Based on the definition and translation of magi or “wise men” discussed in this article: https://www.mondaymorningmemo.com/magi-explained/ Matthew records the following: “After Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of King Herod, wise men from the east arrived unexpectedly in Jerusalem, saying, ‘Where is He who has been born King of the Jews?’” (Matt 2:1–2) If the Magi were indeed an eastern priestly or scholarly class, their arrival in Judea would not have been merely a religious curiosity but potentially a significant foreign and political and pagan presence. This seems especially relevant in light of sources such as: https://www.khouse.org/personal_update/articles/2021/history-magi https://biblearchaeologyreport.com/2022/12/22/who-were-the-magi/ which argue that the Magi held, or were associated with, considerable political as well as religious influence. Given this background, it appears unusual that King Herod would be so welcoming to these foreigners. Even more striking is that he seems to take their claim seriously enough to become “deeply troubled” (Matt 2:3), rather than dismissing it outright. At the same time, the old testament describes God's influence in the eastern world. For example, Isaiah explicitly names Cyrus of Persia as God’s chosen instrument (Isa 44:28–45:1), and Daniel served in high office under Babylonian and Persian rulers and prophesied about a coming anointed ruler. My question is: Am I correct to conclude that God’s influence was already well established in the eastern regions through earlier prophets (such as Isaiah and Daniel), such that even King Herod would have regarded the Magi as credible or divinely significant figures? Or does the Matthean text indicate that Herod’s response was primarily political rather than theological?

Alternatively: How many books were included in early Bible compilations and then later removed? A book in the bible, to my understanding, is one of the many named divisions in the Old and New Testament. Mathew, Mark, Luke and John would be 4 different books, and each of Paul's letters to the churchs in the different cities would each be a 'book' There are a certain number of Books in the King James Version, but how many other 'books' or writings did scholars/historians/religious leaders have access to but for one reason or another, were never included in the more modern Bible compilations. (perhaps due to controversy, or translation disputes, or issues in verifying the author) If we could go back and add all of these books and letters to the Old and New Testament today, how many books would the Bible have? This questions comes out of curiousity after seeing books in a Catholic printing of the bible that did not exist in the King James version. I'm assuming the Apostles or whoever compiled the Bible books, didn't have the whole structure and order down in the exact way they printed now.

[CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA (1917): *Protestantism*](https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12495a.htm#:~:text=Catholicism%20numbers%20some%20270%20millions,their%20only%20common%20denominator.) : > ### Conclusion > Catholicism numbers some 270 millions of adherents, all professing the same Faith, using the same sacraments, living under the same discipline; Protestantism claims roundly 100 millions of Christians, products of the Gospel and the fancies of a hundred reformers, people constantly bewailing their "unhappy divisions" and vainly crying for a union which is only possible under that very central authority, protestation against which is their only common denominator. That final claim, that protestation against the central authority (of the Catholic Church), is their only common denominator, seems too extreme. But is it? What fundamental beliefs that aren't also part of Catholicism are shared by all Protestant denominations?

One feature of the [Word of Faith](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_of_Faith) movement's teaching is that you can "call things into existence" by faith, by which proponents primarily apply to health and wealth, since they say that because - we are given promise (Mark 11:22-24), - we are given a share in Jesus's divinity as children of God, - God wants to give us good things (Matt 7:11), - we inherit Abrahamic blessings if we have faith that can move mountains (Matt 17:20) we can also speak restorations into existence **just like how Jesus *as man* was given the power by God and was able to**: - declare someone to be healed in the manner of Genesis 1 (see [this interpretation of Matt 9:24](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/102587/10672)) , - command the demons to leave a possessed person (Matt 8:28-34) or - calms the storm simply by speaking (Mark 4:35-41), noting that Jesus's disciples can do "greater things" (John 14:12) BY FAITH **following the example** of post-Pentecost healers like Paul & Peter, while noting that Jesus could not work many miracles in Nazareth because of unbelief (Matt 13:58). Of course [WoF movement is *not* Biblical](https://www.gotquestions.org/Word-Faith.html) , but my question is a HISTORICAL one, **whether a similar movement has happened in the past 20 centuries**, *even if* it was not as "full featured" as the 20th century charismatic-tinged Word of Faith movement. More specifically I'm asking whether the element of **calling restorations into existence by word of faith** has ever been taught before, **especially keeping in mind that Jesus, Paul and Peter were doing that as well**. Please note that the work of restoration itself **IS** orthodox because we Christians are also called into Jesus's ministry of restoration, although understood more along the lines of restoring injustice, human dignity, and most importantly peace with God through repentance, which then flows over into the restoration in our horizontal relationships, bringing healing to humanity's many facets of brokenness. The preaching of the gospel can be seen as a means to this end. For example, orthodox Christians *can* declare "your sins have been forgiven" to a repentant person, or declare "Jesus loves you" to them (thus removing shame and bringing psychological healing), which in a sense bringing something not previously there into reality. I wonder whether there has been any group that teaches this style of explicit declaration **as a standard practice by *all* members of the group**, apart from Catholic priests declaring "I absolve you from your sins" during the Catholic [Sacrament of Penance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrament_of_Penance) .

When I say “conservative”, I’m thinking along the lines of a church that holds to Biblical Innerancy, the virgin birth, and Trinitarian doctrine. Are there any such denominations that adhere to those things and universalism?

I've been trying to find more than just snippets and pieces of the dead sea scrolls for my research and reading. I've found this one "https://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/ " But it is a pain to read on this website though, and anything better would be greatly appreciated. A transcription is not what I'm looking for... pictures of the original fragments. Thank you in advance :)

18 For Christ also suffered for sins once for all time, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; 19 in which He also went and made proclamation to the spirits in prison, 20 who once were disobedient when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. And then 1 Peter 4:6 6 For the gospel has for this purpose been preached even to those who are dead, that though they are judged in the flesh as men, they may live in the spirit according to the will of God. This passage is about the "harrowing of Hell." There's been at least 6,000 years of dead people, yet Peter specifically limits Jesus' interaction with the dead to the generation of Noah who perished in the flood. What's going on here?

>1 Peter 3:18-20: Because even Messiah once suffered for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to Elohim, having been put to death indeed in flesh but made alive in the Spirit, 19 in which also He went and proclaimed unto the spirits in prison, 20 who were disobedient at one time when the patience of Elohim waited in the days of Noaḥ, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight beings, were saved through water, This seems to disprove consciousness ceases at death.

I'm asking this question inspired by a recent anecdote told by someone I trust, but the point is to go beyond the anecdote and ask a more general question. The anecdote is as follows: My mother is a widow, but she's seeing a man who is also a widower. My family has a very good relationship with him. He is Catholic. He recently told us about a supernatural/paranormal experience he had before his wife died of cancer. At that time, he was desperate to find a solution for the cancer his wife was suffering from. A friend of his told him he had had a successful experience with a healer who cured him of stomach cancer several years earlier, and he shared the contact information and address. He coordinated an appointment with the healer and went there with his wife. He was really surprised to find that a lot of people were in line waiting for their turn, as if, through word of mouth, people who had a successful experience with the healer would recommend her (it was a she) to their friends and acquaintances, and those to theirs, and so on. So it was clear that this healer was well-known and in demand. The man and his wife went in. The healer examined the wife and noticed that the cancer was in an extremely advanced stage, and said there was nothing she could do for her at that point. However, the man himself was struggling with a strange skin condition that had started a few years earlier, where he would get stains and protuberances, like cysts, in several parts of his upper body, including a few that were quite noticeable and painful when he touched them. Since he was already there, he took the opportunity to arrange a healing session for himself. If I remember correctly, he had about three meetings with the healer. He said something along the lines of this: he was in the same room with several other people who were also seeking healing, and they all had to pray some Catholic prayers that the healer guided them through. But at certain points the healer would utter words that no one else in the room could understand (maybe she was "speaking in tongues"?). Then, probably in the last session, she asked each person in turn to visualize the route to their homes, because that night someone would visit them in their room to perform the "operation" to heal them. He visualized the exact route to his house, and he felt like the healer was able to read his mind while he was doing it. After that, she instructed him to go to his bedroom, sleep early, leave a candle burning and a glass of water, and wear a white blanket. He did as instructed, and he remembers that at some point during the night, while he was asleep, he felt like entities visited him and started moving him around in bed, but he perceived it as if it were part of a dream. But he heard a voice that woke him up saying, "Turn off the candle," just before the candle was about to be fully consumed. He did so, and immediately fell asleep again. A few hours later, he woke up, drank water from the glass, and then checked his skin for the presence of the stains, protuberances, and cysts, and they were gone. The skin condition was completely healed. And I trust this man. He's a very honest, hard-working man, and he's been going out with my mother for several years now. He inspires trust, and he disclosed this experience to us in the context of telling us what he experienced while trying to save his now deceased wife from cancer. For me, the way he described the healer sounded a bit like an esoteric, occult, witchy healer, and yet the fact that he was healed from this skin condition from one day to the next is undeniable for him. However, if these things truly happen in the world, one would need to make sense of them and fit them within a Christian worldview. Does Christianity accept the occurrence of healing miracles outside of Christianity? How does Christianity make sense of experiences like this one? --- --- # CLARIFICATION While the man is Catholic, I never mentioned the healer's (who is female) religious background. I suspect she may be involved in some form of esoteric or syncretic tradition. I consulted an AI about this story, and here is what it suggested: > **Kardecist Spiritism (Espiritismo)** > > The healer's practices align most closely with **Kardecist Spiritism** > (known as *Espiritismo* in Portuguese-speaking countries like Brazil), > a spiritualist doctrine founded by Allan Kardec in 19th-century France > and highly adapted in Latin America. It's not a traditional religion > but a philosophical-spiritual movement blending Christianity, > reincarnation, and mediumship, widely practiced in Brazil. Here's why > this fits best, matching key elements: > > ### Core Matching Elements: > - **Group healing sessions with prayers**: Spiritist centers (*centros espíritas*) often hold collective "passes" (energy transmissions) or > healing sessions where mediums guide participants in > Christian/Catholic prayers (e.g., Our Father, Hail Mary), as Jesus is > central to Spiritism. This respects the man's Catholic faith while > incorporating mediumship. > > - **Speaking unknown words ("tongues")**: Mediums in Spiritism channel spirits (*incorporação*), sometimes uttering languages or sounds > incomprehensible to attendees, akin to glossolalia but attributed to > discarnate entities rather than Holy Spirit baptism. > > - **Visualizing home route for "night visit"**: A hallmark of Spiritist *cirurgia espiritual* (spiritual surgery). The medium > psychically "reads" the route and dispatches spirit doctors/surgeons > to perform invisible operations during sleep. This is routine in > Brazilian Spiritism—no physical tools, just mental direction. > > - **Home ritual preparation**: Instructions like early sleep, burning candle (for spirit attraction/light), glass of water (to absorb > "spiritual fluids" or toxins from the "surgery"), and white blanket > (symbolizing purity/protection, like a shroud) are textbook. The > dream-like sensation of entities moving the body, voice commands > (e.g., extinguishing candle for safety), and post-wake > checkup/drinking water match countless testimonials. > > - **Rapid, complete healing of chronic condition**: Spiritist healings claim to remove "perispiritual" blockages or cysts via spirit > intervention, often overnight. Long lines and word-of-mouth fame are > common for popular mediums (*médiuns curadores*). > > - **Advanced cancer untreatable**: Spirits reportedly refuse "karmic" or terminally advanced cases, focusing on reversible ailments. > > ### Why Not Other Options? | Alternative | Why Less Likely | |-------------|-----------------| | **Catholic Charismatic Renewal (CCR)** | Includes tongues, group prayers, healings—but no home "entity surgeries," route visualization, or candle/water rituals. More prayer-focused, less mediumistic. | | **Pentecostalism/Evangelical** | Tongues and healings fit, but rejects "entities" visiting homes (seen as demonic); emphasizes faith healing in church, not dream operations. | | **Umbanda/Candomblé (Afro-Brazilian)** | Similar rituals/home works, but heavier African deities/orixás, less Catholic prayers; often involves offerings/herbs, not pure visualization. | | **Folk Catholicism (e.g., benzedeira)** | Prayers and blessings common, but typically hands-on with herbs/oils; no spirit surgeries or tongues. | | **New Age/Reiki/Shamanism** | Lacks Catholic prayers; more energy work/crystals, less structured spirit teams. | | **Filipino Psychic Surgery** | Physical fake incisions, not dream-based; no Catholic prayer emphasis or home rituals. | > ### Christian Worldview Fit > Spiritism claims compatibility with Christianity: Spirits are evolved souls (including biblical figures), > healing honors God's laws via reincarnation/karma. Many Catholics > participate syncretically in Brazil (e.g., 3-4% identify as Spiritist, > millions more blend it). Critics (orthodox Catholics) view it as > occult, but practitioners see it as divine aid. The man's trust and > healing don't contradict faith—he framed it as supernatural help > during desperation. > > This is probable, not certain—regional variations exist—but the ritual > details are a near-perfect match for documented Brazilian > *Espiritismo*. If you have more details (e.g., location), it could refine this.

I fell down a rabbit hole regarding Origen, and Wikipedia notes this interesting event that caught my eye: > In 399, the Origenist crisis reached Egypt.[1] Theophilus of > Alexandria was sympathetic to the supporters of Origen[1] and the > church historian, Sozomen, records that he had openly preached the > Origenist teaching that God was incorporeal. In his Festal Letter > of 399, he denounced those who believed that God had a literal, > human-like body, calling them illiterate "simple ones". A > large mob of Alexandrian monks who regarded God as anthropomorphic > rioted in the streets. According to the church historian Socrates > Scholasticus, in order to prevent a riot, Theophilus made a sudden > about-face and began denouncing Origen. In the year 400, > Theophilus summoned a council in Alexandria, which condemned Origen > and all his followers as heretics for having taught that God was > incorporeal, **which they decreed contradicted the only true and > orthodox position, which was that God had a literal, physical body > resembling that of a human**.[a] Was "God is corporeal" the orthodox position in the early church, and if yes, how long? As far as I understand, modern day christians for the most part regard God as incorporeal, right?

Neurosurgeon Ben Carson is [quoted from a 1998 commencement speech](http://www.buzzfeed.com/natemcdermott/ben-carson-egyptian-pyramids-built-for-grain-storage-not-by) as saying that his personal theory was that Joseph built the pyramids to store grain in during the seven years of plenty: > My own personal theory is that Joseph built the pyramids to store grain. Now all the archaeologists think that they were made for the pharaohs' graves. But, you know, it would have to be something awfully big if you stop and think about it. And I don’t think it’d just disappear over the course of time to store that much grain. Are there any Christian groups who share this view? If so, on what do they base this hypothesis?

Is there any scientific evidence for God and if so what is the scientific evidence?

> Mark 6 4-6: > > > 4 Then Jesus said to them, “People everywhere give honor to a prophet, > except in his own town, with his own people, or in his home.” 5 **Jesus > was not able** to do any miracles there except the healing of some sick > people by laying his hands on them. 6 He was surprised that the people > there had no faith. Then he went to other villages in that area and > taught. Like above, there are several examples where He can't heal people because of their unbelief. However, there is a difference: He **won't** vs. He **cannot** - heal someone because of their unbelief and this concept is usually overlooked. Is there anyway to determine if His power was drained or weakened by others and what does that mean for a believer today? Does this mean my level of faith (or vice versa) is analogous to this phenomenon described above? Here we see Jesus only recognizes and heals certain people based on their faith or to demonstrate God's will: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/10192/why-does-jesus-feel-only-certain-people-that-come-into-physical-contact-with-him Any studies, papers, speeches on this?

In Romans 11, Paul describes Gentile believers as being “grafted in” to the olive tree of Israel. If Gentiles are joined to Israel spiritually, why does circumcision — a covenant sign originally given to Abraham and his descendants (Genesis 17) — no longer apply as a requirement for salvation or covenant membership? How do Christian traditions theologically reconcile the Abrahamic circumcision command with the New Testament statements that circumcision is not required (Acts 15, Galatians 5)?

Note: I'm interested in the Christian perspective on the question [*Can God's existence be established through reason and publicly accessible evidence?*](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/107660/66156) that I recently asked on Philosophy Stack Exchange. Feel free to read that question and the answers that people have posted for a broader context. --- I am curious to understand the perspectives within the Christian community regarding the use of reason and publicly available evidence to establish the existence of God in general, and the existence of the Christian God specifically. Are there prevailing viewpoints or consensus among Christians on this matter? **What I already know** I'm aware that at least some Christians frequently cite passages like [Romans 1:18-25](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+1%3A18-25&version=NKJV) and [Psalm 19:1-3](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+19%3A1-3&version=NKJV) as Biblical expressions of [teleological arguments](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/) for God's existence. This category of arguments has evolved in more contemporary discussions, adopting a renewed shape, notably through an emphasis on the intricate fine-tuning of the fundamental constants in the universe (see [fine-tuned universe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument#Fine-tuned_universe)) , and an emphasis on the extraordinary complexity and specified information found in living organisms (see [intelligent design movement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design_movement)) . I'm also aware of the existence of disciplines such as [natural theology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_theology) and [apologetics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetics) , which in one way or another attempt to argue for the rationality of the belief in the existence of God and posit that there is sufficient evidence in the natural world to confidently conclude that God must exist. **What I do not know** One aspect that intrigues me, and about which I seek more clarity, pertains to the widespread acceptance or not among Christians of concepts such as natural theology, apologetics, intelligent design, and philosophical/scientific arguments for God's existence that hinge on reason and evidence. Do a majority of Christians align with these disciplines and share the perspective that the existence of God can be established solely through the use of reason and publicly available evidence, in a manner that any reasonable person should be able to study and verify? If there are available statistics on this matter, I would greatly appreciate them, although it's not strictly required to answer this question. As a point of reference, in the realm of philosophy, there are statistics available such as the following: #### God: theism or atheism? |Option|2009|2020|Change|Swing| |-|-:|-:|-:|-:| Accept or lean towards: theism|14.61%|12.5%|-2.11|-1.76| |Accept or lean towards: atheism|72.82%|74.23%|1.41|1.76| |Accept a combination of views|2.47%|0.31%|-2.16| |Accept an alternative view|0.86%|2.78%| 1.92| |The question is too unclear to answer|1.72%|2.01%| 0.29| |There is no fact of the matter|0.54%|0.31%|-0.23| |Insufficiently familiar with the issue|0%|0.15%| 0.15| | |Agnostic/undecided|5.48%|6.94%| 1.46| | |Skipped|0.97%|0.31%| -0.66| | |Other|0.54%|0.46%| -0.08| | N (2020) = 648 N (2009) = 931 (Source: [2020 PhilPapers Survey](https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/results/longitudinal)) --- **A case for consideration: Blaise Pascal** Blaise Pascal serves as an illustration of a Christian who contends that the existence of God cannot be conclusively established through reason alone. While his perspective is just one instance, it raises the possibility that others may share a similar viewpoint. > Pascal maintains that we are incapable of knowing whether God exists or not, yet we must “wager” one way or the other. Reason cannot settle which way we should incline, but a consideration of the relevant outcomes supposedly can. Here is the first key passage: > >> “God is, or He is not.” But to which side shall we incline? **Reason can decide nothing here**. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up… Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose… But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is… If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. > > (Source: [Pascal's Wager - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/)) --- **Another view for consideration: Reformed Epistemology** Reformed Epistemology is another viewpoint that exemplifies the rejection of evidence and intellectual arguments as necessary requirements for justifying belief in God. > Reformed epistemology is a thesis about the rationality of religious belief. **A central claim made by the reformed epistemologist is that religious belief can be rational without any appeal to evidence or argument**. There are, broadly speaking, two ways that reformed epistemologists support this claim. The first is to argue that there is no way to successfully formulate the charge that religious belief is in some way epistemically defective if it is lacking support by evidence or argument. The second way is to offer a description of what it means for a belief to be rational, and to suggest ways that religious beliefs might in fact be meeting these requirements. This has led reformed epistemologists to explore topics such as when a belief-forming mechanism confers warrant, the rationality of engaging in belief forming practices, and when we have an epistemic duty to revise our beliefs. As such, reformed epistemology offers an alternative to evidentialism (the view that religious belief must be supported by evidence in order to be rational) and fideism (the view that religious belief is not rational, but that we have non-epistemic reasons for believing). > > Reformed epistemology was first clearly articulated in a collection of papers called Faith and Rationality edited by Alvin Plantinga and Nicholas Wolterstorff in 1983. However, the view owes a debt to many other thinkers. > > (Source: [Reformed Epistemology - Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy](https://iep.utm.edu/ref-epis))

I am reading "The History of the Church". I have thus far read a supposed letter from Christ himself written to an official, and a declaration that Christ descended into Hades following his Crucifixion (an idea which I think is accepted by some denominations, and rejected by others). Are these writings considered generally credible? I find it hard to believe that an actual letter from Christ would not be more well-known and revered, should it be accepted as legit.

My interpretation of the First Cause argument for the Existence of God attributed to St. Thomas Aquinas and the essence of which perhaps goes back to Aristotle, appears in my mind to be valid provided that we assume that every phenomenon has an explanation (whether known or unknownst to us) and that each effect must have some preceding cause. It is argued, of course, that this chain can not regress backwards infinitely far---therefore, there must be a *First Cause* (or *Prime Mover*), which is God. Can someone either explain or refer me to a source that explains in simple, crystal clear terms, why infinite regress is so *obviously* impossible?

Can you give a biblical chronology for angelic rebellion such as Revelation 12?? 3 Then another portent appeared in heaven: a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems on his heads. 4 His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. Then the dragon stood before the woman who was about to bear a child, so that he might devour her child as soon as it was born. 5 And she gave birth to a son, a male child, who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron. But her child was snatched away and taken to God and to his throne; 6 and the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, so that there she can be nourished for one thousand two hundred sixty days. 7 And war broke out in heaven; Michael and his angels fought against the dragon. The dragon and his angels fought back, 8 but they were defeated, and there was no longer any place for them in heaven. 9 The great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world—he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. 10 Then I heard a loud voice in heaven, proclaiming, "Now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Messiah, for the accuser of our comrades has been thrown down, who accuses them day and night before our God. 11 But they have conquered him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, for they did not cling to life even in the face of death. 12 Rejoice then, you heavens and those who dwell in them! But woe to the earth and the sea, for the devil has come down to you with great wrath, because he knows that his time is short!"

This is an odd question I know and I'm not very hopeful I'll find a good answer. But has it ever stricken you odd that in Luke 7, the woman who comes to see Jesus just straight walks into the Pharisee's house unannounced? I'm an American, and I could never imagine a random stranger walking into anyone's house and it be acceptable. So, was this a normal thing in Jewish culture at this time period?

Trinitarians believe that God exists as three distinct but equal persons (yes, I'm simplifying), known as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They also believe that Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit: > Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child **of the Holy Ghost**. > — Matthew 1:18 (NKJV) > … that which is conceived in her is **of the Holy Ghost**. > — Matthew 1:20 How do Trinitarians explain why the title "Father" is given to a person in the Trinity other than "The Holy Spirit"? ### Note: What I am looking for is an official explanation by the Church that explicitly addresses this naming confusion. Ideally, there would also be an explanation of whether this event was effected by God's impersonal spirit (power), or by the third Person.