As the question goes: is God split up? I have this theory, and hopefully, I'm not alone in this, that God the Father was one, before He split Himself into three, meaning that the trinity must be wrong and that God is one, Jesus is one, and that The holy spirit is one, but, that God was one, before the beginning, and that He split Himself into Jesus and The holy spirit as well. I am myself thinking that this is true, but I'm also afraid I may be wrong. Anyways, I'm looking into it! And I would be glad if anyone could point out to me for instance church fathers or others with the same mind set.

I am looking into a myth: is there any evidence to the claim that Jesus and Mary of Magdala may have had an intimate relationship like either marriage or being engaged at least? I'm looking for sources, solid ones.

I web-searched the expression, 'universal election', used on SE-BH, but without success. I keep finding information about 'universal salvation' which, I assume, is not the same thing. I am interested in when this expression was coined and by whom. I am aware that some say 'election' means that God foresaw who would 'choose Christ' and by looking into the future, as it were, he 'chose' those who would, in time, make this decision. I am also aware that some say 'election' conveys the concept that the Father, before the foundation of the world, purposed to beget sons and purposed to bring them to glory. But I have only today read the words 'universal election' and I am interested in which Christian groups use the word and what they, themselves, would understand by the term, and when it became common parlance.

> "All religions are paths to God. I will use an analogy, they are like different languages that express the divine.” - Pope Francis, [Interreligious Meeting with Young People - Address of His Holiness](https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2024/september/documents/20240913-singapore-giovani.html) , *“Catholic Junior College” (Singapore) Friday, 13 September 2024* In this address he also said, "There is only one God, and religions are like languages, paths to reach God. Some Sikh, some Muslim, some Hindu, some Christian. Understood?" I am struggling to comprehend this sentiment in a positive Biblical light because it seems as though the Pope is clearly saying that worship of false gods is a pathway to the one true God. Far from finding a biblical basis for this sentiment, I find nothing but the exact opposite. Can we add Baal worship or any of the various pagan Corinthian gods and make the Pope's list any worse? How does Roman Catholicism rescue the Pope from directly contradicting Jesus; "I am the way, the truth, and the life; No one comes to the Father but by me."?

My question is not that which was asked previously Where should the church gather ? which was a question about h*ow should persons gather* in a locality and w*hat arrangement should be made* for that. My question is different. I live in England and I recently travelled elsewhere and was invited to attend a meeting where someone spoke from a platform and prayed and some verses were sung from a screen above us. But also my host invited me home and there we read through a book of the bible together, chapter by chapter alternately ; we sang a psalm and we knelt and prayed. I realised that what we had done in the home had been more spiritual, more edifying and more charitable than the formal meeting in a large building. If one, out of desire 'not to forsake the assembling together' meets in a formal setting and submits to an exterior form of worship which is not altogether satisfactory, then one may not feel that that gathering is a true representation of the 'church', that is to say the body of Christ and the house of God. Is it the case that one may experience a closer representation of that which Christ builds ('I will build my church') in one's own home ? And is that what Paul alludes to when he writes of 'the church which is in their house' Romans 16:3-5 and 'the church in thy house' Philemon 1:2 ? This is no technical point or mere inquisitive inquiry. For those of us who believe we are seeing the end times and the appalling effects of an arising opposition to the gospel which 'uprises' (*apostasis*) and elbows out that which is truly of Christ in order to take over the 'temple' and sit within it 'as God' and 'being worshipped', 2 Thessalonians 2:4 - to us who see that happening, the reality of the church being 'in our house' is something that needs to be seriously thought about. Is it the case that when Jesus Christ says 'where two or three are gathered together in my name there am I in the midst', Matthew 18:20, that what is done *in the home* may more closely align with his words than what one is doing publicly, for the sake of corporate conformity ? My question is asked of those who are trinitarian and protestant. >Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus: Who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles. Likewise greet **the church that is in their house.** [Romans 16:3-5 KJV] >... unto Philemon our dearly beloved, and fellowlabourer, And to our beloved Apphia, and Archippus our fellowsoldier, and to **the church in thy house**: [Philemon 1:2 KJV]

I know the word "merit" will send up red flags for Protestants, but what I mean has nothing to do with justification. By supererogatory merit I mean doing something not required, and doing it for the purpose of earning a reward (not of being justified). The reason I ask the question is because normally I've read Matt 5:38-48 as a set of disjointed verses (reading it in the KJV which is always printed verse-by-verse). But recently having read it in a few modern translations that arrange the verses in paragraphs, I noticed something interesting. The verses on turning to the other cheek, giving your coat to anyone who sues for your shirt, loving your enemies, all seem to be connected to verse 46 "For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have?" So its all about trying to earn a reward. "And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others?" Ah, and its about doing more than others! This calls in question the traditional interpretation that its a sin to defend yourself, to defend yourself in a lawsuit, to hate your enemy, and presents these things as extras, something above and beyond for those who want to do more than others and earn a special reward. So my question is basically, what do you think? Is there any basis to this interpretation or do you think its entirely wrong?

Trinitarians believe that God exists in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. There is also a belief amongst Trinitarians that Jesus is both the *Son of God* and *God*, that he existed before his birth by Mary as "the Word". ***Trinitarians and many other Christian denominations believe that Jesus was a key figure in the creation of all that exists.*** According to Colossians 1:16: > For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. See also Romans 11:36: > For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory forever. Amen. My questions: ***Do we have any scripture or other earlier sources explaining the particular or exact role of each member of the Trinity in creation***? What would have been the exact role of God ("the Father"); of Jesus (the Son/Word); and of the Holy Spirit in the creation of Adam or the creation of an animal such as a cow?

I've been trying to understand the *Rosary* but it just confuses me. The most popular way is to recite one *Pater Noster*, ten *Ave Marias*, one *Gloria Patri* and perhaps one *O my Jesus* while at the same time contemplating a mystery from the Gospels. The idea seems to be that people want to combine vocal prayer with contemplation. I am not sure really how to understand the term "contemplation" in the Rosary. Some use the term to refer to the Ignatian Method of Gospel contemplation in which you imagine being present in the scene with all your senses. I am aware that this method is pre-Ignatian in origin. In [*Rosarium Virginis Mariae*](https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_letters/2002/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_20021016_rosarium-virginis-mariae.html) St. John Paul II used the term but never defined it. This means that he might have other things in mind than Gospel contemplation. I myself like *lectio divina*. This is easier because I don't have to do any difficult Gospel contemplation. This is also easier since you don't have to move between five mysteries in a very short time. To me, the *Jesus prayer* is easier. The *Jesus prayer* is shorter than the *Ave Maria* so it is easier for me to use as a repetitive prayer. The *Rosary* seems to be a prayer for people who are good at Gospel contemplation. People like me just get frustrated. But it is encouraged by the Popes. The [*Life of Christ Rosary* or the *Carthusian Rosary*](https://www.lifeofchristrosary.com/) seems way easier but I am talking about the popular version. **My question: Is the *Rosary* primarily a *Gospel contemplation on the Five Mysteries*, done in a short time with vocal prayers added to it?** Why do the Popes care so much for this way of praying? Why is this way of praying so important and even more important than mental prayer?

It's common to see Jesus's words in red in a lot of bibles. However, I have been appreciating the [Christian Standard Bible](https://csbible.com/) team judiciously **bold**-ing OT references that are clear enough when the authors intended the phrase as an OT quotation, such as in [1 Cor 15:42-46](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2015%3A42-46&version=CSB) : > 42 So it is with the resurrection of the dead: Sown in corruption, raised in incorruption; 43 sown in dishonor, raised in glory; sown in weakness, raised in power; 44 sown a natural body, raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So it is written, **The first man Adam became a living being**;[a] the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, then the spiritual. > > a. 15:45 Gn 2:7 making it easier for us to recognize how 1 Cor 5:45 refers to Gen 2:7, even though other translations have the footnote as well. See more examples from the entire [chapter 15](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2015&version=CSB) . Especially interesting is [Acts 2:17-21](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202%3A14-24&version=CSB) where there is a mixture of bolded words and regular words. Is it possible this is to show how Luke added words to the OT verses, which is helpful to get more insights in how NT authors used OT? Example (v. 17, line breaks ignored): > **And it will be** in the last days, says God, that **I will pour out my Spirit on all people; then your sons and your daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, and your old men will dream dreams.** My question: **Which English Bibles have this "feature"?** What's the origin of this practice, which maybe in a non-English Bible translation?

Considering that in the Jewish mindset at the time of Jesus, as we learn from Paul in Romans 9:6-13, the Jews thought that they were "the children of promise" descended from Isaac (not Ishmael) and "God's elect" descended from Jacob (thus Paul citing God's election of Jacob over Esau), **why then, in John 8, the Judeans refer to themselves as "children of Abraham" rather than the "children of Jacob" or something else?** I understand that Paul used Abraham as a model of faith, but faith was not the topic in John 8:30-59. Why did Jesus's interlocutors refer to themselves as "children of Abraham"? Did they implicitly acknowledge that the *Idumeans* (roughly [the leftover of the Edomites in the Hellenistic period](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edom#Hellenistic_period) , descendants of Esau) and the *inhabitants of the Nabataean Kingdom* (descendants of Ishmael [according to Josephus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishmaelites#Josephus '_Antiquities)) were their brothers too, two neighboring peoples in the South that they looked down on? Wouldn't it be more natural that in the discussion of freedom they wanted to emphasize to Jesus of their being the *children of promise* and of their *election* over Esau? Or to take it one step further, since they were from the Jerusalem area, maybe they should have called themselves "**children of Judah**" whose ancestors may have stayed there, not ever been "enslaved" (being exiled to Assyria / Babylon)?

This isn't so much a question about theology or denominational teachings as Church history. In an answer to a question on another StackExchange site, someone posted this: > I am an Art Historian, and I have recently made a research on the > Unicorn symbology in the Middle Ages Art. The unicorn is an > christological symbol. In the book physiologus (popular book in the > middle ages about magical creatures and so on) the unicorn is > described as hard to capture. Only a virgin could do this. This > unicorn myth has been used as a symbol (incarnation) of Christ, who > has been born by the virgin Mary. That got my interest, so I searched, and there is some apparent truth to this, and some undocumented statements claim that some monks agreed with this. For example, from: [Christological Figure](http://glossary.expert/Glossary/Entertainment/Literature/Christological_Figure.html) > ...the unicorn in medieval bestiaries, which would lie down and place > its phallic, ivory-horned meekly in a maiden's lap so that hunters > might kill it--which medieval monks interpreted as an allegory of > Christ allowing himself to enter the womb of the virgin Mary so that > he might later be sacrificed. So I'm curious to see if there is documented writings from the Church (I assume this refers to the Catholic Church, or possibly Orthodox or the Church of England, based on the time period) discussing this. Is there history to back up these claims?

This post was triggered by the statement below in History of religion in the Netherlands | Wikipedia : > Later, In addition to successful sermons, there are failures such as > the refusal of the heathen Frisian king Radboud to be baptized by > Wulfram, because he would get to heaven by repenting; Radboud chose an > afterlife with his ancestors who according Wulfram were in hell. What does Catholic teaching/theology say, perhaps with scriptural support, about familial relations in hell? Will the presence of those who were family members on earth aggravate or alleviate the sufferings of other family members in hell? *If I were condemned to hell and God forbid, I met dad, mom, and my brothers and sister, i.e., people I loved on earth, will this give me any kind of comfort? Will I be "happy" to be with them and they with me? Will we "enjoy" each other's company?*

What is Young-Earth Creationism, and the Biblical basis for it?

I am convinced that the scriptures teach of a God who is completely sovereign in salvation. I am a monergist. I can cite several passages that make me think this way. I think if you look at some of my answers on this SE, you'll see that I'm a Calvinist. However, this does not mean that I'm a blind Calvinist. I arrived where I did by many years of study and internal deliberation. I am having another internal deliberation at this point. If we examine passages like the first half of Ephesians 2, we see that it was our nature to sin, and that we had the spirit of Satan working within us. In the same place, Paul refers to us as being dead in our sins. By all accounts, it looks to me like plain support of a Reformed interpretation of the doctrine of regeneration. In the first two chapters, we see plainly that we have been unified with Christ: he in our death, and us in His life. Because of this unity we have with Christ, God made us to be alive as He made His Son to be alive (and now, being united with Christ, we are sons and co-heirs with Christ). This all paints a beautiful monergistic picture. However... In the course of my studies this past weekend, preparing for a Bible study that I lead, I happened upon this verse: > In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. (Colossians 2:11-12 ESV) I get it most of this. Most of it still even paints a monergistic picture, with the phrase "circumcision made without hands," and the whole idea of being "raised" from the dead (the imagery being that it doesn't really involve an act of man's will that he should become alive while he is already dead). But I have a problem with the phrase "raised with him through faith." I see a logical contradiction that I need help working through (and a non-Calvinistic perspective on the passage does not solve the problem). Dead men cannot have faith (again, read Ephesians 2). We need to be made alive. However, this passage cites that we are raised _through faith_. What should I make of this contradiction? I can think of two options: 1. The reformed interpretation of regeneration is wrong. Men have the capacity to believe in God before they are regenerate (Wesley's idea of Prevenient Grace would therefore be inapplicable). This simply cannot be. Again, those with faith were once under Satan's influence. A house divided against itself cannot stand; we cannot serve two masters. There was nothing in us to make us want to believe. 2. Faith must be inherent in regeneration. Not tied to it, but faith would be regenerating. This would mean that predestination would be unto faith, and I've read Reformed authors who would quite disagree with this. I hope I've made the problem clear. I would appreciate some insight. Edit: Please allow me to clarify, I welcome explanations from traditions other than Calvinistic/Reformed. However, I would like these to address the basic doctrinal problem I am discussing. Please see @Eric's comment and my answer to his comment to get an idea of what I mean regarding this.

I am new to Christianity, but I have read the Gospel of John and have watched a movie about Jesus. Was the Pilate in John 18:28 the same man whose son Jesus healed in John 4:46?

Joseph Prince (Worldwide speaker and author of *Destined to Reign*) and Andrew Wommack (Andrew Wommack Ministries and author of many books) teaches this with the Grace (hyperGrace) message, as does my local Pastor. They say we are already forgiven for our past, present, and future sins, and because of that our sins are overlooked. So there's no need to confess our sins, ask forgiveness, and repent. What is the Biblical basis for this belief?

When I read John 5:24-29 (CSB) > 24 "Truly I tell you, anyone who hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not come under judgment but has passed from death to life. > > 25 "Truly I tell you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. For just as the Father has life in himself, so also he has granted to the Son to have life in himself. And he has granted him the right to pass judgment, because he is the Son of Man. 28 Do not be amazed at this, because a time is coming when all who are in the graves will hear his voice and come out—those who have done good things, to the resurrection of life, but those who have done wicked things, to the resurrection of condemnation. it seems clear that Jesus will evangelize the dead who hasn't heard the gospel, and that there *is* an element of consideration of how one conducts one's life before death. Restrictivism can be defined as: "God does not provide salvation to those who fail to hear of Jesus and come to faith in him before they die." How would those who believe Restrictivism (see sample adherents in the chart below) interpret that verse? (*Source of the chart*: [What About Those Who Have Never Heard? Three Views on the Destiny of the Unevangelized](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/0830816062))

I have been reading up on various eschatological views and I have noticed an argument that I have not been able to find a detail about. It seems to be a common assertion by the Catholic and Orthodox that the Rapture, as portrayed by the Left Behind series, is non biblical because it calls for three "comings" of Jesus. [catholic.org](http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-rapture) puts it eloquently enough, > The problem with all of the positions (except the historic, post-tribulational view, which was accepted by all Christians, including non-premillennialists) is that they split the Second Coming into different events. In the case of the pre-trib view, Christ is thought to have three comings—one when he was born in Bethlehem, one when he returns for the rapture at the tribulation’s beginning, and one at tribulation’s end, when he establishes the millennium. This three-comings view is foreign to Scripture. Does the bible specifically limit the number of times that Jesus comes to earth? Why would it be a problem for Jesus to come again before the "Second Coming"? Where does this "only two comings" requirement come from?

If God is omnipotent (Psalm 115:3), then God is immeasurably perfect in every way. I feel that "human" or "human-like" emotions would detract quite a bit from divine perfection, but does God also love all his creations? Romans 9:13 mentions God's hatred for evil, which he sees in Esau, whom he also hates. I understand that God did not directly create evil and sin and it was only a consequence of free will. Even so, the Bible said that God hated not only his actions but he hated Esau himself. 1 John 4:16 (ESV): > So we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. God is love, but God is also the embodiment of everything, including hate and other antonyms of love. God is everything because God created everything, and everything he has created is an extension of him (Colossians 1:16). Furthermore, we can not answer the question well without defining "perfect" first. I have always thought of perfection *not* as the absence of imperfection but as the acceptance and inclusion of everything that makes it. But that is not everyone's definition, especially not how the Scriptures define it (Deuteronomy 32:4). Assuming my opinion is true, there's a straightforward conclusion to God's perfection: God's perfection would include all of his "imperfections," making him perfect but also humane. But in the Bible (2 Timothy 3:16), he is described as divine without human error. If God were a perfect divine being, how would he feel? Or have any emotions at all? If God is a divine being, I can't understand how he would feel, including his love. (I apologize in advance if my question isn't framed very well, i'm not very used to translating my thoughts into coherent questions 😅)

Jehovah's Witnesses translate John 1:1 as: " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." whereas its more generally translated as something like : "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." i.e. the NWT adds the word "a". This is justified because the Greek language of the first century did not have an indefinite article , and they feel that this rendering of the verse makes it more consistent with the rest of the bible (which they see as teaching that Christ is an Archangel, rather than a person within the Godhead). If this is the case, why do they think John used this phrase? Is that what he was trying to communicate? If John is simply trying to say that Christ was with God, and through him all things were created, this clause could be removed from the sentence- and the passage would become clearer, because John's Greek speaking audience wouldn't have to wonder if John means Jehovah or simply some lesser god. Additionally, this would avoid all the problems that they see as coming from the miss-translation of the verse being used to support trinitarianism EDIT: This Question is flagged as similar to another . The difference is subtle- that one asks what textual support is there for the verse, this asks, assuming that the JW understanding of the scriptures and Johns intentions are true, why John would write the verse as it is - appearing to endorse at least the divinity of Christ.