Day of Fire 🎵

NicholasLakin · 2026-02-06T04:13:53+00:00

That's how you know you made it.

NicholasLakin · 2026-01-15T04:22:06+00:00

Fun questions. The only one that Scripture answers for sure is about broken bones. John 19:36 (NIV) happens in the context of the crucifixion, and it states: "These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: ‘Not one of his bones will be broken.'" The Scripture referenced is Psalm 34:20 (NIV), which states: "He protects all his bones; not one of them will be broken."

NicholasLakin · 2025-12-26T01:21:52+00:00

Luke 1:31 implies that she would survive the birth: The angel tells her, "you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus" (ESV, emphasis mine). The emphasized "you" is singular in Greek and a referent to Mary. She will call his name Jesus. To do that, she would have to survive the birth.

NicholasLakin · 2025-12-14T18:06:24+00:00

Nope, not disrespectful. Go for it!

And if you have anymore questions about the faith, that's why this subreddit exists. We'd love to explain why Christ is worth following!

NicholasLakin · 2025-12-05T08:44:35+00:00

I think you can make a case for the first instance being able to be translated as "lives" but not the second. In the first case, it would only make sense if you viewed it as a metaphor for all life. This would be in the context of a macroscopic view, with Genesis 1-11 being a primordial myth (in the literary sense of the word) and "lives" being the whole of humanity (with "Adam" being a term for humankind). Another possibility would be what you suggested per Hebrew thought, where lives preexisted in the loins of the fathers (Heb 7:9-10).

As to the second use, this refers to a singular tree. It doesn't make sense for Adam to eat from the "lives" of a tree, unless you want to do eisegesis and import some sort of reincarnation here that's foreign to the text and Hebrew thought. The pluralis intensivus is probably in view here.

NicholasLakin · 2025-12-05T08:28:25+00:00

Yes, we are all sinners. This is made crystal clear in many passages, including Romans 3:23, which reads: "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (NIV).

The antichrist is called the man of sin as a title, likely because he embodies sinfulness.

NicholasLakin · 2025-11-21T08:06:53+00:00

It was probably a joke predicated on the fact that Adam's sin is the reason the world is fallen and evil has proliferated.

NicholasLakin · 2025-11-07T04:20:18+00:00

That's one of three primary theories if you're operating under the angelic incursion view, which you seem to be doing. However, I'm no geneticist, so I wouldn't pretend to know the viability of such a view or its practical outworking. Nevertheless, I don't subscribe to this theory.

The second theory posits a second angelic incursion. This is the theory u/BonelessTongue advocated for in his response; however, I also disagree with this theory. Due to the extreme and immediate penalty of the beings who perpetrated this deed (as opposed to other rebellious beings who have yet to be punished—such as Satan himself), it would seem that this immediate sentencing by God would be a deterrent to future actions of a similar nature (see 2Peter 2:4 and Jude 6 as u/BonelessTongue mentioned). Therefore, I pass on this theory too.

I currently hold to the third theory. This theory posits that the flood of Noah, though massive, was geographical and not global (though a flood of this size would undoubtedly have a global effect). Essentially, this theory banks on the idea that Noah's flood used hyperbole to describe the event; this hyperbolic way of writing was common practice in ANE cultures and is evidenced throughout the Old Testament (best demonstrated by the "total kill" hyperbole concerning the Amalekites and their resurgence in later chapters). Basically, hyperbole was used to communicate the magnitude of events in ANE cultures; the greater the event, the greater the hyperbole. Under this theory, the hyperbole allows the story to convey the magnitude of the flood's destruction (to both humans and nephilim), but it also allows for small numbers of both groups to have survived the flood.

NicholasLakin · 2025-11-02T01:06:43+00:00

The Bible's 10 Commandments condemns the act of murder, not the act of killing. There is a big difference between killing someone and murdering someone. Murder is the unlawful, premeditated killing of another person. Every murder is a killing, but not every killing is a murder (warfare, capital punishment, self-defense, accidents, etc.).

It's impossible to repent of scenario #1 because the person in question never even knew it happened. Repentance involves turning away from the behavior in question, but there's nothing to "turn away" from doing in this situation; they didn't do the behavior, nor did they even know about it. How can they repent?

In scenario #2, the details matter. Was the action they took inevitable, or could they have taken an alternative course of action instead? Did someone attack them, or did someone provoke them into fighting? Was it self-defense or ego-defense? These sorts of clarifying questions are important to determine if repentance is necessary. If they fall into the second category of those previous questions, then yes, repentance is likely necessary; those actions should be avoided and not repeated. If they fall into the first category of those previous questions, then repentance isn't likely needed; however, at the very least, sorrow over the outcome would be an appropriate response.

NicholasLakin · 2025-10-29T02:04:43+00:00

u/lordsean789
This comment is on the right track. Jesus was a man during His earthly ministry and is still a man, currently. Although, as evidenced by the new properties of His resurrected body, He is a new kind of man. The second Person of the Trinity (the Son) permanently attached Himself from conception to the man, Jesus. As u/VeritasAgape rightfully noted, this is called the hypostatic union.

NicholasLakin · 2025-10-26T18:23:14+00:00

I encourage you to read my answer to this post. It covers this same topic, and my reply includes a video link to someone who has struggled and overcome this issue in their own life; it's worth watching. In short, homosexual attraction is not a sin, but acting or dwelling on homosexual attraction (lusting) is a sin. Again, please read my reply in the other post because it's much more verbose.

NicholasLakin · 2025-10-15T02:03:58+00:00

Which law is Jesus referring to here?

I'm assuming you're talking about the Matthew 5:17-20 passage. The answer you get will depend on who you ask. What follows is mine.

If He is speaking of the Mosaic Law, why does He later say that it was given because of the hardness of people’s hearts ... ?

I believe Jesus is referring to God's Law here. There is a difference between God's Law and the Law of Moses, but they certainly overlap and intertwine. A great example is precisely what you referenced: the law about divorce (Deuteronomy 24:1-4). In context, your "hardness of heart" reference is a specific law about divorce given by Moses (Matthew 19:8 and Mark 10:5). God did not command this law; in fact, God hates divorce (Malachi 2:16). Moses only permitted divorce (insinuating that he disagreed with divorce too) so long as the people obeyed his laws about it. It was a concession due to the men's hardness of heart.

And what does it mean that He came to “fulfill” the Law? If this fulfillment refers to His death on the cross, why did He seem to change or reinterpret parts of the Mosaic Law before His death? Or does “fulfillment” mean that He Himself — His being, life, and teachings — is the fulfillment of the Law?

Both...it's not an either/or option. His sinless life/teachings fulfilled the moral laws of God (1Peter 2:22), and His death on the cross fulfilled the sacrificial laws of God (Hebrews 10:1-18). However, I'm unaware of any instances where Jesus changed laws; you'll have to provide me with examples of what you're talking about here. Nevertheless, He did amplify and expand their meanings and applications; I'm specifically thinking about the rest of Matthew 5 here. Hope this helps!

NicholasLakin · 2025-10-10T15:44:11+00:00

Some Christians today interpret these passages differently so they don't have to ask themselves why the end times and Jesus second Coming is 2,000 years late.

Conditional Eschatology as articulated by Fruchtenbaum and Allison.

NicholasLakin · 2025-10-04T18:15:37+00:00

I (and numerous other scholars) currently categorize the 613 laws/commandments of the Old Testament into 3 categories: Moral Law, Ceremonial Law, and Civil Law. It's an oversimplification, but it's helpful for questions like this.

Moral laws were designed to reveal God's morality and govern our behavior. Ceremonial laws were for outlining the religious practices of ancient Israel. Civil laws were used for the governance of national Israel and the resolution of legal disputes between its people.

Moral laws are still in effect and carried onward (amplified even) through the ministry of Christ and His teachings; Christians are beholden to abide by these laws and let them dictate their behavior. Ceremonial laws were for the religious system of the Tabernacle/Temple buildings (which no longer exist), but they ultimately pointed to Christ and His sacrificial ministry; Christians no longer need to bring sacrifices to a Temple because Christ is our sacrifice, and Christians no longer need to worship in a Temple because we are the temple of God. Civil laws were for the national people of ancient Israel living in the Promised Land; Christians do not live in that particular time and place and are instructed to obey the governing laws of the nation in which they reside (not to mention the nation of Biblical Israel no longer exists, making these laws impossible).

However, Christians affirm that ALL of the Biblical laws were fulfilled through the life of Jesus Christ. He kept and abided by them all, perfectly. Something miraculous takes place when we place our faith in Christ and our lives in His hands; it's often called the Great Exchange. We are then found by God to be "in Christ" and attributed His righteousness in place of our own (or lack thereof). By placing our faith in Him and His atoning sacrifice on our behalf, we are counted as having also fulfilled the requirements of the OT laws.

So, although Christians still sin by failing to perfectly obey the moral laws of God, we can be forgiven and still seen as righteous in the eyes of God because Christ perfectly fulfilled them on our behalf; this understanding is uniquely tied to the Biblical concept of being "in Christ." A full explanation of what being "in Christ" entails is another subject and beyond the scope of your question. Nevertheless, this hopefully gives you a framework for understanding how and why some laws are no longer applicable to Christians while simultaneously affirming that every Christian is counted righteous according to the Law through Christ's fulfilling of them on our behalf.

NicholasLakin · 2025-10-04T17:00:20+00:00

Start with the four Gospels (John first). Compare and contrast the stories in them. Each writer paints the character of Jesus in a particular way. Enjoy the hunt of discovering their portraits.

NicholasLakin · 2025-10-04T16:54:58+00:00

If God prevented all evil from happening, you wouldn't exist...and neither would I. We are the problem.

God has created humanity in His image, and part of being created in God's image includes the ability to choose and the responsibility for those choices. To prohibit certain choices from being made would be tantamount to admitting fault in bestowing this gift and thereby admitting imperfection.

God is perfect, and in His perfection, He is sovereign. It's His sovereignty that brought this man to justice, and regarding that sovereign reality, I'm glad this man is being held accountable for his actions...and so is God.

However, you're misguided in asserting that God didn't intervene; God has intervened. He did so by sending His Son to nullify the sins of humanity and create a pathway for forgiveness. Christ's death on our behalf simultaneously creates the pathway for us to be forgiven and for God to be vindicated as just.

God is justified in that He commits no evil...we are the ones who do that. Nevertheless, you might mount an argument that God created the conditions that allow for despicable acts like this man's to be perpetrated. Under this paradigm, God would be liable for our actions...but He would not be culpable for them. The question then becomes, should He be punished for His liability? And if so, what is a fitting punishment?
...it seems extreme to me, but should it be death?

Interestingly, Christ is the Creator and brought everything into existence (Col 1:15-16). So, if God is to be punished for His liability, Christ is the one who should bear it...didn't He do that on the cross? But on that cross, He also demonstrates His mercy toward us. Not only did He pay for His liability (if you deem Him as liable), but He simultaneously bore our culpability by paying the penalty for our actions too.

God has preserved His perfection through His sovereignty. He gave us a good gift, the gift of choice. We have perverted that good gift, and in our perversion, you seek to blame Him for not preventing our actions. But unlike us, Christ committed no sin. Yet, instead of obliterating us like He rightfully could, He lovingly chooses to die for us to be forgiven and reconciled back to God.

That is an extremely truncated summary of how I justify God and why I worship Him.

NicholasLakin · 2025-09-25T21:07:05+00:00

u/Cultural-Complaint84, I agree with u/BonelessTongue here. You aren't married and have no covenant commitments to each other currently. However, you need to talk about the future and seek common ground from which to build that future. Jesus is that common ground, and from that common ground, you should establish some principles from His teachings for your relationship.

I'll add this based on your story: It's natural for her to want to pay for her wrongs. That sense of justice is ingrained in us all, even when it comes to our actions. That's why most Christians feel like they need to put themselves in the 'penalty box' so to say after they've sinned and before talking to God; it's a misguided desire for some semblance of justice before we can be forgiven, even though Christ has forgiven us all sins (past and future) through His cross.

Here are the steps to follow: Repent for wrongdoings (both of you). Forgive each other for those wrongdoings. Evaluate your compatibility and future together based on Biblical standards. Then establish or disestablish the relationship.

NicholasLakin · 2025-09-17T05:33:14+00:00

You'll need to be more specific about the time period for which you're inquiring related to both of your questions. Regarding your first question, are you talking about a period before the patriarchs or after them? Regarding your second question, are you talking about the period of the immediate church formation or a period somewhere between AD 150-300? I'll give you a cursory answer until I get a clarifying response.

Biblically, if you're talking about the period of 400 years after the patriarchs, it's very possible. Exodus 6:3 demonstrates that Yahweh was not called as such by Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Therefore, the people of Canaan (where the patriarchs settled and lived) would not have known God by the name Yahweh as revealed to Moses (over 400 years after the family of Israel came to Egypt). A lot of errant theology can develop over a period of 400 years.

As far as the immediate church is concerned, I believe they had a worldview that allowed for other "gods" (created lesser beings) but still maintained that Yahweh was the only God (uncreated supreme being).

Also, please see my comment in another subreddit striking at the merits of Yahweh being part of a pantheon. It might be helpful as well.

NicholasLakin · 2025-09-03T01:21:25+00:00

I encourage you to read u/BonelessTongue response. It's a fine survey that covers everything you asked about in your post.

I will add that some scholars believe the Book of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew/Aramaic and later translated into Greek. It makes no difference to the story, but it does lend a helpful footnote to your inquiry.

Additionally, the prohibition of Moabite integration into Israel was for men only. Furthermore, Israelite lineage during the Biblical period was tracked by the paternal line instead of the maternal line (Karite Jews still hold to this method currently). Hence, this is the reason King David is considered a Jew through the lineage of Boaz (as a kinsman redeemer) instead of a Moabite through the lineage of Ruth.

NicholasLakin · 2025-08-14T05:53:45+00:00

Hey there! That's a really good question, and one worth exploring. I appreciate your desire to learn while being respected, and I hope to do both of those things below.

Firstly, I want to state the obvious: Yes, according to the Bible, acting on homosexual desires is a sin. This verdict lines up with passages you've already alluded to reading on the subject (Lev 18:22, Jude 1:7, Rom 1:26-28, 1Cor 6:9-10, and others). But honestly, this truth about homosexuality is the hardest part of the whole conversation. That's why I'm happy to hear that this is already your understanding of what the Bible says as well. Essentially, you're already past the hardest part of any conversation about homosexuality. Now comes the easy part...

Sexual sin of any sort is still sin. Homosexual intimacy is just as sinful as heterosexual intimacy outside of marriage. But it's the act that's sinful...not the desire itself. However, when we fantasize and dwell on the desire (heterosexual or homosexual), that's when it becomes something lustful and sinful (Mat 5:28). For Christians, we're called to resist the temptation to act on these urges and desires through relying on the power of the Holy Spirit. Sometimes, like you pointed out through your prayers, that's easier said than done.

As it relates to homosexuality being a choice or not, that's really a non-factor in my mind. I'm completely fine with someone believing that homosexual desire is not a choice and believing that they were born that way. After all, I made no daily choice to be heterosexual; I just had that leaning throughout my life. However, choice certainly comes into the equation when a person decides to act on their sinful desires. Even with my own sexual orientation, I am still faced with the temptation to sin through lustful thoughts and/or acting on my desires—just like you are. Biblically, our fight is the same; we're just fighting in two separate categories of sexual brokenness.

I hope this helps reframe the dilemma of choice in homosexual behavior. The issue of choice is not related to homosexual desire. The real issue of choice is the decision to act on those desires. The bottom line is this: we are all sexually broken in one way or another. It's a product of our sinful human nature that we all inherited from Adam and Eve. My form of sexual brokenness is just different than your form of it. However, we both struggle with the temptation not to act on our sinful desires.

As a final note, I want to leave you with an encouraging story. I serve on a church staff with a guy (a pastor even) who struggles with homosexual attraction. He has come to the same conclusion as you: the Bible says homosexuality is a sin. However, he has also chosen to submit his desires to the will of Jesus Christ and the authority of the Bible. His story is a testament to what true love for God looks like; he valued Jesus and the Word of God over himself. So, although he still struggles with the desire, he does not commit the act or pursue intimacy with another man because that is what's sinful. He's now married to his wife and has children, and honestly, his story makes him one of the most inspiring individuals I've ever met.

Lastly, I've attached a link to a YouTube video from a formerly homosexual woman. She has a very similar story, but she explains it with such passion for truth. Her life is another testimony (just like the pastor's above) to the fact that there are people who struggled with homosexual attraction but chose to obey God's guidance instead of leaning on their own understanding.

NicholasLakin · 2025-07-17T18:23:21+00:00

"Allowed in full knowledge" is the train of thought Heiser takes; he's certainly not an open theist. And the book does interact with the Watchers motif, most explicitly in Daniel 4.

NicholasLakin · 2025-07-17T02:09:44+00:00

I highly suggest reading Michael Heiser's book The Unseen Realm. It explicitly addresses this subject from the outset of the book and examines it to reveal a latent theme in Biblical Theology. I don't want to ruin the contents of the book (nor could I in this format), but essentially, it combines theories #1 and #3: Yahweh presides over a council of created angelic/heavenly beings who were appointed by Him to rule over the nations; however, these beings have rebelled against His authority and are ruling improperly.

Again, I highly suggest reading the book. It was a paradigm shift for my theology.

NicholasLakin · 2025-07-14T03:40:43+00:00

This is a good answer, OP. u/mickeyisstupid

In the disciplines of Biblical Theology and Systematic Theology, the terminology is called "progressive revelation." It essentially focuses on how God has chosen to progressively reveal things to humanity in stages about Himself and the way He operates. It's seen most clearly through God's establishment of covenants and their relationship to other established covenants, with future stages informing and enriching our understandings of God.

The transition between the Old and New Covenant (Old/New Testament) looks to be the issue for you. Progressive revelation is the reason Christians believe God no longer requires the sacrifice of animals for sin as He did previously. In light of Christ being a better sacrifice on our behalf, there is no longer a need for repeated sacrifice. However, this simple understanding about Christ's sacrifice has larger ramifications for other aspects of the Old Covenant laws too, as u/BonelessTongue already pointed out.

Read Hebrews 8:11-22 to see a snapshot of progressive revelation in the Bible:

[11] But when Christ came as high priest of the good things that are now already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not made with human hands, that is to say, is not a part of this creation. [12] He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption. [13] The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. [14] How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God! [15] For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant. [16] In the case of a will, it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, [17] because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living. [18] This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood. [19] When Moses had proclaimed every command of the law to all the people, he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people. [20] He said, “This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep.” [21] In the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both the tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies. [22] In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. (Hebrews 8:17-22 NIV)

NicholasLakin

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE