone that was rejected wis about the Jews rejecting Jesus. Thus the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D. and for the New Covenant given to the gentiles.

Jesus as ROCK- Petra

Now lets start taking a look at the greek for for Rock.

petran,petrai,petras,are all same root word petra. They are just the feminine and masculine version. Notice how none of these words are used are the word petros, petros which belong solo to peter. Petra is always refering to Jesus as the Foundation Rock.

Matthew 7:24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: (petran | πέτραν | acc sg fem).

Matthew 7:25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. (petran | πέτραν | acc sg fem).

Matthew 27:51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks(petrai | πέτραι | nom pl fem) split;

This is also a reference to the split rock spoken about in

Exodus 17:6

Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock in Horeb; and thou shalt smite the rock, and there shall come water out of it, that the people may drink. And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel.

Luke 6:48 He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock:(petran | πέτραν | acc sg fem) and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock.(petran | πέτραν | acc sg fem)

Luke 8:13 They on the rock (petras | πέτρας | gen sg fem) are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away.

Romans 9:33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone(λίθον) and rock(petran | πέτραν | acc sg fem) of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

1 Peter 2:8 And a stone(λίθος) of stumbling, and a rock (petra | πέτρα | nom sg fem) of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

1 Corinthians 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock(petras | πέτρας | gen sg fem)that followed them: and that Rock(petra | πέτρα | nom sg fem) was Christ.

Peter is is always called petros

peter (petros)(Πέτρος) small stone

Rock (petra)(πέτρᾳ) Large mountain

Here are some verses and examples of peter in the bible, notice hes always called by petros. Also notice that hes never referenced or talked about in a manner of being the Foundation Stone, or the corner stone, but hes always just talking about other things unimportant.

peter

Matthew 10:2 These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon, who is called Peter (Petros | Πέτρος | nom sg masc), then Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother;

Heres the definition of the words.

Strongs concordance, bible hub

https://biblehub.com/greek/4073.htm

4073 pétra (a feminine noun) – "a mass of connected rock," which is distinct from 4074 (Pétros) which is "a detached stone or boulder" (A-S). 4073 (pétra) is a "solid or native rock, rising up through the earth" (Souter) – a huge mass of rock (a boulder), such as a projecting cliff.

4073 (petra) is "a projecting rock, cliff (feminine noun) . . . 4074 (petros, the masculine form) however is a stone . . . such as a man might throw" (S. Zodhiates, Dict).

Peter was not the first pope.

Peter was never called the foundation rock that the church will be built upon. Look at the greek. There are two separate words being used here. Peter is called petros. Which means small throwing stone. Than Jesus says upon This Rock, (Petra), hes pointing at himself now, Petra meaning large foundation Stone. Jesus is the foundation rock that the church is built upon. Not peter(petros). Since Peter was not the first pope, this also means that no church can claim authority over all the other churches, nor is apostolic succession important.

Matthew 16:18

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art peter(petros), and upon this Rock(Petra) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

A certain church trys to claim authority of all Christendom, claiming peter as the the Rock, they say Peter was the first pope. But this isnt true at all. They look at one verse and not take into context who the Rock is all throughout the entire bible. For Christ is our Rock, our salvation. It was never peter,

Whos the topic of discussion here? look 5 verse before, its all about who Jesus is. This conversation is not about peter. Its about Jesus being the Rock, the Foundation, the Christ, the living God. Its a revelation the Father revealed to peter that Jesus was the Christ! The Rock.

Matthew 16:13-16

13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Lets scripture tell us who the Rock (Petra) is plainly and clearly.

1 Corinthians 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock(petras | πέτρας | gen sg fem)that followed them: and that Rock(petra | πέτρα | nom sg fem) was Christ.

Who was the peirced stone? This was of course talking about Jesus. For the Jews were wailing over the fact they killed messiah.

Peter is not stone.

From the History of Josephus and Eusebius:

Visible Remains of the Temple

From ancient records we can glean some information about visible remains of the Temple after its destruction. Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea (A.D. 260-340) testified that he could still see the remains of the sanctuary. He said that the large stone blocks were hauled away to build sanctuaries and theaters. During this period of exile the city was visited by a pilgrim known as the traveler of Bordeaux. He gave the following testimony in A.D. 333:

At the side of the Sanctuary, there is a pierced stone. Jews visit there once a year, pour oil over it, lament and weep over it, and tear their garments in token of mourning. Then they return home.

The once-a-year visit was probably on the 9th of Av, the Jewish date of the destruction of both Temples. The pierced stone, or a rock with a hollow in it, is not identified. It is assumed by some to have been the foundation stone upon which the Holy of Holies was built. In the Talmud we find a reference to the "Foundation Rock" which the Holy of Holies had rested (Yoma 5:2).

Early church father John Chrysostom wrote:

The Jews began uncovering the foundations by removing masses of earth, intending to go ahead and build ...You can see the bared foundations if you visit Jerusalem now...Some of its parts (sanctuary) are razed to the ground.

The Jews were allowed to enter the city only one day a year during this period of exile. In A.D. 392 the Christian leader Jerome wrote concerning this day:

On the anniversary of the day when the city fell and was destroyed by the Romans, there are crowds who mourn, old women and old men dressed in tatters and rags, and from the Top of the Mount of Olives this throng laments over the destruction of its Sanctuary. Still their eyes flow with tears, still their hands tremble and their hair is disheveled, but already the guards demand pay for their right to weep. (Ref. 7)

In the sixth century the Pilgrim of Piacenze mentions the ruins of the Temple of Solomon. From these accounts we can deduce that there were at least some visible remains of the Temple foundation through the sixth century.

Extra

Odes of Solomon

It has been suggested that Ode 22.12 ("the foundation of everything is Your [God's] rock. And upon it You have built Your kingdom, and it became the dwelling-place of the holy ones."

O Lord, the wicked say in their heart that You have forgotten. They murder the innocent and imagine that because others do not see it, neither will You. Arise, O Lord God, and lift up Your hand to put an end to the evil of abortion! Have mercy on our nation, hear the desire of the afflicted, incline Your ear and work by Your might, that men of this earth may strike terror on the unborn no more; through Jesus Christ, our Lord. Amen. (Psalm 10)

Lord of life, we thank You for creating us, giving us life and providing us opportunity to serve our neighbors. You command us to defend those who cannot defend themselves. Look with mercy on our unborn brothers and sisters and spare them from abortion. Direct us to speak and act in their defense within our vocations. Turn the hearts of people from selfishness and fear to love and joyful service. Bring those responsible for the deaths of others to repentance and eternal freedom in full forgiveness through the atoning death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, our Lord; who lives and reigns with You and the Holy Spirit, one God now and forever. Amen

I'm a beginner and know nothing of protestantism and it's denominations. And i wish to get advices for books.

Pretty much the question. I'm protestant, I'm trying to read the whole bible, preferably from genesis, and I'd like suggestions on podcasts or Yt videos with step by step approaches to help with the comprehension the best way possible. Thanks sm for the time!

I posted this review on Goodreads, yesterday. It says something about the decline of Protestant theology that occurred in the sixties. Notice the similarities with Pannenberg’s theology. The question is: do Protestant intellectuals still think this way?

Ronald Gregor Smith (The Doctrine of God, 1970) struggles with his faith. He thinks that the traditional doctrine of God has reached a dead end. He rejects supernaturalistic theism as a “primitive mythology” that could “be cultivated in private by a dwindling company of romantics and introverts” (p. 79). Smith can no longer believe in God as a self-subsistent being residing in an otherworldly realm. Rather, God exists in the way he makes himself present in history: “It is only within the dynamism of history as the place and the time of irreversible personal decisions that the Word is truly heard…” (p. 37). Thus, “we are offered the reality of a life which is taken out of the old, apparently endless, search for a reality beyond this temporal world. The magic of Plato is exorcised” (p. 43). He even depreciates the bible:

[T]he normative historical power is not and cannot be any traditional documents, not even the Bible, but is solely the person of Christ. Therefore, it is a methodological error of the first order to suppose that Christianity is based upon a book, and that a true theology is one which discovers what the Bible says and then re-asserts this in a ‘modern’ fashion — but all the same, basically just repeats what the Bible says. (p. 72)

For Smith, ‘God as Being’ is not a satisfactory category for Christian theology. The reality of God is historical rather than metaphysical. Christianity is not the record of a miraculous epiphany, but is about man’s historical experience (p. 114). I question: what remains of faith, then, if we remove the essential objects of faith, namely the bible and the heavenly realm? Smith’s answer is that we shall have a faith that is rooted in history, not the least in kerygmatic history. It seems that there is not much religiosity left in Smith’s Christianity. He says that “spirit” is only “the total reality of our humanity” (p. 130) and “the Christian faith does not really propose more than a way for us to walk” (p. 142).

We have to remain content with the little that remains of God: “In every historical encounter there is a residue or an overplus of mystery” (p. 177). So, God is not totally dead — there is a little residue left. The central tenets of Smith’s theology are a “thorough historicity of God” and a continual “self-realization of God in history” (p. 181). But he doesn’t explain how a God that lacks transcendent being can manifest in history. Despite his materialistic and rationalistic worldview, Smith tries to cling to the Christian faith by formulating a minimalistic version that builds on a God that is immanent in history. It is not an unintelligent book; but it is a depressing reading experience. Smith lived in a grey and uninspiring world. He died while writing this book, from boredom, I guess.