Even after humanity's debt has been paid, humans have still been toiling around in this "fallen world" for almost 2000 years. The consensus view amongst historians is that Jesus himself believed that his followers would live to see the End Times. It seems difficult to reconcile this with what the Christian religion preaches (unless I am missing something).

Is there an accepted/consensus view amongst modern theologians about this?

I've wondered this for many years now. How did Lucifer actually think he could dethrone an OMNIPOTENT God? Every time I see this question asked people just say that it was out of his pride. That answer just doesn't sit right with me. Did he really think that God created him to be stronger than Him, which is isn't even possible? Did he really think he found some weakness of God's? Moreover, why did the other fallen angels believe this as well? I really can't think of any logic behind trying to defeat an all-powerful being.

Specifically "Aylonit adam" and "Saris adam", which as far as I can learn referenced the altering of certain characteristics at birth through human intervention.

As the techniques used today didn't exist over a thousand years ago (When the Talmud was completed), how would a Rabbi, or any other person, have encountered a person who developed male or female characteristics through human intervention?

I've understood the value from religious vows as an ascetic exercise in order to get rid of disordered attachments to the things, the pleasures of flesh and own will.

Studying the early monastic life, I can also understand the idea of ​​a group of men taking a vow of obedience to a holy man, so that he would guide them on the path of virtue and holiness.

I also understand what Saint Alphonsus says about works done through obedience consecrated by vow having greater merit than works done by secular people, even if they are pious works, because our will is the most precious good we can offer to God.

That said, I'm not getting the sense of obedience vow in religious orders nowadays.

A vow of obedience is made, according to a constitution (which could be arbitrarily changed), to a superior who can (and probably will) be switched.

When the superior's sanctity is not a premise, what guarantee do we have that the religious, by suspending his judgment to perfectly obey the superior's will, would in fact be guided on the path to sanctity or would he simply be placing obstacles in his journey and possibly putting himself in a vulnerable situation?

Also, from what I see, many times the superior's focus is not on the sanctification of his subjects, but on "managing" the house in a way not much different from that which the head of a company does.

Exaggerating a little to highlight my doubt: I could make a vow of obedience to a random person I met on the street. And I would be mortifying my will. But that doesn't seem like a good idea.

More specifically, it is a doubt that I am trying to resolve in order to make a decision about which vocational path I will follow.

Among the options, I have a monastery (where I would also be ordained a priest) that is lax, with an abbot who is neither holy nor very competent, with an old community and selection criteria for entry that are also lax.

At the same time, I could go to the diocesan seminary, which is also not that great, but at least it would be something temporary and would not have the seriousness of the vows of poverty and obedience, in addition to the observance of the enclosure.

On the one hand, religious life is objectively more perfect (and therefore more meritorious) than secular life.

That is why I wonder if it would not make sense to embrace these difficulties mentioned in the monastery as a means of sanctification.

Since observance is lax, the abbot hardly uses his authority, so my "commitments" end up being basically the DIvine Office, works (quite easy) and community life. Otherwise, I could follow my own path, with my studies, spiritual readings, etc. But it is true that sometimes I feel a bit "tied".

Religious life is objectively more perfect (and therefore more meritorious) than secular life.
But is it true regardless of the holiness of the superior?
Would it be a good choice to make a vow of obedience to a superior/community you know are lax, just to have the merit of obedience consecrated by the vow?

This is not possible since this river is not even on the same continent as Ethiopia.

Hello, i am interested in medieval theology and want to read more, anyone know of any reading groups I cna get involved in?

Someone very dear to me, who has been the subject of my prayers for month, reached out to me tonight telling me she wants to pursue a relationship with God, but fears second guessing herself.

What are the best answers to the "why does God exist" question, in your opinion? I have a few of my own, but I'm deeply curious. I want to hear as many perspectives as possible. Thank you all so much!

Happy St Andrews Day! Traditionally, St Andrews day marks the beginning of Advent, and therefore the beginning of the church year. Andrew, of course, was the first apostle called by Jesus, the προτοκλητος, protoklētos, or first called, as it is in Greek. It was in calling Andrew that the movement of the church began, his being the first follower of the radical Jesus movement that galvanised the world. Wherever you are on your walk with God today, whether warm or cold, near or far, or if you are feeling lonely and friendless on the path, take comfort that the crazy decision of one brave fisherman to drop his nets and follow Jesus, a decision which so impacted his friends and brother that they followed Jesus too, would be the beginning of a movement which floods the world with the love of God. So, keep walking. Plant your feet in Jesus' footsteps, day by day, hour by hour. Like Andrew, the courage and bravery involved in that walk may go unnoticed. It may even seem in vain. But it is not. For also like Andrew, those steps may be the very footsteps which precipitate an untold wave of God's love and peace, showing to thousands and thousands the freedom found in letting go of self, and following Christ

Hello guys, what do you think is the most reasonable interpretation of mark 10:18 where Jesus says "why do you call me good only God is good" I have listened to few bible scholars, Bart Ehrman, Dan Mclellan and John Barton, they all seem to think Jesus denied being God or being good. Both are problematic for the doctrine of incarnation and trinity in my opinion. Bart Ehrman once shared in his blog that if he was a christian he would think Jesus is and was God but didn't know he was God when he was human. But Jesus denying he was God seems even so extreme for the kenosis. If Jesus is God but he denied being God he is actively teaching false theology. How can this problem be solved? I heard there are theologians who think bible might have deeper meaning than what the biblical authors and characters meant, so maybe historical Jesus denied being God or being good but the deeper meaning God intended was Jesus pointing out implications of calling him good. What do you think? I am considering converting to christianity but this verse makes me doubt.

If so please advise.

I am currently in a Catholic Sacred Theology program waiting to here back from a PhD in the humanities,

I wrote my MA thesis on Political Theology of Agamben and Benjamin contra Schmitt.

If I do not get accepted to the PhD I am thinking of switching from the Sacred Theology track at my Program into a Catholic Mdiv.

Theologically speaking I feel closer to eastern orthodox but I feel it is important to understand Roman Catholic theology fully at the best that one can do.

Any chaplains here? If so please advise.

Can you earn a living doing this work is it fulfilling for you?

Or realistically would it be a part-time at best gig while juggling another job at the same time?

Please advise.

Bless.

Ideally something critical focusing on props and deliberate audi-visual 'manipulations' to achieve mystical ambience

I was thinking recently about how there have been many self-proclaimed prophets, or over eager scholars, that have tried to predict when the Second Coming would happen. Such events like the infamous Robert Camping prediction that shook so many lives, only one small footnote in the countless hundreds of times this prediction has been made but much alike in that they always take the loosest interpretations of Biblical numerics. They don't really make sense.

I feel their heart is in the right place most of the time, but they seem to ignore one fact:

God already told us when it would happen, but not in terms of a specific timetable.

You see, I believe that when Christ gave the final charge to His Apostles to spread the message, this held the key to His Return.

Think about it: Does it not speak to God's Love, Mercy, and Patience that He would not draw the curtain closed on the Earth until every last living soul has had a chance to know Him and come to Him? When everyone on Earth has made the informed decision between Eternal Life, or death?

I believe that this is the only way that it will happen, and that to be a follower simply waiting for it to happen is akin to waiting for a castle to fall from the sky. Sooner or later, you'll have to put down the bricks yourself if you wish to see it at all.

In summary, God's will is therefore not a cryptographic puzzle to be solved. Rather, it is a mission to be carried out through our hands.

What do you think? Is humanity this important to God's plan? Are we closer to the Return than we think? I also apologize if this seems like an obvious concept to some. I am a born-again believer, and in relearning my faith through new eyes, I am drawn to conclusions I previously never thought about. Many times I have had moments where I'm like "It was literally so obvious, how did I not realize this before"

It's a wonderful thing, really.

For context, I grew up in a tradition that never recognized saints, let alone venerated them. In many ways I am new to the practice of attending to saints, but I have found incredible encouragement in doing so. I want to say a little about why we need to attend to them, and then give a few personal examples from my life.

I read recently that many of us have traded saints for personalities, in part because we (wrongly) believe what we need to attend to is the lives of those who have powerful ministries. As a result, we often emulate their lives in an attempt to receive or get in touch with that same kind of power. But the saints are not saints because they live spectacular lives. They are saints because they show us what a life dependent upon God looks like. In other words, they reveal what it looks like to have one’s life mastered by God. As a result, in attending to them we have our eyes turned toward God, because that’s where their attention is.

Furthermore, if we believe the saints are present to Christ, and Christ is present to us, then the great cloud of witnesses surrounds us and prays for us already. Asking certain saints to pray for us, attending to their lives, and honoring their stories shapes our attention and encourages us along our faith journeys. We discover time and again that none of us walk these paths alone.

Now for a few personal examples. I will try to be brief.

1. I suffer from a fear of having my sins exposed and being put to shame. This has a lot to do with how I grew up. My priest encouraged me to study the life of Saint Macarius of Egypt, who was known for being someone who covered the weaknesses of others. As I have asked him to pray for me, I have felt more trust in the God who is a shelter for those He loves and puts no one to shame.

2. Saint Jude is not just the patron saint of lost causes, but the patron saint of those who believe they are lost causes. When my anxiety leads me to fear God in ways that are not true to who God is or who I am, Saint Jude is a saint that offers me comfort and reminds me that no one is a lost cause to God.

3. Most of all, the Theotokos, Holy Mother Mary. I have deep wounds in my life from my mother. Attending to Mary, seeing her Son through her eyes, her delight in him and her devotion to him, and the ways in which her “yes” makes our “yes” possible, has been nothing short of transformative for me. It has not only brought healing to some of my deep wounds, but has made me fall deeper in love with the God and The Church, both of whom nurture and tend to me.

Do you have any particular saints who have been impactful in your life? What do you think about the saints?

This passage is difficult for both dispensationalists and non-dispensationalists. For the first, because it directly mentions eternal life and condemnation as consequences of this judgment and for the others, because it apparently places the judgment immediately after the coming of Christ. (I am a historical premillennialist and i have views similar to the progressive covenantalism, new covenant theology and progressive dispensationalism).

Context: I've heard many times that when Jesus wept, He was showing that He's capable of emotions and felt for all mankind.

Does this "mankind" envolves those who He knew at the time as a human, or was He thinking about the mankind in the future also?

As a human being, was He capable of knowing all the suffering and sin in the future? Did He weep for us, for example?

I'm sorry if this post is out of place or in the wrong sub, if so please point me to the right place

This is a debate that I've heard a lot being thrown around being at a Christian college. I personally believe that Christianity is a religion that demands a relationship. The argument that I hear for "relationship only" is "religion is 'do do do' whereas relationship is a relationship." But the tradition in Christianity is extremely, important I believe, taking of communion, fellowship within the church, staff roles in the church, baptism, for example. Whereas if your faith is a relationship only, my question for you is: do you not need the church anymore? should you not be baptized? if you think your relationship with God is good, do you not need to listen to your pastor anymore? does church tradition not matter if Christianity is only a relationship?

(Please don't misread my tone, the only thing I desire is healthy debate about "Relationship only" or "Religion demands relationship," I am not mad or aggravated nor do I wish to get into an argument)

What do you guys think of IFB Theology? Have you experienced discussing theology with someone out of this movement? I’ve listed their major and most common doctrines listed below:

1. KJV Only
2. Baptist Succession (rejection of Protestant Heritage and Baptist succession of churches that trace back to Christ)
3. Young Earth Creation (With some old earth Gap creationists)
4. Rapture theology
5. Anti-Secularism
6. Strict modesty standards

Just really seeing what comments you guys may have with this movement of believers and initial thoughts on their core doctrine.

If we hold that the actions of the 3 persons of Holy Trinity are one and the same as long as they are done out of the divine nature, how can we also affirm that only God the Son, aka the Logos, aka Jesus, was incarnated into a man but not God the Father nor God the Holy Spirit?

Is this a fictional plot device, or is there any basis in theology for selling your soul to the devil (Or lesser demons) and dancing yourself?

And assuming this is based on scripture, is there any hope for the contractee?

Jesus said marriage is between one man and woman. So I have a question..... What is God's view on LGBTQs? Answer with the Bible and with h Jesus' thoughts.

Scholars say early biblical texts are polytheistic but today christians aren't polytheists. Can christians accept those polytheistic biblical texts to be errors?

For context I grew up around UMC, Southern Baptist, and some pentecostal teaching in the southern United States (much of this leaned conservative which is where I tend to lean in much but not all things) but recently have made friends with a brother who spoke highly of the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox church. I've also been reading into John Mark Comer and have seen how he at times crosses over into mysticism (not something I'm overly encouraging of but at the same time feel as though there is merit to it depending on if its done within the teachings of scripture and never to go against the basis of Christian belief).

Each of these viewpoints I see has their own merit (Protestantism [and its many flavors/denomenations], Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy primarily is what I'm referring to.) but I want to see kind of "how did we get here historically" not just in terms of reading historical events, but how Christian doctrine developed over centuries. That being said, my biggest priority is to try to view things objectively which feels incredibly difficult because it seems most people who study into these things bring with them innate biases (I'm sure I probably will to btw). But I want to try to understand things as objectively as I can.

I feel like I'll probably have to settle for doing more reading from many different perspectives (protestant, catholic, eastern orthodox, etc.) but I want to again focus on

1. how these doctrines developed, and what was the basis for their development and

2. objectivity, or at least fair view of both sides on any issues so I can weigh them out myself.

I would appreciate reading recommendation so I can put together my own timeline and help further define my theological views. And if its not too much to ask I'd love to know from each commenter a bit of your background theologically and even personally so I can understand where you're coming from. Thanks!

I’ve spoken to lots of Christian’s who are Anglicans and Catholics, and both groups tend to strongly suggest that African Pentecostal Christianity is not a ‘ genuine ‘ or ‘ authentic ‘ form of Christianity. From a theological perspective, is this a reasonable perspective?

I find this question to be interesting, because it’s important: in order to answer it we must resolve what criteria can be used to distinguish legitimate vs illegitimate forms of Christianity. These criteria then need to be consistently applied, and that can have interesting implications.

We shouldn’t avoid coming up with an answer because it’s difficult: it can’t be the case that any group can arbitrarily self define as Christian, there has to be a set of beliefs and practices that they subscribe to.

The quest for an answer will inevitably have implications for the relationships between Christians globally, though in the quest for theological truth I do not think it is correct to prioritise this aspect.

Sorry if my question sounds stupid, but it's a real doubt, I don't see Genesis 1 mentioning God creating the water. The text says that God moved upon the face of the waters and later in verse 6 says that God divided waters from waters.

Is there any specific interpretation for that ? God created light, land, plants, animals, stars, but is not mentioned the creation of water. Did the water already exist before Genesis 1 ?

Years ago this sub was overrun by the inane ramblings of users like mannon fire (heck, maybe he still does, but I have him blocked so I don't see it), and then for years it seemed largely silent. But in the past few weeks there have been lots of great questions and posts, and the contributions to them have been thoughtful and full of depth. It seemed to happen so suddenly! Was there a change of mods, or some type of intentional effort from another sub? I'd like to see the same kind of revival in other subs!