I’m unsure of the right place to ask this question, but I’m attempting to compile a bunch of texts of basically everything related to Christianity. Obviously, this is a lengthy project, but I intend to spend my whole life reading through these texts and giving my best shot at understanding everything there is to know about Jesus and about the history of Christianity. Any help would be great for this, and if you have anything that you think I should add to the list, please respond here! Right now, I’m trying to understand the basis of every denomination, as well as the history of each one. Obviously, the Catholic Church has the Catechism of the Catholic Church, but what are the equivalents of this for each denomination? For example, I would assume for the Lutheran Church that the 95 Theses would be the equivalent, but I also could be wrong about that. Any help would be great! If you don’t have the answers for every single denomination, that’s completely fine, but you all probably know way more than I do, so I figured I would ask! Thanks!

I know we're treading deep into the realm of speculative theology, but I'm curious what you all think. Imagine someone who commits heinous crimes that dehumanize and debase both self and other and society in ways that cause great suffering and spiritual harm, but by the grace of God repents and turns toward Christ. Will their conscience feel the grief and regret and pain of those sins, eons into eternity with a resurrection body?

Please do not take offense. According Ephesians 4:11; Christ gave the church;

And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

so where did the theologians come from?

Not a theologist, just a dummy.

Is the only difference between Jesus and a normal human being the knowledge of the existence of God?

If Jesus was fully human, how can we explain that He did not experience doubt about the existence of God, as other humans do? Did His absolute knowledge of God make Him different from us in terms of faith?

Also, if Jesus performed miracles, was this a manifestation of His faith, or rather the result of His complete and direct knowledge of God’s will? Is it possible that Jesus' miracles were not magical powers, but expressions of His perfect union with God?

As the Bible says: “If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you” (Matthew 17:20)

Hi, I am looking for more information on the concept of implicit commandments that seem to be present in the bible. It seems to me that some commandments can imply another underlying commandment that is assumed on the outset, without being explicitly mentioned. For example, I think that the commandment of "you shall not murder" implies the existence of another commandment similar to "you shall respect human life".

Is there a theological concept/name for this phenomenon of implicit commandments?

Also, is there any consensus on whether this is a valid line of reasoning?

On a related note, I think there is also an implicit commandment in the commandment (is it a commandment?) of "love your neighbour as you do yourself". I think that this commandment implicitly assumes that self-love is a given and it should be extended to other people as well. Could this be interpreted to imply the existence of a commandment to "love yourself" by extension?

View Poll

Title

Somewhat related to academic studies on the Bible, Erasmus is one of the most well known Biblical scholars of the Middle Ages. But, he was very controversial among the Catholic hierarchy, and many of his works were put on the list of banned books, known as the Index Librorum Prohibitorum. It in fact went back and forth between banning all his works and not doing so depending on the Pope, eventually the last edition to mention Erasmus was the 1896 edition. This is what Wikipedia says of the whole situation:

“By 1896, the Roman Index still listed Erasmus' Colloquia, The Praise of Folly, The Tongue, The Institution of Christian Marriage, and one other as banned, plus particular editions of the Adagia and Paraphrase of Matthew. All other works could be read in suitable expurgated versions."

So, I need help finding the expurgated versions of his Biblical commentaries and some of his works. I find the man very interesting, and I would like to see what the Catholic Church historically supported among his works, for learning purposes. St. Alphonsus de Ligouri, one of the most famous theologians of all time, considered him a rhetorician who was in conflict with theologians during his lifetime. Any editions with a nihil obstat and imprimatur would be greatly appreciated. If someone can send me links to any pdfs or places to buy them that would be amazing. These are the works and translation of his that I want to read in particular, so if anyone can find those types of versions for these that would be great:

• His Commentary on the Bible
• An Version of His Diglot Bible Translation
• On Civility in Children
• Ciceronianus
• The Education of a Christian Prince
• Copia: Foundations of the Abundant Style
• Apophthegmatum opus
• On Free Will (1524)
• Ecclesiastes/The Preacher (1536)

If we all are descendents from Adam and Eve and if Jesus had earthly mother (her grandgrand... Parents were Adam and Eve) in extension Jesus grandparents also are Adam and Eve. But since Jesus is God and he created these two does it mean God created his grandparents?

The body is a separate identity, beyond the soul. I have been reading and writing about this topic for a long time. Naturally, when we accept the body as an independent identity, it becomes clearer why suicide is interpreted differently in theology and why it is deemed “forbidden” in most religions.

So, let me ask you this question as well: why is suicide viewed as forbidden in theology?

This is a question that has bothered me for quite some time because of how important it is when it comes to spiritually explaining the presence and effect of evil on this world, plus man's contribution to evil.

I am looking for an educated perspective on the nature and meaning of the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil and also from those gifted with revelation, I ask that you share what God reveals to you about this questions.

When we look at what is said of the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil, we can draw the following characteristics that might give clues into what it actually means.

1. It was in the middle of the Garden with the tree of life.(Gen 2:9)

What could be the significance of its location? And it's shared proximity with the tree of life, because that doesn't seem random, or simply poetic.

If one said it was poetic, then what is the interpretation of this poetry.

2. Every creature seems to have access to the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil.

In Gen 2:16-17, God gives man the first commandment, that man is allowed to eat of every tree in the garden except the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil meaning for man, we had access to this tree.

Then later in Gen 3, we see the serpent living on the tree(only implied) and talking to the woman God had made from Adam.

So the access to the tree is not forbidden but eating of its fruit certainly results into death.

3. It is pleasing to sight and good for food.

Like all trees God caused to grow out of the ground, the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil, was pleasing to sight and good for food. This is going to also be important in understanding the nature of which sight and which kind of food is being talked about here and which kind of trees are growing in the garden.

Are all of them in the nature of the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil? It seems like they are different from apple, mango and oak trees that we know of.

4. When one eats of this fruit they become like God.

First mentioned by the serpent(Gen 3:4-5) when it was deceiving the woman and then later affirmed by God when He(they) blocked man from accessing the tree of life.

God says, "Now that man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil..." Gen 3:22

So there's certainly a difference between the nature of man before and after eating the forbidden fruit, and one outstanding difference is to become like one of those in the creator God.

5. The woman adds a new clause to the Law God gave, that the tree should not be touched. (Gen 3:3)

God didn't mention anything about touching the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil, interesting as to why the woman mentions it and a good example to show how man sometimes adds things to God's commandments even when it is for good intentions.

And if God didn't want man to eat or touch the tree, why did He allow it to grow from the ground?

6. The tree looks good for making one wise.

This was the testimony of the woman who saw the tree just before she went ahead to eat of the fruit. Interesting how before the serpent spoke to the woman, she didn't see the tree as good for gaining wisdom and why does one desire wisdom in a perfect world?

Because isn't wisdom a tool we use to navigate an imperfect world?

And which kind of tree looks good to make one wise? What do all these things mean?

7. The effect of eating the fruit only kicked in after both man and woman ate of the fruit.

What does this show about this fruit. Is it a manifestation of God's justice that, "If the law was given to Adam, until Adam eats of the fruit, man shall live." That seems to be implied.

And then the first effect literally says, their eyes were opened(where they closed before?). If it is the metaphor for realizing something, was it the fruit or the awareness that they had broken God's law that caused their eyes to open?

And when their eyes were open, they realised that they were naked. Is this shame or is it just the fear of being caught manifesting as nakedness or is it how you know that you will die, if you can tell that you are naked.

Kindly share what you think, I would love to hear any opinions on this subject.

In today’s world, far too many Christians find themselves mirroring those whom Jesus spoke against: the religious zealots, who displayed a form of outward piety while lacking true understanding and compassion. These religious leaders were more concerned with strict adherence to rules and status than embodying the love, humility, and mercy at the heart of Jesus’ teachings. Jesus warned of this when He said, “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence” (Matthew 23:25, NASB). Many believers today focus on external expressions of faith while missing the deeper calling of the gospel: to embody the heart of Christ.

At the core of this disconnect is often a lack of understanding of Christ himself—Christology. Knowing who Jesus truly is shapes how believers interpret Scripture, especially the challenging passages of the Old Testament, and discern what should be taken literally versus allegorically. Through the insights of theologians like Karl Barth, John Wesley, and St. Thomas Aquinas, we can see how a well-developed Christology helps align our lives with Jesus’ teachings, enriches our reading of Scripture, and deepens our spiritual transformation.

Christology as the Foundation for Understanding Scripture

When Jesus said, “If you know Me, you would know My Father also” (John 8:19, NASB), He underscored that understanding Him is key to knowing God’s nature. Karl Barth highlights this in his Church Dogmatics, emphasizing that Jesus is God’s ultimate self-revelation. For Barth, Christology isn’t just a part of theology; it’s its core. He taught that reading Scripture through the lens of Christ gives clarity and purpose to the entirety of God’s Word. Through Christ, we see God’s ultimate intention of love and redemption—a view that should reshape how we interpret even the most challenging passages.

Wesleyan Theology: Love, Transformation, and Interpretation

John Wesley’s teachings emphasize that understanding Christ is essential to both faith and practice. For Wesley, following Christ means a life of love that grows into “Christian perfection,” where believers are progressively transformed to mirror Jesus’ love and humility. Wesley’s focus on love as the ultimate ethic helps in interpreting Scripture, particularly difficult passages. For example, Wesley would encourage Christians to interpret “an eye for an eye” in the Old Testament through the compassion Jesus later demonstrated in teachings like, “turn the other cheek” (Matthew 5:39, NASB). Wesley reminds us that the goal of biblical interpretation is not merely knowledge but becoming more Christ-like in love and mercy.

Aquinas and the Role of Reason in Christology

St. Thomas Aquinas offers a reasoned approach to understanding Christology’s impact on biblical interpretation. In his Summa Theologica, Aquinas teaches that Scripture often has multiple layers of meaning—literal, allegorical, moral, and anagogical. His idea of the analogy of faith suggests that each part of Scripture should be read in harmony with the whole, especially through the revelation of Christ. Aquinas’ approach allows believers to see how literal stories in the Old Testament, like the conquest of Canaan, can also carry deeper spiritual meanings pointing toward Christ’s ultimate mission of peace and redemption.

Discerning Literal and Allegorical Interpretation

With insights from Barth, Wesley, and Aquinas, a robust Christology emerges as essential for discerning the line between literal and allegorical passages. Barth’s emphasis on Jesus as the fulfillment of God’s revelation, Wesley’s focus on Christ-like love, and Aquinas’ framework of multiple senses of Scripture together help believers interpret passages with Jesus’ heart and mission in mind. When Jesus says, “I am the good shepherd” (John 10:11, NASB), we understand this as a metaphor rich with Old Testament imagery, ultimately showing Christ’s care for humanity in a way that transcends a literal shepherd’s role.

Christology also provides insight into navigating difficult Old Testament passages, such as the conquest narratives. Barth would encourage believers to interpret these accounts as part of God’s unfolding story of redemption. Wesley’s focus on love compels us to interpret these passages with the ethic of peace Jesus taught, while Aquinas’ approach shows us how to see these events not as templates for Christian action but as part of the spiritual struggle ultimately fulfilled in Christ.

Christology and the Tough Parts of the Old Testament

A strong Christology helps Christians confront and understand the tough parts of the Old Testament. Barth’s emphasis on Christ as the center of revelation suggests that difficult passages about judgment or violence must be understood in light of Jesus’ ultimate mission of peace and reconciliation. Wesley’s ethic of love challenges believers to read with compassion, while Aquinas’ multiple senses of Scripture remind us that there are often deeper meanings pointing toward God’s redemptive purposes.

Why Christology is Crucial for Christian Life and Witness

Beyond interpretation, Christology has profound implications for how Christians live. Barth challenges Christians to avoid the hypocrisy of religious legalism and embody Christ’s love instead. Wesley calls for transformation that reflects Jesus’ compassion and humility, while Aquinas shows how true understanding leads to virtuous living. Grounded in Christ, we can become authentic witnesses, reflecting God’s love in our lives rather than merely upholding external rules.

Conclusion

With insights from Barth, Wesley, and Aquinas, it’s clear that a robust Christology is essential not only for interpreting Scripture but also for living a faithful Christian life. Knowing Jesus deeply clarifies what should be taken literally versus allegorically, helps us navigate challenging Old Testament texts, and guides us toward lives that reflect His love and truth. In a world where Christians too often resemble those whom Jesus rebuked, understanding Christ fully enables us to live with humility, compassion, and integrity, bearing witness to God’s transformative power.

Personally, I am not a big fan of his biblical commentary. I don't think he is being clear about what he is trying to do. He follows Carl Jung. I therefore think he believes the bible somehow expresses the evolution of the collective unconscious. My issue is that he does not state that this is what he is trying to explore and instead allows people to think he is doing theology.

But I was wondering what those who formally studied theology think of his views on the bible and what it says.

This dialogue is right now taking place as a subtopic under a r/theology post I made earlier, but I thought it would be good to hear how a philosophical crowd would address the propositions made and evaluate my response to them. If desired and requested, I’ll include the immediate comment that I’m replying to in the replies of this post. I encourage you to read and share your opinion!

Here it goes:

Okay, I somewhat understand what you’re saying. I’ll reply in parts so that I can address everything respectively, if I’m up for it and see it fit.

“God is both the singular, that from which all things [you mean in a material world that He or They or It created?] emanate, and God is also that which persists [you may mean an immaterial, conscious or otherwise sensitive personal substance? Okay. There are also other interpretations of this particular statement of yours, ones that echo Romans 1:20, I believe, so do let me know if I’m correctly comprehending you] through all that is emanated. In this sense, God is both singular and plural.”

Your use of the word “emanate” is quite interesting. I understand “emanate” to mean one thing’s [as if to generalize all of the material world under one definable quality — like perhaps its being material?] indiscriminate [usually in a directional sense, as to suggest that the going-out is all-directional or otherwise pervasive] projection from a source point; again, a thing’s indiscriminate projection from a source point. Emanation describes a quality of pervasiveness identifiably possessed by the thing from which there is “emanation,” and accordingly, an identification of that which emanates with the thing from which it emanates.

Emanation is usually 1.) of a thing itself, like in one poetically saying, “I have a pain radiating throughout my body — no, emanating out from me to my concerned loved ones, also, in the room with me;” or 2.) of a quality closely identifiable with the person or thing from which emanation is taking place, as in a heartfelt comment that, “That man’s empathetic spirit emanates from him wherever he goes, truly.”

So again, emanation is interesting to attribute to God in the context of creation because it suggests that all of the relevant created things are of Him, and not merely like him, in a sense that carries His sensitivity or character or consciousness. You’re in this way, kind of suggesting a divine, conscious universe. Moreover, not only do you imply that His or They or It’s essence and product goes out into the material world, but that it does so by a perpetual persistence of supernatural into natural translation; yes, that the natural properly emanates from the supernatural. Emanation implies a persistence in the universe that we, in order to define “God as Creator” by it, must suppose is true.

Your views therefore echo some of the great philosophers like Baruch Spinoza or Bishop George Berkley, the namesake of the prestigious Californian university, and I by no means believe you intend to align yourself with them 😂 you come across as more traditional and not so abstract or radical.

You do, however, align with a philosophy of abstraction in your understanding — which seems to be on account of your appealing to a sentiment you hold about God’s grandeur; one that makes you poetic in your approach to more concrete inquiries like how he is objectively defined as Creator of our universe, which has very objective origins itself.

I have a couple of other notes on the internal consistency of what you may permit me to assume is your thesis. Am I correct in assuming that?

You said, “God is both the singular, that from which all things emanate, and God is also that which persists through all that is emanated. In this sense, God is both singular and plural.”

I wanted to make sure I understood this thesis, and moreover that we were on common ground about what it means and what it implicates. But — I’ve done you some wrong in that I haven’t addressed the fact that it is a thesis statement to propose God as the Creator’s singularity and plurality — which I myself raised the question about in my first reply to you. So let me briefly address that:

Your assertion that God is an entity that the material world “emanates” from and that can be found persisting in all of that emanated world does not quite clarify whether or not He, even She, They, or It is a single being or a plurality. It only, and to no less extraordinary effect, describes what you believe is a reality of God’s very much living presence within everything natural in the universe, ourselves included. If by this you mean to communicate a divine plurality, then I gladly accept that as a thought-provoking perspective. But being that you paired this view of yours with more traditional theological concepts, like what can be found in Proverbs 16:4:

“The Lord has made all for Himself, Yes, even the wicked for the day of doom.” Proverbs‬ ‭16‬:‭4‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

— of which you stated, “But ultimately, 1 verse and 1 verse alone tells all stories ever told,” I’m more inclined to think that you would just like to see and explain how one sovereign and omnipotent God is, by manner of emanation, omnipresent in all things. That is still a colorful faith to hold, and it freely and genuinely gets my respect. I would raise just one question for you, though, and this is the second note I said that I would address with you:

If by emanation, and therefore by persistence, and presumably by at least one definable quality — like materialism, the world exists, then how could it, being material, emanate from an immaterial God? Unless you mean to suggest that all of the world is definable by another broad quality other than materialism — the seemingly, to me at least, broadest and most liberal quality there is for the observable universe. What exactly is it that synthesizes this emanation? Please do entertain me on this question; I don’t believe that it should be overlooked; 😂 even in favor of everything else we discussed! But I’ve appreciated your responses thus far, so thanks again for sharing your ideas and reasons!

This question makes me wonder, how do you guys interpret (maybe even systematically or as a thesis, dare I ask) the promise of Abraham concerning the other Abrahamic faiths?

Of course, as autonomous individuals in your own right and of your own choice of faith-framework and your own individual faith:

1.) You’re free to worship as you choose, and

2.) You’re not in any sense required to observe, adhere to, or be informed of the doctrine or practices of another religion—any other—even those who share a (something profound, I just don’t know what we’d agree on) with your faith. I would say that this is especially true where they deviate in focus, which is characteristic of the Abrahamic faiths …

But still, do you guys feel that in a sense, being too particular about remaining oblivious or even just too theologically exclusive against Judaism or Islam, even Christianity if not in your case, could be spoken of in a way familiar to that which Paul writes concerning (our or your or his or their) Christianity—that aspect and/or nature of ‘The God’ that especially concerns Jesus—concerning sectarianism within broad interpretations and practice? The title always jumps out to me:

“Sectarianism is carnal,” 1 Corinthians 3:

https://bible.com/bible/114/1co.3.3-4.NKJV‬‬

Let me know your thoughts, all are welcome! And I’m raising this question to all the faiths, lol, so look out for that.

While the seed transforming into a plant is a popular analogy for understanding the resurrection body, the anthology "Death and Afterlife" I'm currently reading offers the following additional analogies to illuminate this concept:

• The Analogy of a Lake Drying Up and Refilling: one of the authors of the book, Kai Nielsen, mentions this analogy to describe the transformation of the body in resurrection. Just as a lakebed might completely dry up but refill again with water, the human body might decompose and seemingly disappear, but God can reconstitute and re-energize it in the resurrection despite a period of absence or disintegration.

• The Analogy of a Dead Battery Being Recharged: Nielsen also uses the example of a dead battery being recharged to explain the concept of the body being re-energized in the resurrection, emphasizing that the same entity (the battery or the body) can exist in different states of functionality and can be restored to its full potential.

• The Analogy of a Newspaper Being Torn Apart and Pasted Back Together: This analogy is used by Nielsen to address the question of personal identity and bodily continuity in resurrection. For example, if a newspaper, like the Globe and Mail, were torn into pieces and scattered, it would still be the same newspaper. Similarly, even if the body decomposes and its particles disperse, God can gather those very particles and reconstitute the original body.

• The Analogy of the Suit in "The Man in the White Suit": Nielsen draws upon this analogy to highlight the idea of a body that is essentially similar to our current body but improved in its capabilities. The suit in the film is impervious to dirt and damage, just as the resurrection body is described as imperishable and immortal.

• The Analogy of a Child Growing into an Adult: This analogy is used to explain the continuity of personal identity despite changes over time. Just as a person at age 60 is not the same as they were as a child but is still considered the same individual, a person in the afterlife might be different from their earthly form but still maintain a fundamental continuity of self.

Another analogy used in this book is by Stephen Davis who uses an analogy of a computer to illustrate the concept of bodily continuity in resurrection.

Davis presents a thought experiment involving the disassembly and reassembly of a computer to argue for the importance of the original matter in constituting personal identity.

Here is a quote from the book:

"Suppose that I own a defective personal computer which I rashly decide to try to repair myself. Having taken it apart (there are now, say, 60 separate computer components scattered on my work bench), I find that I am unable to repair it. I call the outlet that sold me the computer, and the manager suggests I simply bring all 60 components to that office for repair. I do so, but through a horrible series of misunderstandings and errors, the 60 pieces of the computer are then sent to 60 different addresses around the country. That constitutes the heart of my story, but there are two separate endings to it. Ending number one: it takes three years for everything to be sorted out, for the pieces to be located and collected in one place, for the repairs to be made, and for the parts to be reassembled and restored, in full working order, to my desk. Ending number two: After three years of trying in vain to locate and collect the scattered pieces, the manager gives up, collects 60 similar parts, assembles them, and the resulting computer ends up on my desk."

He argues that if the same 60 components of his original computer are reassembled, it is reasonable to consider it the same computer, even if there was a gap in its existence. However, if a new computer is built using similar but different parts, it would be a numerically different computer, even if it were qualitatively identical to the original.

This analogy reflects the "Patristic theory", which emphasizes the significance of the same matter being raised for preserving personal identity in the resurrection.

Davis himself doesn't fully endorse the Patristic theory, and leans more in the direction of the so-called "modern" theory, which posits that God can create a new glorified body without needing to gather the original particles.

However, the computer analogy helps to articulate the reasoning behind the Patristic view, emphasizing the significance given to bodily continuity by older Christian thinkers like Aquinas and many Church Fathers.

I am interested in reading also about other analogies used with regard to this concept.

Thought Piece

Names to Spirits

PrivateCornerStone

“Jesus answered. “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the father except through me” (John 14:6 NIV).

The above to many in the Christian community will be a recognizable bible verse. John 14:6 may even be known to those participating in a more secular lifestyle, or even to those involved in other religions. It is a formidable verse and provides the reader with a strong sense of how Jesus characterized his own being.

If Jesus is to be the Messiah as he so self proclaimed “Before Abraham, I was” (John 8:58 NIV). As is my belief, it is important to understand the metaphor’s he used to reveal his divine essence to his followers because “All scripture is god-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16 NIV). In my discovery, I BELIEVE, the metaphor’s the messiah uses to describe himself, are intentioned, to give us the reader and student insight into what spirits (all stemming from the same place) it is which we are to be worshipping EXACTLY.

“God is Spirit, and those of us who worship him must worship in SPIRIT and truth” (John 4:24 NIV). God is spirit, what does that mean exactly? In this case I have defined spirit as the animating or vital principle required to give meaning to existence, being and essence.

This type of spirit does bind itself with the living, physical world and throughout history we have given such spirits names to give notice to when they are with us or with others.

To explain this principle, I will begin by speaking about a strong spirit which reveals itself quite obviously in our world, love.

Throughout every translation of the bible the word love or as I see it, the spirit of love, is mentioned anywhere from 310 – 801 times within the biblical corpus. John reads “Anyone who does not love does not know god, because god is Love” (John 4:8 NIV). Here again we see another metaphor describing the spirt attributed to the biblical god.

In common use one might say they are “in love” to a partner or that they are “feeling the love” or when love seems absent from them, they might say “where is the love?” or “You won’t find love there” if it is perceived to be absent from a specific location. In common culture, most people understand, when this sensory emotion fills an individual’s physical body, they are physically animated into a new state, a loving state.

The secular scientific community would attribute said “loving state” to a physical need to reproduce and a desire to be safe.

I believe this to be too simplistic of an answer, although not completely off track. I believe it to be our allowance of the spirit of love to enter our soul. My reasoning, although compelled by the scientific community’s explanation is that if Love was only a physical response and not an animating spirit it could not be eternal rather, like all things which gratify human needs, such as a cup of coffee or the act of sex, it would have to be temporary. I will now try to the best of my ability prove loves eternal qualities.

“The lord appeared to him from far away. I have loved you with an EVERLASTING love; therefore, I have continued my faithfulness in you” (Jeremiah 31:3 NIV).

As supercilious as it might sound true love doesn’t fail and doesn’t end. Plato once wrote “Love is the desire for the eternal possession of the good.” I believe this description to hold plenty truth, so if we are considering love to be the spirit concerned with the eternal possession of good how may we begin to reveal such an eternal spirit within our lives. Well, as I see it, it should be by doing good or by seeing others do good.

In my proof of Love’s eternality, it should be first noted that to see or feel the spirit which we give the name love, manifest, we must begin, as a human being confined by certain faculties, attain the defined pre-requisites to do so. One, WE must be attentive to good actions in our lives and be attentive to other actions and 2) We must have the faculties to perceive loves effects on another or on other living organisms.

I will now provide an example of how we may with the two foremost pre-requisites attained, perceive the spirit of love. You, reading this, I want you to think about the time in your life whereby you felt the most love and I want you to imagine for a quick moment being back in such a moment. While you do that, I want to take notice about what you experience during that time. Do that for a couple of moments and then read the paragraph below.

Hopefully, if I am to be correct you experienced similar feelings of love that you had in that moment or possibly even greater ones. Now, the spirit of love has once again revealed itself to you. This is a practice which can be rehearsed at any time, and you should find, will regularly elicit the same emotions as you have just experienced.

This is a small example, but other examples may include random acts of kindness or charitable practices, which will also help reveal the spirit of love through you or others. What this might tell us is in any given situation where we have the faculties to perceive love and are attentive, the spirit of love lays dormant, like potential energy, until the proper good action is taken to reveal the spirits presence.

So, in this we begin to realize the eternal qualities of love which exist cloaked behind the physical reality waiting to be revealed to us.

Now, it is my belief, that it is not only love which is eternal and rests waiting to be revealed but instead countless spirits and so-called demons who wait to reveal themselves sometimes by the appropriate good action and sometimes through the dis-appropriate bad acts. Some examples of names we give such spirits include Death, Fear, Truth, Life, and Lust.

“The lord is near to all who call on him, to all who call on him in truth” (Psalm 145:18). Here is an example once again of God asking us to call on a spirit named truth to access him. Now, with the knowledge of such names which God hereby uses metaphorically to describe the spirits which proceed from him we can begin to realize what we are truly called to worship when worshipping Christ Jesus.

So once again, I call back verse 14:6 from the gospel of John which reads “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the father except through me” (John 14:6 NIV).

Here Jesus has called himself by the names of three animating spirits. The Way, The Truth, and the Life. I believe it is in this verse we can begin to see how it is, we as Christians, are meant to worship Christ in this life. That indeed, is through taking the appropriate actions necessary to reveal these three spirits.

It should be noted that like The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit the three animating qualities and spirits Christ Jesus uses metaphorically to represent himself are also a trinity. It is again MY Belief that each of these spirits which Christ reveals in himself are the ways which the Trinity reveals itself to us in this life.

The Father reveals himself through the animating spirit of Life “Then the lord god formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils THE BREATH OF LIFE, and the man became a living creature (Genesis 2:7 NIV).  The Way, again, represents the spirit of Love and Sacrifice best attributed to The Son, “For God so much LOVED the world he gave his only SON, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16 NIV). Finally, the Holy Spirit can best be attributed and described as the spirit of truth “But when the helper comes, whom I will send to you from The Father, The SPIRIT OF TRUTH, who proceeds from the father, he will bear witness about me” (John 15:25 NIV).

Now it should be noted that if these spirits proceed from the father which here we represent through the spirit of Life, that it becomes for us to have LIFE (Our Father) we must BELIEVE in the spirit of LOVE (Christ Jesus) and in order to Love we must equip ourselves with The Spirit of TRUTH (The Holy Spirit).

This knowledge can help support the church’s mission in in creating as C.S Lewis puts it in Mere Christianity “Little Christs” as it helps bridge a communication gap concerning what it truly means to worship the Trinity, as now, we can begin to teach churchgoers that in order to be true followers of Christ you must always participate with our ENTIRE BEING and LIVES in the worshipping of Love, Life, and Truth in our secular lives to reveal the spirits which Jesus names The Way, The Truth, and The Life.

I've been getting a lot of people telling me that they actually believe the Earth was created 6000 years ago even though multiple evidence and points show that it wasn't

I know that the story of Adam and Eve is a parable given to reveal secrets about the Kingdom of Heaven and the 6 day creation is a prophecy of the 6000 year redemption work that God has put in place.

Matthew 13:34-35 NIV [34] Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not say anything to them without using a parable. [35] So was fulfilled what was spoken through the prophet: “I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter things hidden since the creation of the world.”

So dispite all of this I would like to know why do you not believe all the scientific evidence as well as history such as the Natives in America before the arrival of the English and the evidence of Aztecs before the arrival of the Spanish etc.

In the epistle to Philippians, in this verse it is written: ''And my God will supply every need of yours according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus'', does this mean only espiritual supply or phisical too?

Historically, the dominant view was that animals were created solely to serve human needs or for human benefit. But as our understanding of the natural world grows, this anthropocentric view seems increasingly outdated.

With scientific discoveries like evolution that emphasize the interconnectedness of all life, it is also increasingly difficult to reconcile this view with our evolving understanding of the natural world.

The sheer scale and diversity of the animal kingdom, with countless species existing independent of any direct relationship with humanity, further complicates the perspective that they were created solely for our benefit.

Additionally, the idea of an all-loving God creating a world teeming with creatures destined for suffering and ultimately, oblivion, strikes as a bit odd. If God’s love extends to all of creation, wouldn't it stand to reason that His plan for redemption would include more than just humanity?

Could it be that the purpose of the animal world lies not in its utility to humans, but in its intrinsic value as part of God's good creation?

This idea, though appealing, still leaves us with the problem of widespread gratuitous pain and suffering in the animal kingdom.

One possible solution could be the redemptive power of God's new creation. If God is truly creating something "new," could this new creation involve a radical transformation of the entire natural order, one that eliminates gratuitous suffering and establishes harmony among all creatures?

Some theologians even speculate about the possibility of animal salvation, suggesting that God's love may extend beyond humanity to encompass the redemption of the entire created order and a new era of peace and harmony for all creatures.

I would be interested in hearing your personal thoughts regarding the purpose of the animal world within God's creation, and whether you believe the non-human world might be saved as well along with humanity.

“Responding to someone who identifies creation with an unspecified ‘Lord:’”

Also formally titled for its second-half:

“A Systematic Response to a Creationist who Argues that God is both Singular and an Emanant Plurality”

Cross-post intro: This dialogue is right now taking place as a subtopic under a r/theology post I made earlier, but I thought it would be good to hear how a philosophical crowd would address the propositions made and evaluate my response to them. If desired and requested, I’ll include the immediate comment that I’m replying to in the replies of this post. I encourage you to read and share your opinion!

Here it goes:

» How do you interpret this verse? Do you think that it speaks of something beyond all things the writer actually could and then was inclined to make an observation on? Or that there is some distinction of relevant persons where he says “LORD?”

Thank you much for replying!

» Okay! That’s a strong and relevant distinction. Do you believe that there’s any clarification in the Bible as to whether this is one distinct Person, or if it is rather a divine host, or select few? I don’t prefer any interpretation to another, so feel free to share your thoughts. These verses come to mind for me, and they don’t by necessity agree on any one thing in an explicit or precise way:

1.) “Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” Genesis‬ ‭1‬:‭26‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

Before this verse, the descriptor “God” is just used, not providing any clarity on whether it refers to a singular person or plurality of persons. But this verse is almost like an “Aha.”

2.) “The Lord possessed me at the beginning of His way, Before His works of old. Then I was beside Him as a master craftsman; And I was daily His delight, Rejoicing always before Him,” Proverbs‬ ‭8‬:‭22‬, ‭30‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

There are of course other verses describing creation by God, but this one in particular stands out to me for the sake of this context, because it introduces a mysteriously feminine divine character; one who operates in the way that the Holy Spirit or “Ruach” operates. In the verses between 22 and 30, if you’ll read, there is reference to the Genesis 1 “hovering” written of the Ruach. However, the Spirit is rarely ever referred to as Lord, save for in certain contexts involving that being’s ministry towards or involving Jesus, which convolutes individuality: “the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty;” does a verse like this simply speak of Jesus’ oneness with God, to the effect of meaningfully attributing the divine essence of every person of God to him as a human being? Or does it rather, and arguably without much rhetorical validation, speak of the Spirit’s distinct lordship as an individual god within God? So concerning the Spirit, and because of their ambiguity, I’m not exactly sure how you personally would identify them with Creatorship.

3.) “[God] has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power […].” Hebrews‬ ‭1‬:‭2‬-‭3‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

This verse comes to mind, being also from my favorite book of the Bible in terms of writing quality, for its illustration of what we’d describe, and what might be most agreeable to you, as an explicit deferent and yet exalting relationship of “Lords.” It tells that these Lords had according roles of operation and maybe, operability, respectively, which I can later explain what I mean by differentiating, during creation. This verse does, though — or the words in this verse do, though — if taken only as their semantics exactly provide — present an interesting dilemma for a creationist. The idea of the world or “worlds” — the latter I assume being a collective heavens and earth and maybe in that sense a physical AND spiritual reality, which serves the reassurance of the Christian on this point — being made also by Jesus might be limited to a certain role of governance for Him, or ensuring one-accordance by Him, by the verse’s claim that He “upholds all things by the word of his power.” What I take that phrase to mean is that He or someone on His behalf gives word of, or declares of, His power — His authority and lordship — and that this declaration is something through which God undertakes, perhaps negotiates, the creation of the universe. This would attribute something else to Jesus than the creation of a material world — which is still no problem for a permitting theology, of course. It only requires us to interpret differently the roles of the “We” or “Us” of God in creation literature, and in a way worth acknowledging for its exclusion of Jesus’ person in some respects, and therefore its implications about respective divinity. I personally and without affection support this Christian view.

All of these verses explain creation and they certainly do not contradict each other, but they do not together and within their chapters expressly make clear what we’re trying to figure out about the Bible’s central claim on God’s role in the universe’s coming about. But, again, I wouldn’t say that they contradict — just that they “don’t by necessity agree in an explicit or precise way” — a sort of thesis of mine, I guess.

Again, within the context of attributing creation to “the LORD” or a Lord, these verses together and within their chapters do not make a decision on whether that was indeed a pure cooperative process, whether or not it was a process limited to them as God — and if each of those respective gods within “God” are identified in the name “the LORD,” or, and even and, whether the cooperation was truly just the deity of one or another person of God being used as an instrument or negotiating tactic with other heavenly and divine beings that are not called “God” but were perhaps involved in creation. These “whethers” are not mutually exclusive, but they do make your claim that an identifiable Lord is responsible for creation quite unclear.

Sorry for the lengthiness! 😂 Wasn’t sure how long this would be. Thank you for responding.

» Okay, I somewhat understand what you’re saying. I’ll reply in parts so that I can address everything respectively, if I’m up for it and see it fit.

“God is both the singular, that from which all things [you mean in a material world that He or They or It created?] emanate, and God is also that which persists [you may mean an immaterial, conscious or otherwise sensitive personal substance? Okay. There are also other interpretations of this particular statement of yours, ones that echo Romans 1:20, I believe, so do let me know if I’m correctly comprehending you] through all that is emanated. In this sense, God is both singular and plural.”

Your use of the word “emanate” is quite interesting. I understand “emanate” to mean one thing’s [as if to generalize all of the material world under one definable quality — like perhaps its being material?] indiscriminate [usually in a directional sense, as to suggest that the going-out is all-directional or otherwise pervasive] projection from a source point; again, a thing’s indiscriminate projection from a source point. Emanation describes a quality of pervasiveness identifiably possessed by the thing from which there is “emanation,” and accordingly, an identification of that which emanates with the thing from which it emanates.

Emanation is usually 1.) of a thing itself, like in one poetically saying, “I have a pain radiating throughout my body — no, emanating out from me to my concerned loved ones, also, in the room with me;” or 2.) of a quality closely identifiable with the person or thing from which emanation is taking place, as in a heartfelt comment that, “That man’s empathetic spirit emanates from him wherever he goes, truly.”

So again, emanation is interesting to attribute to God in the context of creation because it suggests that all of the relevant created things are of Him, and not merely like him, in a sense that carries His sensitivity or character or consciousness. You’re in this way, kind of suggesting a divine, conscious universe. Moreover, not only do you imply that His or They or It’s essence and product goes out into the material world, but that it does so by a perpetual persistence of supernatural into natural translation; yes, that the natural properly emanates from the supernatural. Emanation implies a persistence in the universe that we, in order to define “God as Creator” by it, must suppose is true.

Your views therefore echo some of the great philosophers like Baruch Spinoza or Bishop George Berkley, the namesake of the prestigious Californian university, and I by no means believe you intend to align yourself with them 😂 you come across as more traditional and not so abstract or radical.

You do, however, align with a philosophy of abstraction in your understanding — which seems to be on account of your appealing to a sentiment you hold about God’s grandeur; one that makes you poetic in your approach to more concrete inquiries like how he is objectively defined as Creator of our universe, which has very objective origins itself.

I have a couple of other notes on the internal consistency of what you may permit me to assume is your thesis. Am I correct in assuming that?

You said, “God is both the singular, that from which all things emanate, and God is also that which persists through all that is emanated. In this sense, God is both singular and plural.”

I wanted to make sure I understood this thesis, and moreover that we were on common ground about what it means and what it implicates. But — I’ve done you some wrong in that I haven’t addressed the fact that it is a thesis statement to propose God as the Creator’s singularity and plurality — which I myself raised the question about in my first reply to you. So let me briefly address that:

Your assertion that God is an entity that the material world “emanates” from and that can be found persisting in all of that emanated world does not quite clarify whether or not He, even She, They, or It is a single being or a plurality. It only, and to no less extraordinary effect, describes what you believe is a reality of God’s very much living presence within everything natural in the universe, ourselves included. If by this you mean to communicate a divine plurality, then I gladly accept that as a thought-provoking perspective. But being that you paired this view of yours with more traditional theological concepts, like what can be found in Proverbs 16:4:

“The Lord has made all for Himself, Yes, even the wicked for the day of doom.” Proverbs‬ ‭16‬:‭4‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

— of which you stated, “But ultimately, 1 verse and 1 verse alone tells all stories ever told,” I’m more inclined to think that you would just like to see and explain how one sovereign and omnipotent God is, by manner of emanation, omnipresent in all things. That is still a colorful faith to hold, and it freely and genuinely gets my respect. I would raise just one question for you, though, and this is the second note I said that I would address with you:

If by emanation, and therefore by persistence, and presumably by at least one definable quality — like materialism, the world exists, then how could it, being material, emanate from an immaterial God? Unless you mean to suggest that all of the world is definable by another broad quality other than materialism — the seemingly, to me at least, broadest and most liberal quality there is for the observable universe. What exactly is it that synthesizes this emanation? Please do entertain me on this question; I don’t believe that it should be overlooked; 😂 even in favor of everything else we discussed! But I’ve appreciated your responses thus far, so thanks again for sharing your ideas and reasons!