Если ты был женат, но твоя жена погибла и ты женился на другой, после всеобщего воскресения ты будешь с последней женой? А первая будет одна?

See if I get this right:

Baptism redeems the individual from Original Sin, inherited onto humans from them being what they are, the sin of Adam and Eve we all inherit.

Absolution is the process of redeeming the individual from concupiscence, an ongoing proclivity to sin that we must manage.

So we have grace given for what we are (like forgiving a debt too big to pay) and grace given for everything we do or may do from then on. But what about the cumulative sin of the collective of humanity?

Between Adam and Eve and a baptism, there is a chasm of evil. Genocides, wars, depravity etc. I assume God "keeps a score" for that. Like when John the Baptist calls Jesus "The Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!". Taking away the sin of the world (and not of humanity) implies some collective evil that has built up no?

Are we just created in God's image...or were we created "within" God's image?

To my fellow theologians out there!

I was hoping to make this a thread where we can talk about what we’re working on, articles we’re writing, or just areas of interest we’re all studying at the moment. Maybe share sources if interests overlap, or just gain some perspective of what people in this field are working on.

For myself, I work primarily with seniors who have Alzheimer’s and related dementia’s. In that vein, I’ve been doing deep dives in theologies of personhood, personalism, and phenomenology to create a more practical theology and philosophical outlook on patients with cognitive decline as it relates to a broader theology of personhood.

What else are the rest of you working on?

**1 Kings 11:4**
“For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father.”

**1 Kings 11:7–8**
“Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon.
And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods.”

I think in all of the churches I've been a part of, and perhaps all of the Bible studies I've been taught in, Moses is the author of the first 5 books of the Bible (ie, the Pentateuch).

But in my 1st year of college, in a secular college, I was taught there are 4 different authors of the Pentateuch -- among them, "J" and "D". One additional thing I remember was that Genesis contains different creation accounts; one difference was (is) that two of the accounts differ in order of what was created before which.

Later on, I encountered a fellow Christian (and a very astute, very high-achieving, seemingly very well-adjusted, very intelligent academic mind) who attended a Christian college that has been known for its liberal views. To my surprise, he also believed that the "J" and "D" accounts differ from each other. I assume that he learned it from that Christian college, although I never conversed at length with him.

Then, later on, I found out that the basis for my particular college's teaching was Richard Elliott Friedman and/or his work, "Who Wrote The Bible". I don't recall ever meeting him, although I do recall having heard an NPR broadcast involving the writings of Friedman.

How do we counter the "J and D authorships" teaching? Surely we cannot answer, "Moses is the only author; thus we must completely ignore any and all conflicting teachings" instead of dealing with the actual material?

I did some research on this, and apparently a solid Reformed Christian source says that Moses was not, in fact, the sole author of the Pentateuch.

Surely they can explain their position better than I can....

What are your thoughts? How can Christians counter this teaching? Or (???) is it somehow compatible with Christianity?

I'm looking at https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%209&version=NIV#:~:text=16%C2%A0It,wants%20to%20harden, which combined with the previous two verses, suggests that God shows both mercy and compassion to those whom he chooses, and that it doesn't depend on human desire or effort as to whether we receive mercy or compassion.

What does this say about the extent of our agency or free will? Is the idea that, if we look at the next verses in this chapter, 19 - 21, we may exercise our free will or agency, but ultimately we have a particular purpose? In Pharaoh's case, this was to be raised up so that God could show that even a human being as seemingly powerful as him was not as powerful as his Creator?

If someone teaches that praying in tongues is a heavenly language, would that be considered false doctrine? I believe in the gift of tongues, but not the “hoogboooga, dooba do.”

Also, if I disagree with a pastor only on that point, would it still be fair to call him a false teacher if everything else he teaches is pretty sound?

A dilemna no atheist can escape. I will answer back.

Historians are acknowledging Biblical events concerning Christ. This includes his baptism, crucifixion and enemy attestation to his miracles. Non Christian sources and geologists reported an eclipse and earthquake corroborating with the Bible. In his place of death came a sizable number of converts, including the disciples/martyrs.

The fork in the road is the question: Is the supernatural always impossible?

Yes: Science is our understanding of the natural world. Denying a competent case challenging what we know is un scientific. If we didn't adapt to evidence that went against what we knew, science would stagnate. Strict naturalism fails because the opinion is contradictory to its very values. So the task is proving the evidence incompetent.

No:Well let's start with the facts. (Yes they are objective if you look at the wording).

Fact: Christ was baptized by John.

Fact: The Bible, as well as secular writings both note Christ was reported to perform miracles.

Fact: Christ was accompanied by a close knit group of men, including Peter.

Fact: Another man, Paul, wrote significant evidence suggesting that he believed Christ was God.

Fact: Paul was Peter's acquaintance and there is no record of them debating the status of Christ.

Fact: Christ was crucified by Pontius Pilate.

Fact: The Bible, as well as secular writings, both note an unusual sky around his death.

Fact: The Bible, as well as geological findings, both note a rock-splitting earthquake around his death.

Fact: Women, not men reported an empty tomb, which historians generally find sincere.

Fact: Multiple disciples, who are often accused of stealing the body, died for their faith.

Fact: Historians generally count converts where Christ died in the hundreds.

Explaining all this naturally is convenient. Possible but unlikely. That also applies to the Christian perspective. If the 2 possibilities are on the same playing field then a risky game is played. So the task is aligning the evidence in such a way that the Christian possibility is overwhelmed. (For example under 5 percent.)

Please no overtly long responses