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.

My sister was married by a Justice of the Peace; but, is now divorced. I would like her to be my daughter's Godmother when we have her Baptized in a few months. Is that allowed?

There's an infamous story from early church history of the dispute over the correct date for celebration of Easter, which got so heated that people even called their opponents heretics over it and attempted to excommunicate them. (See Eusebius, *Ecclesial History* Book V.23-25). On the other hand, the earliest writing I know of to acknowledge faithfulness of Christians on both sides of a debate is the issue of the future millennial kingdom: Justin Martyr says this in approximately 160 AD in his *Dialogue with Trypho* ch.80, where he says that "many good and pious" Christians think otherwise. Is this the oldest example of a Christian author acknowledging legitimate disagreement about some issue? If not, what is the older "acceptable" dispute? (And let's leave out the issues mentioned by Paul in Romans 14 - I'd like to know about sources outside of the Bible itself.)

My impression is that Christ cults were pretty diverse in the first two centuries following Jesus' death, including Jewish and non-Jewish variations, as well as Roman and Eastern, but if Paul became authoritative early on, then I would have to change my views on the scope of that diversity. It's obvious that once an ecclesiastical council determined that the letters officially belonged in the Bible, i.e, they were canonized, they became orthodox. But there's a lot of room between general and official acceptance.

As the question states: who defended the devil's salvation? I know I've read of a Catholic saint who supposedly defended the devil's salvation. And why not? Maybe the devil has been greatly misunderstood in the great plan of God? Anyways, I've searched, and the closest I could find was Lawrence Justinian, a Catholic priest and a saint within the Catholic Church. I also know that I've read that this person, maybe a philosopher, was a contemporary of St. Thomas of Aquinas. Does anyone know any of this?

Fr. Ludovic-Marie Barrielle, *Do I Have a Vocation?* , ch. 5, claims: >“A long period of chastity” says Saint Bernard, “is a second virginity.” Where does St. Bernard say this?

I feel the title is mostly self explanatory, but I am looking for a list/collection that has most or all of the saints venerated in Eastern Orthodoxy. I have seen some churches have calendars with amounts of saints on them (example: https://www.oca.org/saints/lives) , but I am looking for greater comprehensiveness.

Hello I've been confused by the amount of KJV bibles there are. The AKJV means the authorised King James Bible but AKJV also stands for American King James Bible as well. From my understanding the Authorized KJV (1611) is the KJV but I've read that the 1611 version is not the KJV used today. Been told "Get a 1611 AKJV". So they are referencing a certain type of KJV. The website bible gateway has the AKJV and KJV as options as if they were different versions but I haven't noticed any differences in it yet. Except someone said the AKJV has British English? I looked at it on Wiki and the 1611 version has a section to itself and it doesn't seem this is the same KJV we use today? I'm confused how it is the same bible of 1611 we call the AKJV. https://nz.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091024144529AA84Ts5 Then there comes the AKJV (American KJV), pure Cambridge, 1769, the NKJV (which I own) KJ21, MKJV, the MEV which seems to be a form of the KJV and others....seems like many versions exist. But is it just modernised text? What is the difference between all of these? What KJV should I get? How can I tell the difference between a "1611 and a standard KJV" if they are different which they seem to be? (I own a KJV already) On Amazon if you look up 1611 KJV you find only a few results and they especially have 1611 on the cover. Seems there is a conflict between the AKJV and the KJV being the same or not by searches I've done. Are they really the same or not? There also seems to be "counterfeits" used in stores (not illegal books just a fake KJV...not sure what they mean) http://www.biblebelievers.com/believers-org/counterfeit-kjv.html ???

Jesus said in Mat 5:17-18 (NIV): > Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, **until heaven and earth disappear**, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until **everything is accomplished**. If we stop reading the paragraph at the first bolded sentence, we'll get the impression that the law is eternal (well... until heaven and earth disappear). But if we keep reading until reaching the second bolded text, we'll get a different understanding: somehow the law will end after "everything is accomplished" (i.e. when Christ's earthly duties are done?). So it's not eternal, after all. Isn't this a contradiction? I'm still having a hard time understanding this passage.

I was reading a while back and wanted to piece together these two ideas in my head. But as I think more about it the cognitive dissonance only increases. Non-Christians can experience "ego death" (see this [*Wikipedia* section](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ego_death#Jungian_psychology)) , but "death to sin" happens *after* salvation, which means the two concepts don't fully overlap. But then, how can these two seemingly identical processes be justified to occur at different "stages of development" for different people? I hope this is clear enough of an inquiry. A passage that comes to mind is Romans 6:11 (and a few other verses in the same chapter, as well): >"So you too consider yourselves dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus" - Romans 6:11 (NET)

The Bible tells us that Jesus emptied himself and set aside his heavenly glory and submitted himself to the will of his Father (God). In order to do the will of his Father (God) who sent him, and to obey Him, Jesus was in a lower position to that of God the Father. What are the theological implications of this change in position, and was it permanent? I am looking for a biblical explanation from a Reformed Protestant position.

I assume that the average Orthodox Christian doesn't confess every minor sin right away, but is still able to receive the Eucharist with a clear conscience. On the other hand, they would want to go to confession first if they have committed a very grave sin. Without a distinction between venial and mortal sin, though, why is confession necessary at all? Without Purgatory, it would appear especially unnecessary to confess one's more trivial sins, not to mention that Orthodox priests do not even absolve sins. On the other hand, would Catholics still be required to make regular confessions if not for their belief in Purgatory and mortal sin?

How did Judas die: by hanging himself as described in Matthew 27:5, or by falling and his body bursting open as described in Acts 1:18?

Are Catholics allowed to oppose women holding public office? related question: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103246/1787

Are Catholics allowed to oppose women's suffrage? related question: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103247/1787

I'm new to the website, but found the discussion of birthright to be edifying and certainly consistent with church history. In relation to @pehkay's statement, "Furthermore, in the New Testament the birthright is shifted from Israel to the church" in that discussion, my question is this: *Is the shifting of the birthright from Israel to the Church, of God or of man, and how does Scripture support your answer?*

I am someone who has only recently converted to Christianity, and I came upon a troubling point. If it is a sin to have other gods above God, then how does He feel about countries where everyone has a religion different from it? Is that entire country just doomed for hell, or is there an allowance made for those people with no knowledge of Christianity?

We see Jesus being given a kiss twice in the Gospels: one in Lk 7:38 by the sinful woman on his feet, and the other by Judas Iscariot, most probably on the cheek. Jesus presumably kissed the feet of the Apostles after washing their feet on Last Supper, if the present day re-enactment of the event during the Holy Week reflected the ancient practice. - Both St. Peter and St. Paul exhorted the faithful to greet one another with the 'Holy Kiss' or 'Kiss of Love': as can be seen from Romans 16:16; 1 Corinthians 16:20; 2 Corinthians 13:12; 1 Thessalonians 5:26; and 1 Peter 5:14. - It has been a Catholic tradition for the faithful to kiss the palm of the Bishop on his Pastoral Visit. Similarly, children kiss the palms of the elderly people of the family as a sign of respect. - Given that both St. Peter and St. Paul repeatedly exhorted the faithful to greet one another with the Holy Kiss, it is most likely that the tradition existed among Jesus and the disciples. My question is: **What was meant by Holy Kiss among early Christians and what was its origin?** Are there any ancient extra-biblical writings or modern scholarly material available on the topic?

I've been digging into "the new perspectives on Paul" and thinking that many of the "new perspectives" seem like, or lead to, traditional Catholic/Orthodox perspectives on Justification. Specifically, the idea that when Paul refers to "works of the law," he is referring exclusively to the ceremonial aspects of the Mosaic law. This would seem to shatter all the Protestant go-to verses that supposedly prove sola fide. **TLDR:** If you read "works of the law" to mean works of the ceremonial Mosaic law (i.e., circumcision) exclusively, then what is left to support the doctrine of sola fide aside from Luther's Occam-inspired philosophy?

Why does Revelation 21:1 talks about the new heavens and new earth after the millennial reign described in Revelation 20 while Isaiah 65 seems to indicate that the new heavens and earth come first before the millennial reign because there is still death on Earth (vs20) at that point? The end of Revelation indicates that death is gone seemingly after the millennial reign when the new heavens and earth are created. > Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea. (Revelation 21:1 NKJV) > “For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; And the former shall not be remembered or come to mind. “No more shall an infant from there live but a few days, Nor an old man who has not fulfilled his days; For the child shall die one hundred years old, But the sinner being one hundred years old shall be accursed. They shall build houses and inhabit them; They shall plant vineyards and eat their fruit. They shall not build and another inhabit; They shall not plant and another eat; For as the days of a tree, so shall be the days of My people, And My elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands. They shall not labor in vain, Nor bring forth children for trouble; For they shall be the descendants of the blessed of the Lord, And their offspring with them. “It shall come to pass That before they call, I will answer; And while they are still speaking, I will hear. The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, The lion shall eat straw like the ox, And dust shall be the serpent’s food. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain,” Says the Lord. (Isaiah 65:17‭, ‬20‭-‬25 NKJV)