Essentially the opposite of [this question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/82780/50422) : 1. What is the earliest recorded post-NT instance of a clear and unambiguous **denial** of the personhood of the Holy Spirit? When was it claimed for the first time that the Holy Spirit is *not* a Person, distinct from the Father and the Son, in the history of Christianity? 2. When did this belief reach widespread acceptance among Christians for the first time, if ever?

I am reading Rev 3:14 in the Byzantine text, Alexandrian text, and Vulgate. All three seem to be in agreement showing Jesus claiming to be something roughly equating to "the beginning **of the creation** of God." Only the Aramaic seems to render this differently as "the **Chief** **of the creation** of God." but this isn't any better if you are a Trinitarian like myself. If Jesus is the first of all creation, he still seems to be **created** - this is quite concerning. Can someone help me reconcile this? If any Catholics can help, that is always preferred and much appreciated.

This question discusses the differences between Marcan priority and Matthean priority and asks about the arguments in favor of Matthean priority. My question is who holds and promotes this view. I heard the claim made that there are only a few scholars who hold to this view and that Marcan priority is almost undisputed. Is it true that the overwhelming majority of Christian and secular scholars hold to Marcan priority? Who are the major voices on the side of Matthean priority? Is there a reliable indication of what proportion of the scholarly community holds to Matthean priority or disputes Marcan priority? I'll also accept a well-sourced answer confirming the claim that Marcan priority is all but undisputed.

Some creatures, such as locusts and oysters, have hemolymph that serves the same purpose as what we normally call blood. Do any historical sources (from early church history, for example) address whether hemolymph qualifies as lifeblood, which Genesis 9:6 and Acts 15:20, 28–29 forbids from consumption?

I would like your help in refuting a Christian claim as this has been bugging me for a while now Is the epsilon truly more fitting of the first letter of the word "Allah" (as pronounced in Arabic) when when translated to greek from arabic or would it be an intermediate . Also wouldn't starting with epsilon render the pronunciation of the rest of the word incorrect as in Arabic the second alpha isn't really 'a' it's more of an o and the L's are pronounced differently and the xhi at the end would become silent. I would be grateful if you could respond to this as both Christians and Muslims use this word to refer to God. https://christianforums.net/threads/666-is-allah.102890/

Do any major traditions in Christianity hold any sort of formulated doctrine or is there some Biblical justification tossed around that explains God's *a priori* reason for choosing 7 to be significant was? I'm specifically curious about the source of 7's significance, not the how (in other words, I'm not looking for examples of significant 7s (covered in [Why is the number seven special?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2001/why-is-the-number-seven-special) and on [Judaism.SE here](https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/7389/a-natural-explanation-for-the-significance-of-the-numbers-7-and-40/7393#7393)) or for how these play out, but for why God picked the number in the first place.) As I understand it, the significance of the numbers 1 and 3 can both be derived from the Trinity. One God, three Persons. But what is the source of 7? Why God *chose* seven instead of, say, nine. Or five or eleven, which are also primes (in the mathematical system we use). God seems to have chosen 7 to be significant *before* Creation. He chose 7 to be the number of days in a week. This means that any significant 7 post-creation (including the length of a week) is a significant 7 *for the same reason*. Before God created the universe, He picked out 7 to be one of His significant numbers. To clarify a bit further, if God decided that 9 was the number of perfection for whatever reason, then we probably would have had an 8-day work week and the 9th day would be the Sabbath. The number of the beast would probably have been 888 instead of 666. Pentecost probably would have come 82 days after Passover (50 = 7*7+1, 82=9*9+1). If there is truly no source for this and no Christian tradition has forwarded any explanation, the answer may very well be "none". However if more than one doctrine exists, please explain what the different suggestions are and how they end up on different tracks.

For theism to be simple, it must follow from some basic property. Christian theism posits an unlimited agent at the core of reality and likewise a perfect being that has no proper parts as per divine simplicity. Christians posit that this is perfect. Thus, Christian theism posits fundamentally either a maximal agent or perfection itself as the core of reality. You’d think that one could deduce a priori what follows from pure perfection of a maximal agent. But the trinity is obviously not derivable a priori from perfection. If you knew that the fundamental thing was perfection itself, you would obviously not expect it to have three coequal and coeternal persons. Maybe one person, maybe infinite, but definitely not three.

If Jesus was of the tribe of Judah, with both his parents of the lineage of David, and John the Baptist's parents of Levi's tribe, Luke 1.5, how is it possible that John and Jesus could be related, Luke 1.36?

1 Timothy 1:17, "Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the ONLY GOD, be honor and glory forever and ever Amen." It should be noted that back in 2017 a question was asked about verse 16. https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/57737/mormon-concept-of-1-timothy-616 I am only interested in verse 17 regarding the "ONLY GOD" part. The Old Testament is filled with multiple verses declaring that there is only one God. Deuteronomy 4:35, "Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightiest know that the LORD he is God; there is none else besides Him." One more, Isaiah 44:6, "Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel And his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts; I am the first and I am the last, and there is no God besides Me." In the New Testament you have "Mark 12:32, "And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth; for there is one God; and there is none other but he." In fact, the BoM teaches there is only one God at Alma 11:27-29, "And Amulek said: Yea, there is a true and living God. vs28, Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God? Vs29, And he answered, No." The fact of the matter is the Church's first Article of Fath states, "We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost." We believe They are three distinct personages, not one singular being. We call Them the Godhead." So again, please reconcile this with there being only "ONE GOD" according to 1 Timothy 1:17 and the other verses in the Bible that claim there is only one God. Or to put it another way, please explain this glaring contradiction?

How could a loving and just God condemn people to eternal conscious torment, a punishment that seems disproportionate to any finite sins committed in a limited human lifetime? If God desires all to be saved, why would He create souls knowing they would end up suffering forever, and why make salvation dependent on beliefs that many people never have a fair chance to accept? How can eternal damnation be reconciled with perfect divine justice when humans have such limited knowledge, varied cultural contexts, and finite lifespans to make the right choices? What kind of loving parent would allow their children to suffer eternally when they have the power to save them, and how could any finite sins warrant infinite punishment?

The second and third chapters of Revelation include a series of seven letters to seven churches in Asia. A historicist interpretation understands these seven churches as representing seven ages of church history. I'm interested in where this idea comes from. It is plain that the messages of the letters are relevant to a wider audience than the churches to whom each was originally addressed, since there is the repeated admonition, "he who has ears, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches". However, I don't see where in the text one would find a chronological understanding of the letters. **What is the Biblical argument used to support the interpretation of the seven letters representing seven successive stages of church history?**

What are the the common explanations in the Oriental Orthodoxy, the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church and in the main-stream Protestantism (I mean those protestant believers who besides praying to the Father also pray directly to Jesus) on the reason why Adam and Eve were created naked by God? On one hand, we see throughout the whole Bible that angels are never naked. They are always dressed in bright and white robes. In the book of Revelation we see that in the eternal future all the saints will be wearing white robes. On the other hand, God said, after creating humans, that all the things that He had just created were "very good". So what is really "very good"? Is it to be naked or to be clothed in white robes? If robes, then why Adam and Eve were not originally created that way, that is, with white robes on?

We read in John 18:37-38 how Pilate poses an inquisitive question on Truth to Jesus : > Pilate asked him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice.” Pilate asked him, “What is truth?” The Evangelist does not record as to what answer Jesus gave to Pilate, but goes on to say: > After he (Pilate) had said this, he went out to the Jews again and told them, “I find no case against him.” It is possible that Pilate posed the question on Truth just to tease Jesus, and did not expect an answer. It is also possible that the Lord knew the futility of explaining to Pilate and therefore, kept mum. Be that as it may, John does not record the answer, nor does he talk of Jesus's silence, whichever may have taken place in response to Pilate's query. My question therefore is: **Why does John the Evangelist *not* record Jesus' response to Pilate's query on Truth?** Inputs from any denomination are welcome.

To the best of my understanding, Christianity lacks a unified theory or epistemology. Instead, each denomination proposes its own framework (though calling these "theories" may be controversial; see [here](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/118294/80226) and [here](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/119181/80226)) that combines practical/experiential and non-practical/abstract elements. There are significant disagreements between denominations, each having its own epistemological basis—either explicitly defined or implicitly assumed—by which they often critique or reject the perspectives of others. To illustrate, here are some prominent examples: - **Jehovah's Witnesses** receive skepticism from other denominations because of their rejection of the Trinity, unique eschatological beliefs, and exclusive claim to doctrinal truth. - **Latter-day Saints (Mormons)** face skepticism for their additional scriptures like the Book of Mormon, beliefs in continuing revelation, and doctrines about God and the afterlife that differ from mainstream Christianity. - **Catholicism** includes beliefs such as Marian apparitions and Eucharistic miracles, which other denominations often view skeptically as unbiblical or exaggerated. - **Pentecostals and Charismatics** are critiqued for their emphasis on spiritual gifts like speaking in tongues, healing, and prophecy, which some see as lacking biblical or historical support. - **Calvinists** hold strong views on predestination and the lack of human free will in salvation, which others find incompatible with notions of divine justice and human responsibility. - **Eastern Orthodox** theology and practice differ from Western Christianity in areas like the Filioque controversy, the veneration of icons, and the concept of theosis, which others sometimes dismiss as overly mystical or traditionalist. Suppose an outside, non-Christian observer sympathetic to Lakatos' concept of [Scientific Research Programmes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imre_Lakatos#Research_programmes) examines the landscape of deep Christian disagreements. Each Christian group is skeptical of every other group, with no shared research project advancing toward the truth—each simply holding its own beliefs regardless of what others believe. **What reason does Christianity offer this skeptical observer not to doubt all denominations simultaneously?** If there are *N* denominations, and each is already skeptical of the other *N-1* denominations, why would it be unreasonable for a skeptical observer to extend this skepticism to all *N*? After all, it’s merely adding one more denomination to the list. Alternatively, does Christianity present its own version of a progressive research programme (in line with Lakatos' definitions of *progressive* and *degenerative* programmes, as explained [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imre_Lakatos#Pseudoscience)) ? Could such a programme offer a pathway for an outside observer to eventually converge on certain truths that might align with one denomination or another? ----------------------------- Additional clarifications: * If an answer merely focuses on listing a minimal set of Christian tenets as the theoretical *hard core* of Christianity (in Lakatosian terms), that would still leave unanswered **why an outside skeptical observer would have any reason whatsoever to accept these hard core tenets in the first place** in light of the fact that (1) even within Christianity there are smaller groups that do not accept them, and (2) a simple listing of tenets doesn't explain how these tenets are useful to *make progress* in our understanding of reality. * Related to the previous point, it's important to keep in mind that a key concept that Lakatos retains from Popper is *falsifiability*, which means that a scientific research program has to make *falsifiable predictions* which are so in virtue of being testable empirically. Thus, **does Christianity share this scientific appreciation for the empirical testability of its claims to any extent whatsoever?**

Simple question: What are the best arguments for the divine inspiration of the longer ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20), according to believers in its inspiration? These are examples of articles presenting arguments *against* Mark 16:9-20's inspiration: - [Why I Will Not Be Preaching the Longer Ending of Mark](https://g3min.org/longer-ending-mark/) - [Should Mark 16:9-20 be in the Bible?](https://www.gotquestions.org/Mark-16-9-20.html) Answers rebutting these articles will be highly appreciated. ____ A related question illustrating why the question about inspiration is important: [Are the signs mentioned in Mark 16:17-18 universally expected of all true believers?](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/59009/38524)

Why would an all-powerful God allow young children to have terminal diseases like cancer? Why would an omnipotent and omnibenevolent deity allow innocent younglings to experience such profound pain and early death? This question is different from any general questions concerning the Problem of Evil, because it focuses on a particular kind of evil that doesn't seem to lead to any greater good, doesn't seem to be necessary for free will and doesn't seem to be covered by any classical theodicies. There is a distinction between General Problem of Evil ("why would God allow evil in general") and Special Problem of Evil ("why would God allow this particular evil").

A governor's job is to appoint other officials to various offices, and their notary makes such things official. Writing in three languages would avoid the need to agree on one language in which to write the affidavit notarizing that Jesus was King of the Jews. Did writing "king of the Jews" on the sign hung above Jesus when He was crucified serve to officially designate Jesus as such?

People always make jokes about the number 666 and how it's evil and such. What is the basis of this?

Among the religious organizations and sources that discourage blood consumption, do any extend the principle to hemolymph, the equivalent of blood in creatures such as locusts and oysters? While organizations that require a kosher diet would prohibit shellfish already, even kosher diets include locusts, so this question is applicable to any denomination or other source that discourages blood consumption.

This quote is attributed to J.R.R. Tolkien: > Evil cannot create anything new, they can only corrupt and ruin what good forces have invented or made. and clarified here that it is only a paraphrase from Tolkien's work. While the statement above is beautiful, and by my personal judgment entirely true, I am interested to know of there is any official statement (preferably in the Holy Bible, or some other very "strong" source) which conceives the same information. Without a proper foundation, this quote has little to no value, except maybe artistic, sentimental, motivational...