I've read several summaries of [William Dembski](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Dembski) 's concept of [specified complexity](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specified_complexity) , including [one by Dembski himself](http://www.leaderu.com/offices/dembski/docs/bd-specified.html) , and I've got to confess I have no idea what he is talking about. Is it an attempt to prove God's existence mathematically?

The word meshiach just means anointed one. So what indication is there that Daniel 9 is about the Messiah? Further reading would be appreciated, thanks!

I came across a recent [*Christianity Today* article](https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2024/july-august/theological-unity-diversity-lausanne-covenant.html) highlighting the importance of the forgotten [1974 Lausanne Covenant](https://lausanne.org/statement/lausanne-covenant) for the unity of the many factions of evangelicalism WITHOUT requiring doctrinal uniformity. For example, no agreement on Baptism or on the issue of female minister is needed for its signatories. My question: Is there anything in the covenant that contradict a Catholic doctrine, or is it mainstream enough that a Catholic can sign it?

In response to my question why Theodosius was successful in bringing the Arian Controversy to a close , @Anne gave me references to some articles. I have read one by Steven Wedgeworth . It is a very interesting article (for people with such morbid interests). It discusses the large number of creeds that were formulated in the decades after the Nicene Creed was accepted in 325, culminating in the Homoean creed that was accepted, under the ‘guidance” of Emperor Constantius, at the Council of Constantinople in AD 360. > (The Homoeans or Homoians were the people that maintained that the > Bible does not reveal anything about the substance (ousia) of God and, > therefore, to speculate about His substance is arrogance. This is in > contrast to the Nicene Creed that claimed that the Son is of the same > substance as the Father.) The creed of the Council of Constantinople in AD 360 became the official creed of the Christian Church. All use of ousia was forbidden and it seemed as if Arianism has triumphed. I am also currently reading RPC Hanson on the Arian Controversy. Some regard him as our greatest authority on that controversy (e.g., Hart ). Hanson and Wedgeworth present the same interesting historical facts, such as: - The decisive influence which the emperors had on the decisions of the church councils, - That Athanasius was guilty of violence , - That the Arian Controversy, to an extent, was a dispute between the East and the West, and - That, in 358, the anti-Nicene party split between the Homoiousians (similar substance) and the Homoeans (those who refused to talk about substance). But there is one contextual matter where Hanson and Wedgeworth seem to disagree: While Hanson claimed that no 'orthodoxy' existed when the controversy began and that orthodoxy was only created through that controversy, Wedgeworth speaks of Orthodoxy as something that already existed when the Arian Controversy began. To illustrate the difference in more detail: Steven Wedgeworth ----------------- Wedgeworth refers to “the **orthodoxy** of Athanasius,” “the **orthodox** bishops” in the year 360, and the “early church historians” who defended “the **orthodoxy**” at the Western council at Arminium in 360. He describes the Homoean synod of Constantinople in 360 as “the defeat of **Orthodoxy**.” Wedgeworth also refers to “supposed **orthodox** arguments (that) could perhaps be made against using “substance” language in regards to the godhead.” In this regard, he mentions Origen who have already rejected the term years before, and Paul of Samatosota who had been condemned for his use of homoousios, which the Church condemned as a Sabellian theology. > (Sabellianism is the teaching that the Father, Son, and Holy > Spirit are three faces of one single Person. For a discussion, see my > question on the difference between Modalism and the traditional > understanding of the Trinity doctrine .) In opposition to the orthodox writers and bishops, Wedgeworth referred to the “heretics.“ He said, for example, that “the heretics typically took pre-existing Christian or Jewish tradition, combined it with certain philosophical rhetoric.” RPC Hanson ---------- Hanson, in contrast to Wedgeworth, wrote (link ): > “At the beginning of the controversy nobody knew the right answer. > **There was no 'orthodoxy'** on the subject of 'how divine is Jesus Christ?', certainly not in the form which was later to be enshrined in > the Creed of Constantinople.” Hanson adds that the controversy raged for no less than sixty years. It is highly unlikely that a controversy will last that long if the orthodox form was perfectly well known when it began. Subordinationism ---------------- There is a third option, namely that, when the controversy began, there was a general agreement in the church that the Son is subordinate to the Father. Hanson explains the build-up to the Arian Controversy as follows: During the first three centuries, Greek philosophy was still a strong force in the Roman Empire. In that philosophy, God is immutable and is only able to communicate with our world of change and decay through an intermediary. For that reason, Middle Platonist philosophy postulated a nous or Second Hypostasis as an intermediary between the high God and the physical world. (link ) During those centuries, Christians were still being persecuted by the Roman Empire. The Apologists (the pre-Nicene fathers) defended Christianity before the Gentile peoples of the Roman Empire. For this purpose, they found it effective to identify “the pre-existent Christ … with the nous or Second Hypostasis.” (link ) Since the nous of Greek philosophy was “a second, created god lower than the High God,” (link ) the pre-Nicene fathers described Christ as “a subordinate though essential divine agent.” (link ) Therefore, as Hanson explains, going into the controversy, the orthodoxy was that Christ is subordinate to the Father: > The “**conventional Trinitarian doctrine** with which Christianity > entered the fourth century … was to make the Son into a demi-god.” > (link ) The pre-Nicene fathers did regard Christ as divine, but as Hanson noted: > “The word theos or deus, for the first four centuries of the existence > of Christianity had a wide variety of meanings. There were many > different types and grades of deity in popular thought and religion > and even in philosophical thought.” (link ) > > In the thinking of the pre-Nicene fathers, “of course Christ was > divine,” but since they assumed that many levels of divinity exist, > the question that started the Arian Controversy was: “How divine, and > what exactly did 'divine' mean in that context?” (link ) > > (Theos is the Greek word that is translated as "god" or "God," > depending on the context. Deus is its Latin equivalent.) In conclusion, although Hanson says that, at the beginning of the controversy, there was no 'orthodoxy' on the subject of 'how divine Jesus is, he does use phrases such as "traditional framework for a Christian doctrine of God" and "conventional Trinitarian doctrine with which Christianity entered the fourth century." In other words, there was no agreement on how divine Christ is, but there was agreement that He is not as divine as the Father. The Question ------------ So, my question is: What was the 'orthodox' view of God and Christ when the Arian Controversy began?: 1. The Trinity doctrine as per Wedgeworth; 2. None, as per Hanson, or 3. Subordinationism? Or am I making a category error? Why would Hanson state that the pre-Nicene fathers believed that Christ is subordinate to the Father but still say there was no 'orthodoxy' on the subject of 'how divine is Jesus Christ?' And why would Wedgeworth talk about 'orthodoxy' as if it is the present-day Trinity doctrine, already existing in 360 AD? Did he use the term 'orthodoxy' proleptically (the representation of a thing as existing before it actually does)?

We read in the Epistle of Jude, Verse 9: > But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not himself dare to condemn him for slander but said, “The Lord rebuke you!”. Footnote: Under the verse says that Jude is alluding to the Jewish Testament of Moses. Deut 34: 5-6 that narrates the death of Moses mentions that no one knows where he was buried. My question is: **Did the devil stake a claim to the dead body of Moses, on account of which he was buried in an undisclosed place? Is there any Christian tradition on the subject?**

John Paul II, *Evangelium Vitæ* §58 (25 March 1995): >The moral gravity of procured abortion is apparent in all its truth if we recognize that we are dealing with murder Is this the first magisterial document to call abortion murder?

We know the story about Jesus being baptised: >13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. 14 But John tried to deter him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” 15 Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John consented. (Matthew 3:13-15) Why was it necessary for Jesus to be baptized by John the Baptist in order to "fulfill all righteousness", according to any well known Protestant theologians?

I cannot interpret ancient Hebrew, and so this is a question about the translation of Genesis 19, and what fits most consistently with the original texts. There are 2 'clues' from the text in Genesis 19 that may suggest Lot had more than 2 daughters/children. 1. In verse 14, Lot went and spoke to his sons-in-law, 'who had married his daughters' and encouraged them to flee from the city, which seems to contrast his words to the crowd in verse 8, 'I have two daughters who have not known a man'. 2. In verse 15, the angels speak to Lot saying, 'Arise, take your wife and your two daughters *who are here*' [my emphasis], which suggests that there are some who are not there. It also draws to mind the charge to Rahab in Joshua 2, that her family would not be protected just because they were her family, but only if they were physically in her house (Joshua 2:17-18) The problem I am facing is that translations aren't consistent. The more modern translations (NIV, AMP, ESV) translate verse 14 as men 'who were betrothed/promised to' Lot's daughters (although the NIV does have the alternative 'married to' as an editorial note), and the 'who are here' from the angels in verse 15 *could* just be identifying the fact that the sons-in-law didn't turn up. I would appreciate someone who is able to unpack the original texts to provide some wisdom here, if it can be made clearer. Thanks and God bless

This question is about statements by Latter-Day Saints that seem to indicate that a majority of humankind will be "saved". For example, this page on resurrection says (emphasis added): > Through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, **all people** will be resurrected > and saved from physical death And this passage in Doctrine & Covenants 76:43-44 says (emphasis added): > **43** Who glorifies the Father, and **saves all the works of his hands, except those sons of perdition** who deny the Son after the > Father has revealed him.**44** Wherefore, he saves all except > them—they shall go away into everlasting punishment, which is endless > punishment, which is eternal punishment, to reign with the devil and > his angels in eternity, where their worm dieth not, and the fire is > not quenched, which is their torment— Similarly the answer to this question says (emphasis added): > Finally, the eternal sense of the word hell is reserved for those who > reject God, refuse the gospel, and deny the Holy Ghost. **It's > understood that these will be relatively few in number**, but the sons > of perdition, having departed in a sense the family of God, will not > receive any glory. Because of these statements I wanted to ask about Jesus' words in Matthew 7:13-14 (KJV): > **13** ¶ Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which > go in thereat: **14** Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the > way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. How do Mormons interpret these words of Jesus in light of their view that most of humankind will be saved?

Among many (good) arguments against KJV-onlyism, I have heard the following argument: > The idea that “preservation” requires us to have 100% accurate knowledge of the original words of scripture is a standard that was not demanded by Christ or the Apostles. To bolster this argument, it is suggested that Christ or the NT authors will occasionally base an argument on a textual variant from the OT (probably from the Septuagint) where the original reading actually says something different. Thus, the argument goes, it is possible to acknowledge that we do not have 100% perfect accuracy in our copies while still holding to a doctrine of preservation... one defined by the belief that the message of the Bible is perfectly clear, even though some meaningful and viable textual variants exist. I do not remember any specific **passages** cited where Christ or the NT authors did this sort of thing (made applications based on textual variants). Does anyone know of any?

Canons, troparia, kontakia, aposticha, stichera, etc. all have a tone/mode associated with them. How does the author of the hymn choose which mode/tone to use? Is it the same for all, or is it a little different for each type of hymn? (I'm referring here specifically to hymns written to commemorate Saints. Hymns composed for the Octoechos or for Pascha I already somewhat understand why they are written for a particular tone/mode).

The text of the Orthodox Divine Service speaks of salvation from the destruction of the human race and nowhere speaks of the immortality of the soul.

The Catholic Church has several encyclicals giving guidelines for Biblical Interpretation, such as *Divino Afflante Spiritu* or *Providentissimus Deus*. Are there any Eastern Orthodox equivalents to these encyclicals? I imagine they use the writings of the Church Fathers such as Augustine's *De doctrina christiana*, but I was wondering if there is any later reference work that they use to define their interpretation methodology. (Any other references concerning Eastern Orthodox Biblical interpretation methodology would be appreciated, including Slavonic / Russian or Greek works).

In **Genesis 2:2-3** we are told: > **2** And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. > **3** And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. Limiting the scope of the question — setting aside what it means that the seventh day of the week was "blessed" and "sanctified" by God — and focusing narrowly on the "longitudinal" impact of these verses, what is the biblically sound interpretation? I was able to think of three possible options here (if you can think of another, please include it in your answer): 1. the **only** day that was blessed was the actual “historical” first Sabbath (with no other Sabbaths meant to enjoy the blessing that was given to that original /first and only/ seventh day); 2. every subsequent seventh day was blessed from the original Sabbath **until** a later point in time when that blessing was **removed** or **modified** by another divine decree (e.g., transferred to another day or limited in its scope to the ethnic Jews). 3. **all** subsequent Sabbaths were blessed; What biblically based arguments do the various denominations give for their interpretation of this scripture?

I've been reading about Eastern Orthodox theology and one thing that caught my attention is the unusual view of time that some Eastern Orthodox theologians have, in particular Fr. Alexander Schmemann. Can someone please explain to me what he means by what happens after the ressurection when time is "perfected" and turned into an "eternal temporality" or the "temps Immobile?" Does he literally mean that time will freeze and that our experience in our resurrected bodies will be entirely immutable? Or is something else meant by that, as I've read an article saying that in eternity the distinction of past, present, and future will not be erased but "clarified" and "perfected." (I read this in an article about the EO theology of time called the [Chalice of Eternity](https://bogoslov.ru/article/2668945) that left me with more questions that answers) I genuinely can't make heads or tails of any of this.

Non-Christian here. I have heard that "God damn it" or "God damn [that person]" is blasphemy because you are telling God what to do. But other interpretations are that it's only blasphemy to misrepresent what God told you to do, like "God told me to hurt that person".

According to theistic evolutionist Christians, did God allow their destruction because these creatures had done something to warrant it? This is because God is all knowing and knew from the moment that comet began moving that it was headed for earth and could have done something to stop it from causing this destruction but let it happen, and the most plausible reason for God allowing this is if those creatures had sinned and hence guilty. The hermeneutic reference that shows God had foreknowledge about that comet is this verse. *1 John 3:20* >For if our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and knows all things.

Specifically, I'm interested in works (articles, books, etc.) explicating the philosophical dimensions and implications of the idea that the law is written upon our hearts. That seems to me to suggest a certain kind of epistemology, and I would greatly appreciate resources that would help me learn more about it. Thanks in advance!

In Ephesians 6:12, Paul writes: “For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.” ‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭6‬:‭12‬ ‭ESV‬‬ The standard, modern understanding of this passage is that our true opponents are not physical enemies, but rather evil spiritual forces that attempt to sow division and chaos. How has this passage been used historically, and has it ever been used to justify war by dehumanizing the enemy? If so, could you point me to some examples?

>So the angel of Jehovah said: “O Jehovah of armies, how long will you withhold your mercy from Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, with whom you have been indignant **these 70 years**?” ([Zechariah 1:12](https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/b/r1/lp-e/nwtsty/38/1#study=discover&v=38:1:12) , NWT) >**1** And in the fourth year of King Darius, the word of Jehovah came to Zechariah on the fourth day of the ninth month, that is, the month of Chislev. **2** The people of Bethel sent Sharezer and Regem-melech and his men to beg for the favor of Jehovah, **3** saying to the priests of the house of Jehovah of armies and to the prophets: **“Should I weep in the fifth month and abstain from food, as I have done for so many years?”** >**4** The word of Jehovah of armies again came to me, saying: **5** “Say to all the people of the land and to the priests, ‘When you fasted and wailed in the fifth month and in the seventh month for **70 years**, did you really fast for me? ([Zechariah 7:1-5](https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/b/r1/lp-e/nwtsty/38/7#study=discover&v=38:7:1-38:7:5) , NWT) I have a copy of "Aid to Bible Understanding", WBTS, 1971, an encyclopedia of the Watchtower. On page 422 under "[Darius](https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200011096#h=31-33) " it says: >It is particularly with regard to the rebuilding of the temple at Jerusalem that Darius Hystaspis [Darius the Great, Darius I] figures in the Bible record.... it continued stopped until the second year of Darius (520/519). ... During this year the prophets Haggai and Zechariah stirred up the Jews to renew the construction ... the temple work went on to successful completion by the "sixth year of the reign of Darius" (Ezra 6:15).. by March 5/6 of 515 BCE. All of the above dates are in agreement with Parker & Dubberstein's standard work on the chronology of the period, and present no problem to me as an evangelical. The event recorded in Zech 1:7-12 can be dated via Parker & Dubberstein to 9th Feb 519 BC, Gregorian date; and Zech 7:1-5 can be dated to 2nd/3rd Dec 518 BC, Gregorian. The temple of Jerusalem was destroyed at the same time as the city, Jer 52:12-14. If the temple was destroyed in 587 BC per as the Catholic chronologist Valerius Coucke and the evangelical chronologist Rodger c. Young (cf rcyoung.org) then it is easy to understand the meaning of "these seventy years", and easy to understand why the enquirers should be asking the prophet whether it is OK to stop fasting in 518 when the temple rebuild is nearing completion. But if the temple was destroyed in 607 BCE - as per the articles at the end of this question - then in 518 BCE, not seventy, but nearly ninety years have elapsed. So my question is 'How do Jehovah's Witnesses explain "these seventy years" in these passages in Zechariah?' - Part 1: Watchtower, October 1, 2011, page 26 - Part 2: Watchtower, November 1, 2011, page 22