How does your Church Pastor/bishop (or denomination) explain the following verses. I'm having a hard time understanding how they fit with church doctrines of subordination within the Godhead as the plain reading comes across very clear.

In light of the post-canon theological doctrines, such as the Trinity, how should we interpret the repeated references to "the God of our Lord Jesus Christ" by Peter and Paul. Additionally, from Jesus himself, he states "My God" in his Post-resurrection and exalted state (not during his earthly ministry).

Do these statements reflect some sort of hierarchy within the Godhead, or do these verses invite us to re-examine later doctrinal formulations? I have found the responses I've received from pastors to be lacking. Would like to seek further understanding from others.

Passages Referring to "The God of Our Lord Jesus"

1. Ephesians 1:3 "Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ."
2. Ephesians 1:17 "I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better."
3. 2 Corinthians 1:3 "Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort."
4. 2 Corinthians 11:31 "The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, who is to be praised forever, knows that I am not lying."
5. 1 Peter 1:3 "Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead."

Passages Where Jesus Says "My God" After His Resurrection or in His Exalted State (Red Letters)

1. John 20:17 "Jesus said, 'Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, "I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God."’"
2. Revelation 3:12 "The one who is victorious I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will they leave it. I will write on them the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on them my new name."

Thanks in advance for your responses.

Non-Christian here, but was wondering to get some thought on my perspective of hell (or what would be hell).

Hell is an eternal state of nature that exists as a natural consequence of God’s absence. It’s not some fiery pit of divine punishment, but a realm where God’s presence is completely withdrawn. Without God’s order or grace, individuals are left to live in a state ruled entirely by their unrestrained desires and sins. Think of it like a Hobbesian state of nature—chaotic, selfish, and full of conflict. Sin becomes the dominant force, leading to perpetual dissatisfaction and alienation as people experience the emptiness of a life disconnected from God. It’s eternal, but it’s not about active torture or punishment. The suffering comes naturally from the absence of God and the chaos that follows when sin is left unchecked. People are left to fully experience the outcome of their choices without divine intervention or any hope of reconciliation.

So, I think it's pretty clear from my posting history that I am an ex-Christian, but this question actually dates back to before I left.

Why do theologians even bother trying to reconcile the contents of the book of John with the historical aspects of the synoptics? It seems not only fruitless but actually misguided.

By both the content and the narrative structure of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, it is clear that what is intended is at least a quasi-historical account of the life of Jesus. This is missing from John.

Whether you believe that they copied from each other or from another source, it is clear that there is a strong agreement over much of the contents. But John is remarkably different. Not only does it start with the preamble, but it also completely restructures the story. In the synoptics, Jesus has one year of ministry, in John there are three. The synoptics and John disagree over what day Jesus died (one lining up with the Passover, the other lining up with the sacrifices for Passover). In the synoptics, the clearing of the temple is at the end, the beginning of Holy Week. In John, it is among his first public acts. Even the use of miracles is different in John than it is in the synoptics.

None of this is to say that any of the above disproves the validity of the Bible (I will refrain from comment on that here), but it does suggest that the purpose of John is something entirely different from the purpose of the synoptics. It is clearly a poetic theological work and not meant to be interpreted as a historical account. From a modern perspective, it might be akin to *Hamilton!*: based on real events and having a large number of historically accurate points, but not intended to be a comprehensive lesson in history.

Now, the thing is, people like Ehrman know this. The above is pretty "Biblical criticism 101". But yet in books like *Misquoting Jesus*, the contradictions between John and the synoptics is held as an example of Biblical errancy.

So my questions are:

• Is it just Ehrman and anti-apologists who do this? Or is this actually a prevalent problem in the secular interpretation of the gospels? I know I've encountered it multiple places, but I don't know if it is something that scholars debate seriously.
• Am I incorrect in the interpretation that John should basically be set aside as a source of historic information? If so, how do serious scholars account for the differences between it and the other three canonical gospels? In this case, how many years was Jesus active in ministry?
• If I am correct about John, then is there anything which we can say definitively did or did not happen? I'm particularly interested in whether teachings like the Bread of Life discourse can be considered to be Jesus's words or should we consider them to be interpolation? (I will not comment on the implication of whether Jesus actually said something makes it more important than if another author made such claims).

Again: none of this is claiming anything about what is right or true. It is an attempt to understand whether something which I seem to be abundantly obvious seems to be ignored by New Testament scholars and, if so, why that is.

after watching bart ehrman and dan mccllelan i have so many questions any scholar recommendations?

Hello everyone! I've been drudging around in a Greek lexicon for about an hour because I was trying to get a better grasp on what is meant in Matthew 22:27-30, where Jesus essentially says that people in the Kingdom of Heaven will not "marry, nor be given in marriage, but shall be like angels." I was wondering if this was a deconstruction of marriage as an institution or of sexuality/fornication as an activity-- so I looked for other examples from the Matthean author of the Greek verb γαμέω, to marry, and tried to see if there was a sexual implication for the others, and it would appear there isn't, but that it applies rather strait-lacedly to marriage as a legal institution. This, in turn, made me think of a portion of Milton where it is implied the (sort of male) angels are explained to be able to achieve the perfect communion of coitus in wedlock without bodily effort? It's here, Paradise Lost 8.615-629:

Bear with me then, if lawful what I ask:
Love not the heavenly Spirits, and how their love
Express they? by looks only? or do they mix
Irradiance, virtual or immediate touch?
To whom the Angel, with a smile that glowed
Celestial rosy red, Love's proper hue,
Answered. Let it suffice thee that thou knowest
Us happy, and without love no happiness.
Whatever pure thou in the body enjoyest,
(And pure thou wert created) we enjoy
In eminence; and obstacle find none
Of membrane, joint, or limb, exclusive bars;
Easier than air with air, if Spirits embrace,
Total they mix, union of pure with pure
Desiring, nor restrained conveyance need,
As flesh to mix with flesh, or soul with soul

I was wondering where he might have sourced this idea? Thank you so much !!

Nowadays, the idea that word studies are a "distraction" is somewhat popular. What do you guys think?

View Poll

Greetings everyone I have a questions about praying and faith because I try to pray in the name of the lord everytime but the prayers are not answered and nothing happened and then I hear how about people also pray in the of the lord and get their prayers answered and it make me frustrating with me about praying the same important thing over and over and getting no answers.

Also I believe that the lord exist , hear me , see me and knows my problems.

So I ask is their any answers to this problem ?

It's because how I pray or because of my lack of faith and patience ?

I'm looking for English transactions of various religious text that have room for notes in the formating I can find several for the bible but I want other texts as well with rooms for me to write notes and annotate. I'm sure do to prevalence the other abrohamic religions will be a bit easier to find that for but I'm not just interested in them and idk if I'm looking it up right on shopping sights but I can't seem to find any .

So my question is relatively straightforward but does require a little logical ladder that must be followed to understand it. Firstly, we accept that, even though God knows our past, present, and future, we have free will. That’s the basis of my question. God allows us to make our own decisions in life. However, logically speaking, He is an all knowing deity. That just follows from religious thought for the last several thousand years. So we can logically conclude that God knows an infinite amount of information about our reality in comparison to us. Now, to bring up the counterpoint. A parent knows almost infinitely more about reality than an infant does. This is, of course, relative. However, would an infinitely more intelligent parent allow their infant to do something that would end with their suffering. Let’s say for example, the child is playing with an outlet. The good parent would not allow their child to do that. Of course there is the argument that a child does not know, and is therefore not responsible for their deeds simply because they have no experience. Now let’s say the child knows that it is wrong to hurt the family dog, yet they do it anyways for whatever reason. A good parent would not allow their child do go down the path that would lead to their own harm (I.e. the mental outcomes of harming things as a child usually leads to darker actions in the future). A good parent would not let their child do this because harm would come to them either physically or mentally. Now God allows us to make our own choices that lead us to damnation. But He knows more than us of course and knows the horrors that await. A parent knows the horrors that await their own child if they follow down a foolish path, knowingly or otherwise. How can we say as Christians that God is all good given he allows us to follow a path that even a parent would not allow an infant to do. I am Christian and this is not any hatred towards Christianity, only a logical fallacy that I cannot follow. Any explanation or conversation on the matter would help.

I have been a follower of Christ since I was a child. I have read the Bible through, but I am looking to add some theological reading to my morning study. I am a bachelor’s prepared nurse and an avid reader, but certainly not a philosopher. I’m thinking starting with NT Wright, Dallas Willard, CS Lewis…folks that have profound quotes in sermons and you think “I bet there’s more where that came from.” So my ask: A list of “start with these. You will enjoy them and not get bogged down or overwhelmed by conceptual intricacies as you navigate a new genre.” And then, “here’s a deeper dive when and if you’re ready!”

Thanks in advance!

After watching some of his videos he made me rethink my faith like his views on Jesus being a failed prophet because he promised to return during the apostles life time he doesn’t believe that Jesus is god he’s also a active member of LDS Mormon church but he doesn’t holds loosely to there doctrine because he does sometimes criticize the new dogma they be making he also believes we have the wrong translation of the new testament his famous quote is data over dogma is he reliable ?

Hello, everyone. I wanted to share what appears to me as a prophecy of the Islamic call to prayer in Isaiah 42. As you read this chapter you will notice many things that sound very much like a description of the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) if you are familiar with his story. It is important to realize that the mountain in Medina is called Sela, that Kedar was the son of Ishmael, so "the Children of Kedar" is a clear prophecy concerning Arabs and helps to confirm that this is the mount (Sela) being referenced (not to be confused with the word "Selah" meaning to pause and reflect). Consider the following background for context.

Adhan: The Muslim Call to Prayer EXPLAINED in 5 MINUTES (The call to Prayer BEGAN in Medina, NOT Mecca).

Isaiah 42:11| islamstory | Islamic History Portal

In the Bible, mountains are often associated with places of worship (Deuteronomy 12:9, Isaiah 65:7; YHWH: Exodus 17:9, 1 Kings 18:42). Now consider this in context of inhabitants of Sela (Medina) shouting from the *peaks* of the [places of worship]. See more at the following link regarding the depth of the Hebrew word "har" translated in Isaiah 42:11 as "mountain"

For context, the English translation of the call to prayer is as follows:

God is Great! God is Great! God is Great! God is Great! I bear witness that there is no god except the One God. I bear witness that there is no god except the One God. I bear witness that Muhammad is the messenger of God. I bear witness that Muhammad is the messenger of God. Hurry to the prayer. Hurry to the prayer. Hurry to salvation. Hurry to salvation. God is Great! God is Great! There is no god except the One God.

הר | Abarim Publications Theological Dictionary (Old Testament Hebrew)

What will the Lord say about this and are there any verses about this problem of mine ?

Let me explain by this: I was depressed, feeling lonely and was hoping to find someone to help me to talk and pray toward me by going to a pentecostal church but to my disappointment and anger the people there didn't pray toward me or talking with me when they pray with each other , sing with each other and talk their problems.

So I left the place feeling lonely, disappointment , bitter, hopeless, depressed and rejected when the church time has ended even then no one has stopped me by talking or how I feel by helping me with my spiritual problem.

I am sorry if I judge them with exception of that woman I no better than them as a human But from my point of view I view this behavior expected to see from wordly people not faithful people as cowardice and apathy when someone is down and that person need help from this people especially if they glorified the Lord by helping someone If there are from the church.

On of my friend is a female if could call them friend anymore also attended the same church that I have gone to refused to stay with me on same seats because people and her brother think we are in a romantic relationship but that is not true and it finded awkward too stay with me as a guy on the same seats because people will look at us even is not true.

There was a compassioned woman how also attended the same church how could have helped me spiritual and emotional but I couldn't find her.

Also by the way I am a male with autism and I don't have a girlfriend and dislike when I see romantic and couples in my presence.

And yes is also a problem of mine to resolve personal issues.

Was reading a book on open and relational theology recently and it mentioned the idea that God is inside time, which is how he relates and reacts to us. An interesting thought I hadn’t heard before, but unfortunately it didn’t really delve into defending that position. I’m looking for either any articles you know on this topic, or any arguments (either for or against) you know. Thanks for any help!

Dear Reddit community,

I am an atheist who remains critical of my worldview and open to revising it. Recently, I encountered Thomas Jay Oord's theology of "uncontrolling love," which offers an intriguing solution to the problem of evil, one of the key intellectual hurdles that has kept me distant from theism. I have read his books God Can't, God Can't Q&A, and his essay in the collective volume God and the Problem of Evil: Five Views, and I find his approach compelling.

However, one aspect of Oord's theology continues to puzzle me: if God is inherently uncontrolling and can only act by calling, persuading, commanding, or wooing, how do we understand the creation of the universe, especially before the existence of life? I struggle to conceptualize how inanimate matter or even the fundamental laws of physics could have been shaped in a theistic framework without some form of control or directive force.

I don't expect a detailed answer here, but I would greatly appreciate any literature recommendations addressing this issue. If anyone is familiar with Oord's bibliography, I would be grateful for suggestions on relevant books or essays.

Thanks in advance for your insights!

P.S.: I initially posted this question in the r/OpenChristian subreddit (link), but I am also sharing it here in the hopes of reaching more people familiar with Oord's work.

I want to keep this discussion civil, but am very interested in it. Ephesians 2:1-10 are widely used for Calvinists, specifically Ephesians 2:8. What is the Arminian explanation for these verses?

Just finished reading Ian Bradley’s “God is Green” and am looking for more material on the subject of eco theology, and thoughts on them as well.

Creative explanations only - I'm not looking for generic justifications for this.

For those who aren't aware - some of the accounts of what happened right after Jesus' birth conflict with each other (from the first 4 books of the NT).

***Update - I will rate your arguement based on how many bowls of pottage I award you (scale from 1-5 bowls)

I have a friend who got a graduate degree there, but a lot of the stuff he says about it seems sketchy. I have graduate degrees in a related field, and I actually did mine in person. Our experiences were VERY different, and his are so different than any other legit graduate program I have heard of.

It doesn't seem accredited and seems extremely overpriced for level of instruction given.

Am I reading into it, or is there something wrong with this university?

I am reading "the fire that consumes" by Fudge (10 out of 10 would recommend) and am having a hard time harmonizing the Mt. 13 parable that says the weeds (tares) are thrown into the fire where they experience weeping and gnashing of teethe.

Elsewhere Fudge explains that the weeping throughout the Bible always come in anticipation of suffering or in sympathy for others but there isn't one place in the Bible where it is experienced as a result of suffering/ torment etc.

This passage seems to say that the tares are thrown into the "fiery furnace" where they experience weeping and gnashing of teethe.

Thanks to anyone who can help.

Hey everyone!

I’ve been reflecting on how the ancient creation story of Genesis might be reinterpreted in light of modern scientific knowledge, particularly theistic evolution and our understanding of the universe's origins.

How would you reimagine the first chapter of Genesis for the modern scientific age if you had to adapt it yourself?

Could this approach make ancient scripture more meaningful in today’s context? Would love to hear your thoughts or suggestions for improvement!

1. In the beginning, God, the Eternal Source of all existence, set the cosmos into motion, initiating the vast expanse of space-time.

1. The universe was formless and void, a swirling quantum chaos; yet within it, the Spirit of the Creator moved through the fabric of energy and matter, holding the potential for all that was to come.

1. And the Creator said, "Let there be light," and there was light—a burst of radiant energy that expanded in every direction, forming stars, galaxies, and the building blocks of life.

1. The Creator observed that the light was good, and the balance of light and darkness was established.

1. The Creator named the light "day" and the darkness "night." And so began the first epoch.

2. The Creator said, "Let there be a vast expanse to separate the waters of chaos," and the forces of gravity and physics shaped the heavens.

3. Stars and planets formed, suspended in the cosmic void, and the Creator saw that it was good.

4. Thus, the second epoch unfolded.

1. The Creator said, "Let the waters on Earth gather into seas, and let dry land appear," and tectonic forces brought forth continents and oceans.

2. The Creator called the dry land "Earth" and the gathered waters "Seas," and the Creator saw that it was good.

3. Then the Creator said, "Let the Earth bring forth vegetation: plants yielding seeds and trees bearing fruit." Through billions of years of evolution, ecosystems flourished, and life began to thrive.

4. The Creator saw the diversity of life and pronounced it good.

5. And so, the third epoch came to pass.

1. The Creator said, "Let there be lights in the heavens to mark the passage of time." Stars burned brightly, and the Earth’s orbit gave rise to days, seasons, and years.

2. The moon reflected the sun’s light, guiding creatures in their rhythms of life.

3. The Creator set the sun, moon, and stars in their courses, and they were good.

4. Thus, the fourth epoch was complete.

1. The Creator said, "Let the waters teem with living creatures and let birds soar in the sky." From the oceans emerged simple organisms, evolving over eons into a wondrous variety of fish, birds, and sea creatures.

2. The Creator saw the beauty of their forms and behaviors and blessed them to multiply and fill the Earth.

3. And so, the fifth epoch unfolded.

1. The Creator said, "Let the Earth bring forth living creatures: animals of every kind." Over millennia, life evolved into mammals, reptiles, and creatures that walked the land.

2. The Creator delighted in their diversity and saw that it was good.

3. Then the Creator said, "Let us make humanity in our image, as stewards of this creation." From the dust of the Earth and the breath of life, humanity emerged through the process of evolution, bearing the capacity for reason, creativity, and love.

4. The Creator blessed humanity, saying, "Be fruitful and care for the Earth, its creatures, and its resources."

5. The Creator saw all that had come into being—an interconnected web of life and energy—and it was very good.

6. Thus, the sixth epoch came to pass.

1. On the seventh epoch, the Creator rested, allowing the processes set in motion to continue unfolding in harmony.

2. The Creator blessed this time of rest, embedding within creation a rhythm of work and renewal, a call to reflection and gratitude.

This concept has always made much more sense to me, especially given that the battle is against powers and principalities. I don’t at all view this as referring to seven nations or seven rulers, but what do I know? It’s very symbolic obviously.

Would anyone be interested in trading Facebook accounts for casual theological discussion?

It was a mankind itself.

A common argument I hear from skeptics regarding the Bible is why a supposed all loving God would firstly, place a tree right in the middle of the garden that we would naturally be tempted to eat from, and secondly why we would then banished because of our actions and let sin enter mankind. I wanted to address this.

The hebrew for the word good is 'Tov' and for bad is 'Rah', but these words don't carry the same meaning as we currently understand them today. Tov really means things that cause us to be and feel connected to God, divine order, harmony, synchronicity, purpose etc. Rah is the opposite of this.

In the beginning there was harmony and order, we lived in alignment with the universe, a perfect synchronicity, interconnectness and divine unfolding of events.

Sin in hebrew generally means 'to fail' or 'to miss the mark', not necessarily any moral connotations, and would naturally be a result of not being in alignment with divine order, because of the knowledge of Rah. By living life in our own way, trying to make our own decisions and against divine order, we allowed Sin to enter humanity, and hence separation from Eden.

Adam in hebrew is 'mankind' thus is a message about the collective human experience. Eve was only given her name after the fall, and in hebrew means to breath or to give life. This symbolises humanity's transition from divine harmony and innocence to the birth of a new human condition that now includes suffering, choice and the potential for both alignment and misalignment with God.

This is further amplified by the hebrew meanings of the first born children Cain, which means to aquire or possess, and Abel, which has the opposite meaning. This reinforces the idea of mankinds choice between alignment and misalignment. Cains name symbolises humanities desire to possess the world, to control its destiny, and assert dominance over nature and God's will. Abel, the opposite of this, is the possibility of spiritual alignment within divine order.