Some disagree on whether a Christian in this life may fall utterly and lose or forfeit eternal life. However, most Christians do agree that after death, the Christian is eternally secure in heaven (or the new earth). And this seems to be well supported in Scripture: > **[John 10:28](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john+10%3A28&version=ESV)** (ESV) > 28 A)"> I give them eternal life, and B)"> they will never perish, and C)"> no one will snatch them out of my hand. > > **[Revelation 21:4](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=revelation+21%3A4&version=ESV)** (ESV) > 4 A)"> He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and B)"> death shall be no more, C)"> neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.” So it seems clear that Christians could not be susceptible to another Fall . My question is, Why? What is the fundamental reason why Christians would not be susceptible to another Fall or rebellion against God? *Please answer from a Protestant, non-Calvinist perspective.* ---------- ### Possible responses I have considered ### > There will be no law, and thus no concept of sin *But wouldn't rebellion against God would be considered sin, even apart from a "law"?* > After death we no longer have a sin nature, and are thus incapable of sin *But weren't Adam and Eve created without a sin nature, and yet sinned?* > Satan will be vanquished, unable to tempt us *But didn't Lucifer rebel without being externally tempted? If we are unable to rebel without a tempter, that implies that we will have less free will than Lucifer and the angels had.* > We will be unable to sin, either through lack of free will, or prevention by God *The argument that I usually use and hear for the existence of free will is that God would rather have willful obedience than robotic obedience. Is God then hedging on this preference for the sake of our eternal souls?* > We have already been atoned for by Christ, so if we were to sin, it could not be counted against us *This allows for sin in heaven, which I can't buy. It contradicts Revelation 21:4 for one thing, and makes heaven imperfect*

Obviously every denomination believes they are right. Every religion believes they are right. Does God require one to join a denomination? Or does he simply require Christlike living and the study of his word?

Genesis 4 discusses the descendants of Cain: >"Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. When he built a city, he called the name of the city after the name of his son, Enoch. To Enoch was born Irad, and Irad fathered Mehujael, and Mehujael fathered Methushael, and Methushael fathered Lamech. And Lamech took two wives. The name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah. Adah bore Jabal; he was the **father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock**. His brother's name was Jubal; he was the **father of all those who play the lyre and pipe**. Zillah also bore Tubal-cain; he was **the forger of all instruments of bronze and iron**. The sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah." Genesis 4:17-22 Why are we given details about what the descendants of Cain did? Is there some special significance to these details?

Thomas Cranmer's 42 Articles has Article 10: "those that have no will to good things, he makes them to will, and those that would evil things he makes them not to will the same." Does the C. of E. have an official definition of free will, or what might be the nearest it gets to having one?

> "Intercession is the act of using your influence to make someone in authority forgive someone else or save them from punishment" - [*Cambridge Dictionary*](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/intercession) . > "Intercession definition: Entreaty in favor of another, especially a prayer or petition to God in behalf of another" - [*YourDictionary*](https://www.yourdictionary.com/intercession) . For an act to be "intercession", the intercessor must believe there is a possibility that the act will cause God to act differently than He would have without the intercession. > "The only thing that makes sense is that Jesus must share in God’s divine nature. If that is not the case, then God has either contradicted himself or changed his mind, and he does neither of those things." - from the article "[*What Does It Mean to Be a Trinitarian?*](https://www.christianity.com/wiki/christian-terms/what-mean-to-be-trinitarian.html) " at the Christianity.com website. > "Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities; for we know not what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered" - Romans 8:26 (KJV) > "Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us" - Romans 8:34 (KJV) **Do Trinitarians redefine "intercession"?** I understand that, instead, they could take the Greek words translated "intercession" and translate them differently. Or they could say that God's changing His action because of an intercession does not constitute His changing His mind. *[Entugchano](https://biblehub.com/greek/1793.htm)* One thing I have learned from leading Biblical word studies is, "If you want to discuss *agape*, refer to it as *agape*, not as 'love'". This time it bit me. I forgot the first line of Paul's answer and thought he was discussing "intercession" when apparently he was discussing *[Entugchano](https://biblehub.com/greek/1793.htm)* , instead. - Also see Strongs & similar [here](https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Lexicon.show/ID/G1793/entugchano.htm) and [here](https://www.billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/entynchano) and [here](https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/kjv/entugchano.html)

I am currently working on a project devoted to the thoughts of the Curé of Ars (St. John Vianney) on various topics. One of the topics is *scruples*. St. Alphonsus Liguori, for instance, has this to say about scruples itself: > A conscience is scrupulous when, for a frivolous reason and without rational basis, there is a frequent fear of sin even though in reality there is no sin at all. A scruple is a defective understanding of something. St. Philip Neri seemed to have a fair amount to say on the subject, including > The scrupulous should remit themselves always and in everything to the judgment of their confessor, and accustom themselves to have a contempt for their own scruples. And he offered the following advice to those pestered by scruples: > If those who are molested by scruples wish to know whether they have consented to a suggestion or not, especially in thoughts, they should see whether, during the temptation, they have always had a lively love to the virtue opposed to the vice in respect of which they were tempted, and hatred to that same vice, and this is mostly a good proof that they have not consented. and > When a scrupulous person has once made up his mind that he has not consented to a temptation, he must not reason the matter over again to see whether he has really consented or not, for the same temptations often return by making this sort of reflection. However, when I searched, for example, the various sermons and catechetical instructions of the Curé of Ars, I could find nothing along these lines. In fact, I could find nothing at all in which anything directly regarding *scruples* in the above sense is even mentioned. St. John Vianney, has, however, used the word in a slightly different sense on several occasions; when, for example, he says: > My children, you make a scruple of missing holy Mass, because you commit a great sin in missing it by your own fault ; but you have no scruple in missing an instruction. and also, > He [lukewarm Christian] has few scruples in cutting out, on the least pretext, the Asperges and the prayers before Mass. But, alas, I can find nothing regarding his having addressed *scruples* specifically as a spiritual disease. I have consulted his definitive biography by Trochu, and all I could find in there regarding scruples as a disease, is a reference that Trochu makes in regards to St. Benedict Labre en route to receiving the hospitality of the Vianney household when St. John Vianney was a little boy: > Tortured by scruples, Benoit Labre had just left the Trappist monastery of Sept-Fonds, where he had been a novice under the name of Brother Urban. He had now acquired a certainty that his vocation was to be a wayfarer for the remainder of his life, so he set out for Rome. His first halt was at Paray-le-Monial, where he paid long visits to the chapel of the Apparitions. From Paray he journeyed to Lyons, but rather than enter the city at nightfall he chose to spend the night at Dardilly. On observing a number of poor persons going to the house of Pierre Vianney, he went along with them. QUESTION: Does anyone know if the Curé of Ars had had anything to say about the disease of *scruples* directly, perhaps along the lines of the Liguori and Neri quotes provided above; and if so, what are they or where I may find them? (The sources I have used, for the most part, are in English. Perhaps there is something in the French in which the subject is directly addressed?) Thank you.

During Ancient Biblical times, it was common for 1st cousins to get married. > Genesis 24:15 > > New American Standard Bible 1995 > > Rebekah Is Chosen > > 15 Before he had finished speaking, behold, Rebekah who was born to > Bethuel the son of Milcah, the wife of Abraham’s brother Nahor, came > out with her jar on her shoulder. > Genesis 24:67 > > New American Standard Bible 1995 > > 67 Then Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah’s tent, and he took > Rebekah, and she became his wife, and he loved her; thus Isaac was > comforted after his mother’s death. > Genesis 28:2 > > New American Standard Bible 1995 > > So Isaac called Jacob > and blessed him and charged him, and said to him, “You shall not take > a wife from the daughters of Canaan. 2 Arise, go to Paddan-aram, to > the house of Bethuel your mother’s father; and from there take to > yourself **a wife from the daughters of Laban your mother’s brother.** > Genesis 29:21-30 > > New American Standard Bible 1995 > > Laban’s Treachery > > 21 Then Jacob said to Laban, “Give me my wife, for my [a]time is > completed, that I may go in to her.” 22 Laban gathered all the men of > the place and made a feast. 23 Now in the evening he took his daughter > Leah, and brought her to him; and Jacob went in to her. 24 Laban also > gave his maid Zilpah to his daughter Leah as a maid. **25 So it came > about in the morning that, behold, it was Leah! And he said to Laban, > “What is this you have done to me? Was it not for Rachel that I served > with you? Why then have you deceived me?” 26 But Laban said, “It is > not [b]the practice in our place to [c]marry off the younger before > the firstborn. 27 Complete the week of this one, and we will give you > the other also for the service which you shall serve with me for > another seven years.” 28 Jacob did so and completed her week, and he > gave him his daughter Rachel as his wife.** 29 Laban also gave his maid > Bilhah to his daughter Rachel as her maid. 30 So Jacob went in to > Rachel also, and indeed he loved Rachel more than Leah, and he served > with Laban for another seven years. However, if one reads about European Royal families then one will notice that there were inbreeding health problems amongst offspring because cousins married each other. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Excerpt from Credit Reference url: [Royal Inbreeding and the Hapsburg Jaw](https://www.utmb.edu/mdnews/podcast/episode/royal-inbreeding-and-the-hapsburg-jaw) > The Hapsburg dynasty ended with King Carlos the Second of Spain whose > tongue was so large he couldn't chew or talk well and drooled. He was > intellectually disabled and died just short of his thirty-ninth > birthday. > > To confirm that marriage with relatives closer than second cousins > caused the Hapsburg jaw, ten maxillofacial surgeons viewed sixty-six > portraits of fifteen members of the Hapsburg dynasty. They looked for > eleven features of the disorder and found them in at least seven > family members. Researchers also studied a family tree that included > six thousand people over twenty generations and established a link > between inbreeding and the disorder. Excerpt from Credit Reference url: [Royal Inbreeding and the Hapsburg Jaw](https://www.utmb.edu/mdnews/podcast/episode/royal-inbreeding-and-the-hapsburg-jaw) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why weren't there any reports of health problems amongst offspring caused by inbreeding when closely related relatives got married to each other, and produced offspring during the Ancient Biblical days?

In the “centuries-old account of the Council of Nicaea: … The whole power of the mysterious dogma is at once established by the one word homoousios … with one pronouncement the Church identified a term (homoousios) that secured its … beliefs against heresy. ... Such older accounts are deeply mistaken ” (LA, 11) “What is conventionally regarded as the key-word in the Creed homoousion, falls completely out of the controversy very shortly after the Council of Nicaea and is not heard of for over twenty years.” (Hanson Lecture ) “For nearly twenty years after Nicaea nobody mentions homoousios, not even Athanasius. This may be because it was much less significant than either later historians of the ancient Church or modern scholars thought that it was.” (RH, 170) “During the years 326–50 the term homoousios is rarely if ever mentioned.” (LA, 431) “After Nicaea homoousios is not mentioned again in truly contemporary sources for two decades. … It was not seen as that useful or important.” (LA, 96) “During the years 325–42 neither Arius nor the particular technical terminology used at Nicaea were at the heart of theological controversy.” (LA, 100) The word homoousios appears only once in Athanasius’ the Orations. This is understood as “evidence of Athanasius’ lack of commitment to Nicaea's terminology at this stage of his career.” (LA, 115) “Athanasius' decision to make Nicaea and homoousios central to his theology has its origins in the shifting climate of the 350s and the structure of emerging Homoian theology.” (LA, 144) > LA = Lewis Ayres Nicaea and its legacy, 2004 Ayres is a Professor of > Catholic and Historical Theology at Durham University in the United > Kingdom. > > RH = Bishop R.P.C. Hanson The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God > – The Arian Controversy 318-381, 1987 Question: Why was the term homoousios not part of the controversy during the 25 years from 325-350 and when and why did this change, so that it is today regarded as the key term in the Nicene Creed?

This question may seem strange, but I believe it is valid. It is commonly understood that God cannot create logical contradictions, such as a square circle, or make 1+1=3. However, it seems that the trinity itself is a logical contradiction being three distinct persons but still only one God. Why can God not create logical contradictions when his own nature is a logical contradiction? I am a trinitarian, but I am unsure of how to answer this question.

I previously posted the question: > I understand the word theos may be translated as "God" or as "god." > Bible writers added words (the, true, only, or one) to indicate the > Almighty. For example, in prayer, Jesus described the Father as **the > only true theos** (John 17:3). The Nicene Creed describes the Father > as "one theos" and the Son as "true theos from true theos." Is there > anything in the Greek of this phrase to indicate whether this should > read "God" or "god?" But the moderator closed the question and indicated: > Add details and clarify the problem you’re solving. So, let me try to explain why I ask such a question: The ancient Greek word theos is the standard word used by the Greeks for their gods, the pantheon. The modern English word “God” has a very different meaning, for it is used only for one Being, namely the Ultimate Reality; the Almighty. Since no other word was available, the New Testament writers used the same word theos for the God of the Bible. When the context indicates that it refers to the Ultimate Reality, it is translated as “God.” But the New Testament also uses theos for other beings, such as Satan and even certain humans. In such instances, it is translated as “god.” (e.g., 1 Cor 8:5-6) The Nicene Creed refers to Jesus as theos in the phrase “theos from theos.” On the assumption of the Trinity doctrine, in which the Son is God Almighty, this is translated as “God from God.” However, **the authors of the 325 Nicene Creed did not think of the Son as God Almighty**. This is indicated by the following: 1. The Creed itself makes a distinction between the “one God, the Father almighty” and “one Lord, Jesus Christ.” 2. Most of the delegates to the council were followers of Origen Frend WHC (The Rise of Christianity) (<a href="/redirect?url=https%3A%2F%2Frevelationbyjesuschrist.com%2Ferickson%2F" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">Millard J. Erickson <i class="fas fa-external-link-alt fa-xs"></i></a>), and Origen, like all pre-Nicene Fathers, regarded the Son as subordinate to the Father (<a href="/redirect?url=https%3A%2F%2Frevelationbyjesuschrist.com%2Fhanson%2F%23origen" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">Hanson <i class="fas fa-external-link-alt fa-xs"></i></a>). They did refer to Jesus as theos because they <a href="/redirect?url=https%3A%2F%2Frevelationbyjesuschrist.com%2Fhanson%2F%23divine" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">did regard Him as divine <i class="fas fa-external-link-alt fa-xs"></i></a> but, in their theology, there were <a href="/redirect?url=https%3A%2F%2Frevelationbyjesuschrist.com%2Fhanson%2F%23theos" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">many different types and grades of deity <i class="fas fa-external-link-alt fa-xs"></i></a>. 3. The concept or phrase “theos from theos” was used by pre-Nicene fathers (Irenaeus - Proof of the Apostolic Preaching 47, Tertullian <a href="/redirect?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ccel.org%2Fccel%2Fschaff%2Fanf03.v.ix.xiii.html" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">Against Praxeas 13 <i class="fas fa-external-link-alt fa-xs"></i></a>), but they regarded the Son as subordinate to the Father. 4. Later Arian Creeds also referred to Christ as theos from theos. For example, the Creed of Sirmium , in the year 358, refers to the Son as “God from God, light from light.” However, that creed presents the Son as subordinate to the Father. As a defense against the indications in the Bible that the Son is subordinate to the Father, the Council of Chalcedon stated that the Son, during His incarnation, had two natures: a divine and a human nature. Therefore, that council argues, when He said that He is subordinate to the Father, He was speaking from His human nature. However, the 'two natures' proposal only deals with indications of subordination while the Son was on earth in the form of a man. There are also many indications that the Son is subordinate to the Father BEFORE His incarnation and AFTER His resurrection and ascension. To defend against such indications of subordination, Trinitarians argue that the three ontologically equal Persons have a voluntary arrangement amongst themselves – a division of duties, so to speak - in which the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father. However, an eternal voluntary arrangement between three ontologically equal Persons, in which the Son is subordinated to the Father, remains real subordination. (Kevin Giles ) Conclusion and Question -------- Therefore, when Irenaeus said that “the Father is God and the Son is God” (Proof of the Apostolic Preaching 47), I understand that Irenaeus simply meant that both the Father and the Son are immortal beings with supernatural powers. And, therefore, when Irenaeus added that “that which is begotten of God is God,” he simply meant that, since the Father is an immortal being with supernatural powers, and since Jesus Christ is the only begotten of God, He is also an immortal being with supernatural powers. So, the question remains, on the basis of the conclusion that the Nicene Council regarded the Son as subordinate to the Father, how should "theos from theos" in the Nicene Creed be translated? This may be compared to the following quote from Irenaeus: > There is none other called God by the Scriptures except the Father of > all, and the Son, and those who possess the adoption. (IV, Preface). This quote classifies the Father, the Son, and believers under the category theos, showing the general meaning of the word theos. How should theos in this quote be translated?

I understand that Jehovah's Witnesses believe their organisation to be the only one on Earth that is recognized by God as His Kingdom and do not, for example, recognize a baptism performed by another denomination. In my experience, most groups that have such a belief claim some unique source of authority. For example, Catholics claim Apostolic succession from Peter, and LDS claim to have a line of succession that was restored by divine intervention. Is there an equivalent idea in Witness theology, or is it purely a matter of nobody else having a compatible understanding of scripture? I am not necessarily looking for a line of succession, but something the Witnesses can point to to say "this is why you should join us and not Church X". The Witnesses I've spoken to tended to focus on having the correct (in their view) understanding, and I get the same impression in their literature. If understanding is the only criterion, then it should be possible for a separate group to study the Bible, draw the same conclusions and have their theology and practices recognised by the Witnesses as correct. I'm not inviting comment on whether that would be likely or desirable but I would like to know, in light of my main question above, whether it would be considered possible.

This question is addressed to people of trinitarian sects. If Jesus is part of a trinity, why are there so many examples of Him referring to Himself as something distinct from God? Some examples are Him on the cross saying "My God, my God, why have You forsaken Me?" and when He refers to God as greater than Himself when speaking to the twelve prior to being taken into custody. There are more that I've noticed but these two come to mind first. Furthermore, Jesus is repeatedly said to sit at the right hand of the Father. Doesn't the phrase "sit at the right hand" imply that the Son is not equal to the Father? I'm aware of there being counter-examples such as Him saying that He and the Father are one and of course, chapter one of John ("the Word was God"). Admitting these counter-examples support trinitarianism, how do Trinitarians explain the way Jesus speaks of God as if He is something distinct from God? Am I the only one who gets the impression that He speaks in this way? The way I see it right now is that Jesus is the Father's proxy. All authority was given to Him to execute the Father's will. He was created by the Father (I've heard some say that He was "begotten, not made", but He is referred to as Firstborn of Creation) as God's self-expression or image (Col. 1:15). In this sense, He is a functional equivalent to the Father, but in another sense, He is not essentially equivalent because He came from the Father. Is this the same way Trinitarians see it?

The book of Esther is included in both the Jewish canon and Christian canons of all denominations. However, it seems to have enjoyed a questionable status for much longer than any other of the now-accepted writings. For example, it is the only Old Testament book not to be found at Qumran, it is one of the few OT books not referenced by Sirach, it is omitted from Melito of Sardis's canon, and Athanasius also expressly categorized it with the Apocrypha as useful but not canonical. Jerome, whose opinion is often cited by Protestants in discussions of the canon, counted Esther as canonical but not the deuterocanonical books (although it seems he changed his opinion on the deuterocanonical books at some point in his career). I haven't read Jerome's comments myself but, usually his reason is explained to be that the canonical books were the ones where the Hebrew manuscripts still existed while the others were only preserved in Greek (or were composed in Greek). However, Jerome seems to have known of Hebrew manuscripts of 1st Maccabees, so there must be something else going on to distinguish it from Esther. Protestants usually cite as the main criterion for OT canonicity some prophetic authority guaranteeing the divine inspiration of a book. However, Esther has no association with the prophets, unlike any other book of the Protestant OT canon. However, Esther was included in the canon by the Council of Rome (382) and by all subsequent streams of Christian thought. Why? What reasoning lead the Church to set aside the doubts specifically about the book of Esther that apparently had existed for quite a while prior? **This is a historical question.** I am not asking why it is included in the canon by Protestants or Catholics today, but rather why it was included starting in the 4th century, i.e. why the doubt which originally surrounded the book was cleared up.

I was wondering about this part of Genesis: The tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. (Genesis 2:9). Is the tree of knowledge between good and evil how people gain knowledge? Like is all knowledge based on distinguishing the difference between good and evil, or is it more nuanced than that? Does moral discernment form the foundation of all knowledge shown in this passage?

Internet Encyclopedia (IE) article on Philo claims that Philo “laid the foundations for the development of Christianity … as we know it today.” It says, “Philo’s primary importance is in the development of the … foundations of Christianity.” > More specifically, it claims that the Logos theology , that became the > standard explanation of Jesus after the church became Gentile > dominated in the second century, was inspired by Philo, namely, that > Philo, by synthesizing Judaism and Greek philosophy, developed > concepts which formed the basis for the Christian interpretation of > Jesus Christ. IE mentions “Clement of Alexandria, Christian Apologists > like Athenagoras, Theophilus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and by > Origen” as Christian theologists who used Philo’s concepts to explain > the Biblical Son of God. > > Furthermore, and much more important, IE claims that Philo influenced the Bible itself. (Philo > lived and wrote a few decades before the writers of the New > Testament.) IE says, Philo “may have influenced Paul, his > contemporary, and perhaps the authors of the Gospel of John … and the > Epistle to the Hebrews.” To justify these statements, IE points to the following similarities between Philo and the New Testament: Same Titles ----------- In Philo, the Logos exists before everything else and, therefore, is called the “first-born” (IE), “the ‘first-born’ of God” (Blogos ), and the first-begotten Son of the Uncreated Father (IE). Consequently, both Philo's Logos and Jesus Christ are called: - Logos (the Word - John 1:1), - The first-born (Col 1:15; Heb 1:6), and - Son of God. Eternal ------- In both Philo and the NT, the Logos is eternal: > In the NT, the Son > "was" in “the beginning” (John 1:1-2) and is “the First and the Last” > (Rev 1:17). “His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of > eternity” (Micah 5:2). The Arians liked to add, “From everlasting I > was established” (Prov 8:23). > > Similarly, in Philo, the Logos was begotten from eternity (IE). The > Logos has an origin, but as God’s thought, it also has eternal > generation (IE). God begat the Logos eternally because it is a > manifestation of God’s thinking-acting (IE). Created and Maintains All Things -------------------------------- In both Philo and the NT, the Logos created and still maintains all things: > In Philo, the Logos is “the organizing principle of matter” (Blogos), > the power by which God made and ordered all things (IE), and the bond > holding together all the parts of the world (IE). > > In John, God created all things through the Logos (John 1:1-3; cf. Col > 1:16; Heb 1:2; 1 Cor 8:6) and also maintains all things through His > Son (Heb 1:3; Col 1:17). Entrusted Power --------------- In both Philo and the NT, the Logos receives His power from God: > In Philo, the Logos has no autonomous power, only an entrusted one > (Wikipedia ). > > Similarly, in the New Testament, the miracles which Jesus performed were > performed by God “through Him” (Acts 2:22). God “seated Him at His > right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority > and power and dominion” (Eph 1:17-21). The Angel of the Lord --------------------- In both Philo and the NT, the Logos is the Old Testament Angel of the Lord: Many Christians identify the Old Testament Angel of the LORD as the pre-existent Christ. Similarly, Philo describes the Logos as the revealer of God symbolized in the Scripture by an angel of the Lord (IE). Reveals God ----------- In both Philo and the NT, the Logos reveals the invisible and incomprehensible God to the created things: > In Philo, “God is revealed to His creation through the Logos” > (Blogos). > > Similarly, in the New Testament, God “alone possesses immortality and > dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see” but > the Son is “the exact representation” of God’s nature (Heb 1:3); “the > (visible) image of the invisible God” (Col 1:15). Therefore, Jesus > said, “He who has seen Me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). Light ----- In both Philo and the NT, the Logos illuminates the soul: > In Philo, the Logos illuminates the human soul and nourishes it with a > higher spiritual food (Wikipedia ). In the mind of a wise man > thoroughly purified, it allows preservation of virtues in an > unimpaired condition. (IE) > > Similarly, Jesus said, “I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me > will not walk in the darkness” (John 8:12). And John wrote: “In Him > was life, and the life was the Light of men.” “There was the true > Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man” (John 1:4, > 9). Begotten -------- In both Philo and the NT, the Logos is neither uncreated as God nor created as men: > In Philo, "the ontology of the Logos would most closely resemble an > emanation from the divine essence” (Blogos), and “an extension of a > divine being” (IE). The Logos is more than a quality, power, or > characteristic of God; it is an entity eternally generated as an > extension (IE). Therefore, the Logos … is neither uncreated as God nor > created as men (IE). > > Similarly, in the NT, the Son is the only being ever “begotten” by the > Father. If we interpret this fairly literally, it seems to indicate > that He came out of the being of God. The Nicene Creed interprets > “begotten” as that He was not created but came from the substance of > the Father. The anti-Nicenes warn that humans do not understand what > “begotten” of God means and that we should not introduce non-Biblical > words or thoughts. Mediator between God and man ---------------------------- In both Philo and the NT, the Logos is the mediator between God and man: > In Philo, the Father is the Supreme Being and the Logos, as his chief > messenger, stands between Creator and creature (IE). The Logos is a > perfect being, procuring forgiveness of sins and blessings (IE); the > mediator between God and men (IE). “The Philonic Logos is the bridge > between the infinite God and finite creation” (Blogos). > > Similarly, in the New Testament, “there is one God, and ***one mediator*** > also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim 2:5; cf. Heb > 8:6; 9:15). Everything that the creation receives from God, including > existence, sustenance, knowledge, and salvation, flows through His > Son. Also, through Christ, we draw near to God and worship Him. Question -------- It is fairly common knowledge that the pre-Nicene Fathers (the Apologists ) explained the Son of God in terms of Greek philosophy. My main question is whether Philo influenced the formulation and contents of the New Testament. Perhaps I can frame the question like this: Jesus and Philo lived at the same time. Jesus said that all power and all judgment have been given Him but He never said that He is the Logos or that God created all things through Him. However, Philo, at that same time, taught that the High God created all things through His Logos. So, did John, Paul, and Hebrews get the idea that Jesus is the Logos and that God created all things through Him from Philo?

I'd say a successful band is one that sticks together for 10 years or so and has one of those TLA or first-name awards or a top-40 hit or is actually played on the radio. I'm not into the music scene, but I noticed a discrepancy when checking out Pandora for Christmas tunes and finding an LDS station, but no specifically Catholic tunes. Has there ever been a successful Catholic group or artist singing music you'd hear on your local Christian rock station? Not just an artist in any genre who happens to be Catholic or an artist who was successful, converted to Catholicism and started appealing to a niche crowd (i.e. John Michael Talbot), but an artist or group like the Newsboys or Toby Mac. --- I think this is an objectively answerable question, there's a wiki page for [Roman Catholic Musicians](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_Catholic_Church_musicians) but it is lacking both John Michael Talbot and The Singing Nun. I edited the question to say, since the Singing Nun since [Sister Smile](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Singing_Nun) would be an example of a "success" in the music business at least, but I've already got her record and I don't need another.

I'm currently reading Eusebius' History of the church and stumbled upon this passage: > These earnest disciples of great men built on the foundation of the > churches everywhere laid by the apostles, spreading the message still > further and sowing the saving seed of the Kingdom of Heaven far and > wide through the entire world. Very many disciples of the time, their > hearts smitten by the word of God with an ardent passion for true > philosophy, first fulfilled the Saviour's command by distributing > their possessions among the needy; then, leaving their homes behind, > they carried out the work of the evangelists, ambitious to preach to > those who had never yet heard the message of the faith and to give > them the inspired gospels in writing. Staying only to lay the > foundations of the faith in one foreign place or another, appoint > others as pastors, and entrust to the the tending of those newly > brought in, they set off again for other lands and peoples with the > grace and cooperation of God, **for even at that late date many > miraculous powers of the divine Spirit worked through them**, so that at > the first hearing while crowds in a body embraced with a whole-hearted > eagerness the worship of the universal Creator. To me, this seems to imply that readers at Eusebius' time would not expect performing miracles to be a gift that one could possess. Is this line of thing correct? To further clarify, I'm using the same definition of cessationism found on Got Questions > Most cessationists believe that, while God can and still does perform > miracles today, the Holy Spirit no longer uses individuals to perform > miraculous signs.

I have read in Christianity.SE where some say that "YHWH" refers only to Jesus. Are there groups with this belief or only individuals? Which Christian groups believe that "YHWH" refers only to the Father and never to the Word?

St. Bonaventure recalls St. Francis's conversion and falling away from his earthly father Pietro di Bernardone, in *Life of St. Francis* ch. 2: >And now his father according to the flesh, having despoiled him of his money, brought this son (no longer his, but the child of divine grace) before the Bishop of Assisi, to compel him to renounce in his hands all his inheritance, and whatsoever he had received from him, which this true lover of poverty was most ready and willing to do. As soon, therefore, as he came into the Bishop’s presence, without a moment’s delay, neither waiting for his father’s demand nor uttering a word himself, he laid aside all his clothes, and gave them back to his father. Then it was seen, that under his fair and costly garments the holy man wore a hard and rough hair-shirt. With marvellous fervor he then turned to his father, and spoke thus to him in the presence of all: “Until this hour I have called thee my father on earth; from henceforth, I may say confidently, *my Father Who art in Heaven*, in Whose hands I have laid up all my treasures, all my trust, and all my hope.” A Capuchin told me that later in St. Francis's life, his father Pietro di Bernardone tried to approach St. Francis while he was begging, but one of St. Francis's Franciscan confreres spoke to Pietro di Bernardone, guarding St. Francis. Who was that brother, and is there any basis to this story?

The reason why are people living unfair lives, why are there bad things we cant control