Im trying to understand if any chapters were added to the gospels after the evangelists have written it, like 30 years after or so, and know how to respond to someone who use this evidences of the addition of chapters against the authority of the Bible

Thank you and good morning/afternoon/night.

I mean, has it ever confused, overcomplicated, or worked against your faith? In what way? Can it make you too dogmatic and rigid?

How do you do theology in a way that is not toxic to your spiritual life? (not assuming here that theology is toxic just assuming it can become that way in some cases).

I'm just some guy who's read a few books and is trying to make sense of things. To that end, I was hoping for a review of the following. It's an attempt to make sense of atonement in a context of our observed physical realities. I'm trying to be consistent with the New Testament, and also understand where I connect with or contradict various Christian writers or streams of thought. Here's what I've got:

God creates all things, which often means he creates through his created agents and processes. For example, if two humans make a third human, God created that human through the actions of his created agents. God (while omniscient) did not meticulously define every detail of the universe. The semi-chaotic physical processes God put in place eventually resulted in the evolution of the human species.

God's creative process has the ultimate end of overcoming chaos, entropy, and death. God recognized that humans were able to uniquely participate in his creative processes, and finds partners desirable. However, God also recognized that we are, through our evolved biological nature, selfish, short-sighted, and self-destructive. As biological beings we are by nature agents of chaos and death. We are part of the problem, and we must stop being part of the problem before we can be part of the solution. If we will not stop being part of the problem, God must ultimately isolate or destroy us, for the protection of the good creation.

Recognizing that humans could not change our nature without help, God intended to help us. However, humanity did not recognize our broken state, and thus could not recognize a need for change. To that end, God chose two humans and presented them with the most simple moral framework imaginable: you have everything you could possibly ever need, life is as easy as it can be, don't do this one thing you have no need to do because it will kill you. Those humans discovered that they were unable to follow even such simple instructions. God thereby taught them that there was something wrong with them. Adam and Eve were the first humans to discover their own moral depravity, and recognize that they needed healing.

God further created the Jewish people for the purpose of preparing the broader human species to recognize these truths. That work culminated in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. After the resurrection, humanity was prepared to receive the Spirit of God, who could proceed with the work of healing us and making us into the images of God we were always meant to be. The crucifixion thereby freed us from the inevitability of our deaths. We are able to cease being agents of chaos and death, meaning we were saved from the ultimate wrath of God against all such. Christian discipleship is following the Christian disciplines, which work in us to make us the God-imaging people who can live.

So my atonement theory is a Christus Victor (Christ stopped the inevitably of death) wrapped in a theosis (the entire purpose of the atonement is so that we can become like God) with some moral exemplar thrown in. I think I'm explicitly rejecting sizeable fractions of the Augustine->Aquinas->Calvin pathway, including inherited original guilt, natural law theory, and penal substitutionary atonement, though I'm retaining substitution itself. (Christ died so we wouldn't have to.) It also seems Wesleyan, focusing on sanctification of the disciple.

Thoughts? Am I in contact with any significant writers? Who should I read next?

Hey everyone. Any recommendations for sources on Jewish baptism practices and thought? Especially intertestamental/1st century? Thanks!

Covenants are something seen through scripture as one of the identifiers of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of Christ. So much so that one can verify if the God you serve is YHWH by simply asking, "What covenant do you have with Him?"

I want to understand and know from those who have knowledge on the subject, what weight do covenants carry in our way of knowing God? And what are the different benefits of making Covenants with God alongside the consequences of breaking your covenants with God? And are all covenants equal in the eyes of God? What is the purpose of God establishing covenants with a people He knows cannot keep covenants? Can a Christian have more covenants with God beyond the blood of the new Covenant? And are their sins forgiven by the blood if they break a covenant with God outside the New and eternal Covenant sealed by the Lamb's blood?

I am a Christian and I suppose this leans more to the Christian Theology side of the spectrum. But if there is an occurance of the need for covenants in other religious theological perspectives, I would like to hear their take on the above questions they can answer.

Do you feel inspired by His presence during your studies or are they for the most part intellectual experiences? I’m wondering whether God continues to actively inspire humans towards His truth. Thank you for your thoughts.

In Matthew 13:44-46, Jesus tells two parables, each about a person who discovers a valuable item, and then sells all he owns in order to posses it. I've always believed that the valuable item (pearl or treasure) represents the Kingdom of Heaven, and the man or merchant represents us. Just as the merchant sold all that he had to purchase the pearl, so we too should be willing to give up everything and follow Christ (Matthew 19:21).

However, my pastor recently preached on this passage and posited a different interpretation: We are the pearl or the treasure, and Christ is the merchant who gave up everything in order to save us (2 Corinthians 8:9). Thus, the parables are not about what we should be willing to do to attain the Kingdom of Heaven, but about what Christ has already done for us. It's not about our sacrifice for Him, but about His sacrifice and love for us.

So which is it? My cursory review of the scholarship on this topic seems to point to the first interpretation, but the second seems to fit better with my understanding of the Gospel? Is it possible it's both? Can you recommend anything I should read to better understand this topic?

hey, so i’m a 17 year old just now graduating high school and have a bit more time on my hands, and want to finally get into theology like i always have wanted to. i have no religious background or experience and my knowledge on religion is extremely limited, but as someone who enjoys literature i really want to study the bible, specifically the new testament. while i am not religious, i am open to it and want to learn more.

where and how can i start properly adopting this interest in a way that is respectful, accessible and rich? i have genuinely no idea where to start.

Do you guys have a preferred transportation you read? I know that different translations use different manuscripts. My Bible that I carry around with me is the NKJV, however I know that it is not up to date with all the manuscripts. What translations are the most accurate?

There is a huge misconception everywhere that we are living under the New Covenant. That is not true. The New Covenant is not yet.

What is the New Covenant? This is what the Bible says:

Jeremiah 31: 31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord: 33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Then, in Hebrews 8, we find almost the exact description of the New Covenant, and it ends like this:

Hebrews 8: 13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Paul said that that which waxes old is ready to vanish away. That clearly implies that it had not vanished away yet. That was written after Jesus's ascension, and the old covenant had not vanished yet.

Hosea 2: 18 And in that day will I make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field and with the fowls of heaven, and with the creeping things of the ground: and I will break the bow and the sword and the battle out of the earth, and will make them to lie down safely. 19 And I will betroth thee unto me for ever; yea, I will betroth thee unto me in righteousness, and in judgment, and in lovingkindness, and in mercies. 20 I will even betroth thee unto me in faithfulness: and thou shalt know the Lord.

Well, that hasn't happened. We are about to enter WW3. It's quite the opposite right now.

Galatians 4: 22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. 24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. 25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. 26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. 27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. 28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. 29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. 30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. 31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

So, we see here the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai and the one of promise. We will be heir of the promises. We will inherit the promise of the New Jerusalem, but we are not there yet. We are the children of promise as Isaac was. Issac was promised Jerusalem. We are promised Jerusalem from above.

Jesus is the mediator to bring us to the covenant of promise.

Hebrews 8: 6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

Hebrews 9: 15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

We are called, and we will receive the promise of eternal inheritance. We are heirs, but we haven't received our inheritance yet. Not yet.

We are also not saved yet. He will save us at His return.

Hebrews 9: 28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation

Hebrews 10 says:

Hebrews 10: 1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

"Things to come" implies that they have not come yet. Again, this was written after Jesus's ascension. Nothing has changed.

Hebrews 10: 23 Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;)

Hebrews 10: 36 For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise. 37 For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry.

There are clear verses that tell us that the covenant of promise is what we hope to be in. We need to hold fast to the things to come and hope for salvation. We should not say we are already in the New Covenant and that we are already saved because that is not accurate. Those are things to come at Jesus's second coming.

Colossians 2: 16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: 17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

What are these things which are a shadow of things to come?

Meat and drink are shadows of New Jerusalem.

Revelation 22: 1 And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. 2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

Holidays are shadows of the fall Feast Days, which are yet to be fulfilled. Feast of Trumpets, Feast of Tabernacles, and Feast of Booths.

New Moon is a shadow of Feast of Trumpets. This is the specific feast in which Jesus is expected to return according to Matthew 24.

Mathew 24: 36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

"The day that no man knows the day or the hour" is a Jewish idiom for Feast of Trumpets.

Sabbath days are shadows of the coming millennium.

Hebrews 4: 9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.

Those are shadows of things to come. They haven't come yet. The covenant of promise is the New Covenant when the laws will be written in our hearts, everyone will know the Lord, and our sins will be forgiven.

Is the covenant of Mount Sinai obsolete? No. It was added because of transgressions. That is the covenant we break when we break the commandments since the other is not here yet. We need to keep the commandments to be able to obtain the promises.

Revelation 22: 14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

Keep the commandments and take hold of the promises because it is not true that we are already living under the New Covenant. We hope to be in it. That is faith.

Hebrews 11: 1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Me and my Father had an interesting conversation about Abrahams test (Gen c.22). My father presented the thesis that Abraham knew that he was being tested, since Abraham in Gen c.17 entered into a pact with God, where God would give Sarah and Abraham their son Isak, and Isak would be the Father of many people. Therefore Abraham knew God could not kill Isak without breaking the pact. Idk how I feel about this thesis, but I’m curious what you think; and if anyone has heard about this thesis before and have some litterateur about it?

Both seems to deny libertarian free will and embrace compatibilist free will. Both seem to suggest that God chooses to save some and not others.

Summa Theologiae > First Part > Question 23 > Article 3, Reply to Objection 1:

"God loves all men and all creatures, inasmuch as He wishes them all some good; but He does not wish every good to them all. So far, therefore, as He does not wish this particular good—namely, eternal life—He is said to hate or reprobated them."

The above quote says "He does not wish every good to them all". Another relevant quote:

"I answer that, God does reprobate some. For it was said above (Article 1) that predestination is a part of providence. To providence, however, it belongs to permit certain defects in those things which are subject to providence, as was said above (I:22:2). Thus, as men are ordained to eternal life through the providence of God, it likewise is part of that providence to permit some to fall away from that end; this is called reprobation. Thus, as predestination is a part of providence, in regard to those ordained to eternal salvation, so reprobation is a part of providence in regard to those who turn aside from that end. Hence reprobation implies not only foreknowledge, but also something more, as does providence, as was said above (I:22:1). Therefore, as predestination includes the will to confer grace and glory; so also reprobation includes the will to permit a person to fall into sin, and to impose the punishment of damnation on account of that sin."

I don't have a problem with this since Romans 9 says:

"What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills."

And in the following quote, the way he uses the term "free will" suggests that he has a compatibilist definition of free will in mind and not the libertarian one:

Summa Theologiae > First Part > Question 83

"Reply to Objection 3. Free-will is the cause of its own movement, because by his free-will man moves himself to act. But it does not of necessity belong to liberty that what is free should be the first cause of itself, as neither for one thing to be cause of another need it be the first cause. God, therefore, is the first cause, Who moves causes both natural and voluntary. And just as by moving natural causes He does not prevent their acts being natural, so by moving voluntary causes He does not deprive their actions of being voluntary: but rather is He the cause of this very thing in them; for He operates in each thing according to its own nature."

Is it true that St. Thomas Aquinas's views on free will are similar to those of John Calvin? Both say that

1. "He does not wish every good to them all"
2. God "moves causes both natural and voluntary", "He the cause of this very thing in them".

I think that most of the vocabulary used in theology gained its meaning in a late-antique/ pre modern period, and was fully understandable in these times. Nowadays its still used in church and theology, but it's always in danger to be misunderstood or to be taken just as a placeholder for some old concept we don't get anymore. "Sin" is a quite central concept for theology laying the need for salvation and grace; but I'm not sure if it still qualifies as a qualifier of self .

So what do you think about, when you talk about "Sin"? Or how would you define "Sin" in a modern setting? I'm interested.

Edit: Thank you for all your answers. I think, I'll reformulate my question a bit, to get more to my point. Is sin a kind of behaviour? A single action? A form of consciousness? Or something different?

There are a few instances in Songs of Solomon where the couple appears to be meeting in secret to have intercourse without being married yet.

At the start of the book, we get a clear image that the girl is a young innocent farm girl, and in chapter 1:4 she is already in the king’s chambers. If you keep reading along in chapter 2:4 the king brings her to the “banqueting house” and his banner over her was love.

Chapter 8 we get a look into the girl’s desire to have a sexual fantasy with the man but cannot do so because she will get judged by others. But in chapter 3 it seems to be the fulfilment of that desire - she wakes up with a strong desire for him, so she searches him and she brings him into her mother’s chamber at night to clearly have intercourse as there wouldn’t be anything else to do and it would be extremely immodest and not appropriate for a man to meet a girl’s mother in her chamber at that time.

Keep in mind that yes, Songs of Solomon is not in chronological order. And the title that claims chapter 3 is a dream is wrong - titles, verses and chapters were not included in the original manuscript. It was later added by the patriarchs to make it easier to read but they created the titles to favour their view.

If you read chapter 3 like that, everything points to the couple meeting in secret to have intercourse.

My personal belief is that the Song of Solomon was purposefully included to help us make sense of the mixed messages we get from scripture about sex. There are entries throughout the Bible about the sinfulness of sex. Be it prostitution, adultery, incest etc. All of these are missing a key component that makes them pure: Love. Constantly, the song is reaffirming that the couple is deeply rooted in love for each other.

If you also take into consideration Exodus 22:16, when people had sex, they were expected to marry - but how would this work for a couple who is already committed to get married? Which appears to be the couple in Songs of Solomon?

When Paul says for us to get married to have sex he is not saying that marriage is what makes sex right, he is saying that we need to love the person to sex right because love is the root of marriage and if you had sex for any other desire outside love such as lust that is sexual immorality.

Marriage in itself does not justify sex. Love does. If I marry someone out of my lust to have sex that does not make it right. If I have sex with someone, even before we are married because I love them so much and I have dedicated my heart to be with them that is completely fine.

Any other opinions are rooted in religion and traditions which Jesus HATED (see his conflicts with the Pharisees), he constantly preached about putting the spiritual things such as the intentions of the heart ABOVE the law.

Spiritually nothing changes when you marry someone. Before you marry someone, you ALREADY make the commitment right there and then if this is someone you’re gonna commit to or not. If you only make the commitment after the marriage then you’ll never marry because you have to commit before it in order to marry. If everyone carried the view to only commit after marriage then no one would get married because no one is committing before the marriage.

It’s all in the heart as God said.

Reading Romans chapter 7, it seems to me like Paul is talking about himself after converting due to him

1. speaking in the present tense "I"

2. that he "delights in the law of God, in the inner being" (rom 7:22)

3. someone who is not a believer, cant do good: "none is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God"(rom 3:10-11). Thus when Paul says that "he has the desire to good"(rom 7:18) shows he is describing himself after converting

Yet this make me wonder, if Paul says he has "crucified the old man... that he would no longer be enslaved to sin"(rom 6:6), why does he still say "I am of the flesh, sold as a slave to sin"(rom 7:14). Ultimately how can we still be a slave to sin, and struggle with it, if we have been crucified with Christ that sin may no longer have power over us

Hi all, I'm writing a paper on the "development" of the concept of Hell throughout history. To be more in-depth on my intended thesis: I'm curious about the religious belief in Hell, its punitive function, and the historical figures who kind of manufactured it (i.e. its transition from a more Hades/Sheol kind of place to the Dante concept of suffering, torture, retribution, etc.). I'm very interested in the very robust imaginations of the Christian historical figures who shaped our modern perception of Hell, the lakes of flames, the various demons, the creation of and hierarchy of the kings of hell, and the bizarre occult world that sort of orbits around these ideas and others.

Currently, I'm reading Inferno and plan to read Devine Comedy. I'm waiting on The Penguin Book of Hell to arrive in the mail. I've purchased King James' Daemonologie and plan to use that too. Milton's Paradise Lost is on my list. Furthermore, I've purchased Heaven And Hell: A History of the Afterlife by Bart D. Ehrman. I also plan to reference Bosch's artwork whom I've always viewed as a bit of a Christian propagandist or pedaler of the fear of Hell.

Though this list seems pretty comprehensive, now that I'm writing it all out, I'd really like to know if there are any texts that I've missed especially an analysis of Hell from within the theological community.

LMK thanks.

Is Ezekiel 18 referring to something else or does it allow for the doctrine of original sin?

Didn't Jesus speak Aramaic?

Luke 23:38

And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, This Is The King Of The Jews.

Didn't Paul say otherwise in Hebrews 11:40 and 1 Thessalonians 4:15?

Hebrews 11:40

God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

1 Thessalonians 4:15

For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep.

Luke 20:37

37 Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.^(38) For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him.

12 For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 

14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 
15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

I want to know what you all think. Is Romans 2:14 talking about lost Gentiles, or Christian Gentiles? Keeping in mind, the Greek had no punctuation. I dissect the verse a little in my latest video. If you think that Paul is saying Gentiles can in any way "do what the law requires," how do you reconcile that with Paul's other writings which seem to vehemently reject that idea? More than that, even if you can reconcile the principle, WHY would he say that right there? How do you reconcile the meaning within its context?
https://youtu.be/ujaaY2EHeRc <-- you can hear a bit more context here