Jesus' most important commandment is the following: >Jesus answered him, *“The first of all the commandments is: ‘Hear, O Israel, YHWH our Elohim, YHWH is 1. And you shall love YHWH your Elohim with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ This is the first commandment."* Those who reject the triune theory do so because we interpret the scriptures to show a clear distinction between the person of YHWH (the 1 God), and His only begotten, the Son of God. The most well known words of Jesus are recorded in John 3:16. This is only 1 simple example of Jesus making a distinction between himself and God. John 3:16 >For **God** so loved the world that **He** gave ***His** only begotten Son*, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life. Throughout scripture this theme holds very consistent and can be shown with countless verses. There are too many to list them all. ***What are the BEST scriptures to support the interpretation that Jesus is not the same person as God (YHWH), but rather the Son of God and a completely separate person?*** -- Note: In the context of this question, verses that make a distinction between YHWH and Jesus would be greater support than verses that make a distinction between the Father and Jesus (even though we know the Father is YHWH according to this perspective).

We read in Mtt 4:1-4, of the Temptation of Jesus in the wilderness : > Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. He fasted forty days and forty nights, and afterwards he was famished. The tempter came and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread.” Here, we see the Devil using calculated words, i.e. "IF you are the Son of God......"In other words, the Devil was asking Jesus to disclose his divinity, as if he was not sure of whom he was tempting. Elsewhere, we see Jesus forbidding his own disciples from telling others that he is the Messiah ( Mtt 16:20; Mk 8:30). That said, the Devil was presumably tempting Jesus to disclose his divinity much before the appointed time. But, the motifs of the First Temptation we have, are of stone and bread . My question therefore, is: According to Catholic teachings, what was the First Temptation of Christ basically about ?

This is related, but intended to be a more specific version of [this question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/14573/20) . The answer provides a pretty concise, Sunday-school refutation to Arianism, but it assumes a Trinitarian view. From within an Arian theological framework, how does Christ fit into the work of human salvation? Please provide Biblical and historical references as appropriate.

When you read Numbers 25 and then view the middle east through that lens….. the actions of the middle east don’t feel as extreme. I definitely do not agree with the extremes of the middle east culture, but I am also shocked and dismayed at the extremes of what are written in Numbers 25. Yet God said…. > 4 ……. “Take all the leaders of the people and execute[b] them in broad daylight before the LORD so that his burning anger may turn away > from Israel.” > > 7 …….Aaron the priest, saw this, he got up from the assembly, took a > spear in his hand, 8 followed the Israelite man into the tent,[c] and > drove it through both the Israelite man and the woman—through her > belly. > > 11 …….Aaron the priest, has turned back my wrath from the Israelites > because he was zealous among them with my zeal,[d] so that I did not > destroy the Israelites in my zeal.* > > 17 “Attack the Midianites and strike them dead. 18 For they attacked > you with the treachery that they used against you in the Peor > incident. How do I as a Christian, defend this to a nonbeliever (or someone who questions Christianity). “This” being the fact that the God I serve, directed this….condoned this….. and rewarded this.

I am looking for the oldest witnesses for the prayer towards the East both pagan and Christian. I am trying to understand the reason for the praying towards the east and from the most ancient sources I notice strange things. Especially Clement of Alexandria - does he mean the pagan temples are the reason for us to pray towards East? > In correspondence with the manner of the sun's rising, prayers are > made looking towards the sunrise in the east. **Whence also the most > ancient temples looked towards the west**, (Pagan temples?) that people > might be taught to turn to the east when facing the images. (What > images? The sun?) **I noticed similarity with the pagan writer of De architectura:** > (Pagan - 30–20 BC?) (Marcus Vitruvius Pollio?) - De architectura > CHAPTER V HOW THE TEMPLE SHOULD FACE > > 1. The quarter toward which temples of the immortal gods ought to face is to be determined on the principle that, if there is no reason to > hinder and the choice is free, the temple and the statue placed in the > cella should face the western quarter of the sky. This will enable > those who approach the altar with offerings or sacrifices to face the > direction of the sunrise in facing the statue in the temple, and > thus those who are undertaking vows look toward the quarter from which > the sun comes forth, and likewise the statues themselves appear to be > coming forth out of the east to look upon them as they pray and > sacrifice. The most hold reason today is that Christ will come from the East as John Damascus has interpreted Matthew 24:27. But the most ancient witnesses did not know anything about this, at least I could not find mention of this. John Chrysostom does not mention this when he talks about Matthew 24:27; (Luke 17:24); Origen, Tertullian, Clement, Basil and the rest before John Damascus does not mention such reason I could not find. I also notice that the meaning of the prayer towards east is changing trough the years. Do you know more writings mentioning the prayer towards the East? 1. (c. 593 to 571 BC?) - Ezekiel 8:15-16 - Old Testament 15 Then said he unto me, Hast thou seen this, O son of man? turn thee yet again, and thou shalt see greater abominations than these. 16 And he brought me into the inner court of the LORD's house, and, behold, at the door of the temple of the LORD, between the porch and the altar, were about five and twenty men, with their backs toward the temple of the LORD, and their faces toward the east; and they worshipped the sun toward the east. Ezekiel 8:15-16 2. (50BC - (37–41AD)?) - Book of Wisdom 16:27-29 27 For what was not destroyed by fire was melted when simply warmed by a fleeting ray of the sun, 28 to make it known that one must rise before the sun to give you thanks, and must pray to you at the dawning of the light; (I think - dawning of the light = (East) ἀνατολὴν) 29 for the hope of an ungrateful person will melt like wintry frost, and flow away like waste water.Book of Wisdom 16:27-29 3. (Pagan - 30–20 BC?) (Marcus Vitruvius Pollio?) - De architectura - [Early Christian Prayer and Identity Formation ](https://gnosis.study/library/%D0%93%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%81/+%20%D0%9D%D0%B5%20%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%BE%20%D0%BE%20%D0%B3%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%B5/ENG/Early%20Christian%20Prayer%20and%20Identity%20Formation.pdf) - [*De architectura*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_architectura) - [Vitruvius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitruvius) CHAPTER V HOW THE TEMPLE SHOULD FACE 1. The quarter toward which temples of the immortal gods ought to face is to be determined on the principle that, if there is no reason to hinder and the choice is free, the temple and the statue placed in the cella should face the western quarter of the sky. This will enable those who approach the altar with offerings or sacrifices to face the direction of the sunrise in facing the sta- tue in the temple, and thus those who are undertaking vows look toward the quarter from which the sun comes forth, and likewise the statues themselves appear to be coming forth out of the east to look upon them as they pray and sacrifice. 2. But if the nature of the site is such as to forbid this, then the principle of determining the quarter should be changed, so that the widest possible view of the city may be had from the sanctuaries of the gods. Furthermore, temples that are to be built beside. - [De architectura libri decem 4.5.1](https://www.chenarch.com/images/arch-texts/0000-Vitruvius-50BC-Ten-Books-of-Architecture.pdf) - [Vitruvii De architectura libri decem](https://archive.org/details/vitruviidearchit00vitr/page/202/mode/2up) 4. (c.100-160 AD?) - Apocrypha - Acts of Paul - Tertullian, who deemed the work to be heretical. “- Possibly, the earliest evidence for this convention is found in the Acts of Paul, where Paul is depicted praying just before he is beheaded: “Then Paul stood with his face to the east and lifting up his hands to heaven (Τότε σταθεὶς ὁ Παῦλος κατέναντι πρὸς ἀνατολὰς καὶ ἐπάρας τὰς χεῖρας εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν), prayed at length” (Mart. Paul 5) - [Early Christian Prayer and Identity Formation](https://gnosis.study/library/%D0%93%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%81/+%20%D0%9D%D0%B5%20%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%BE%20%D0%BE%20%D0%B3%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%B5/ENG/Early%20Christian%20Prayer%20and%20Identity%20Formation.pdf) - [Acts of Paul](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Paul) - [The Apocryphal Acts of Paul, Peter, John Andrew and Thomas](https://dn790007.ca.archive.org/0/items/apocryphalactsof00pickuoft/apocryphalactsof00pickuoft.pdf) 5. (197 AD) Tertullian (c. 155 – c. 220 AD) (Apologeticus…was written in Carthage in the summer or autumn of 197 AD) - [Apology](https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0301.htm) - [*Apologeticus*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologeticus#:~:text=Apologeticus%2C%20his%20most%20famous%20apologetic,2nd%20centuries%20had%20been%20convicted.) 6. (197 AD)Tertullian (c. 155 – c. 220 AD) (early summer of 197 AD) (Seems that pagans prayed towards the East as seen in Ezekiel 8:15-16 ) The work can be dated to the early summer of 197, following Severus bloody defeat of Albinus in February 197, which is referred to in the work. - [Ad nationes (To the nations)](https://www.tertullian.org/works/ad_nationes.htm) - [Ad Nationes (Book I)](https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/03061.htm) 7. (After 207 AD?)Tertullian (c. 155 – c. 220 AD) "of our dove", as he terms them, are always in "high and open places, facing the light" (Tertullian Adv. Val., c. iii), Of our dove, however, how simple is the very home!— always in high and open places, and facing the light! As the symbol of the Holy Spirit, it loves the (radiant) East, that figure of Christ. Nothing causes truth a blush, except only being hidden, because no man will be ashamed to give ear thereto. (Tertullian Adv. Val., c. iii). - [Against the Valentinians](https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0314.htm) - [Against the Valentinians](https://ccel.org/ccel/tertullian/against_valentinians/anf03.v.vi.i.html) 8. (198 AD–c. 203 AD) Clement of Alexandria (c.150-215 AD)(Stromata written c. 198 AD–c. 203 AD) - considered gnostic by himself. > And since the dawn is an image of the day of birth, and from that point the light which has shone forth at first from the darkness increases, there has also dawned on those involved in darkness a day of the knowledge of truth. In correspondence with the manner of the sun's rising, prayers are made looking towards the sunrise in the east. Whence also the most ancient temples looked towards the west,(Pagan temples?) that people might be taught to turn to the east when facing the images. (What images? The sun?) "Let my prayer be directed before Thee as incense, the uplifting of my hands as the evening sacrifice," say the Psalms. In the case of wicked men, therefore, prayer is most injurious, not to others alone, but to themselves also. If, then, they should ask and receive what they call pieces of good fortune, these injure them after they receive them, being ignorant how to use them. For they pray to possess what they have not, and they ask things which seem, but are not, good things. But the Gnostic will ask the permanence of the things he possesses, adaptation for what is to take place, and the eternity of those things which he shall receive. And the things which are really good, the things which concern the soul, he prays that they may belong to him, and remain with him. And so he desires not anything that is absent, being content with what is present. For he is not deficient in the good things which are proper to him; being already sufficient for himself, through divine grace and knowledge. But having become sufficient in himself, he stands in no want of other things. But knowing the sovereign will, and possessing as soon as he prays, being brought into close contact with the almighty power, and earnestly desiring to be spiritual, through boundless love, he is united to the Spirit. Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 7.7.43–46; - [The Stromata, or Miscellanies](https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/clement-stromata-book7.html) - [The Stromata (Book VII)](https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02107.htm) - [Clement of Alexandria](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_of_Alexandria) 9. (c. 185 – c. 253 AD) Origen of Alexandria - (Unknown date) (Origen. 32).44 Origen, On Prayer, Part 3 - Origen, Origen: Prayer, Exhortation to Martyrdom, ed. by Johannes Quasten and Joseph C. Plumpe, trans. by John J. O’Meara, Ancient Christian Writers (New York; Mahwah, NJ: Newman Press, 1954), XIX - [Origen On Prayer](https://www.ecatholic2000.com/fathers/origen.shtml) - [Origen, On Prayer (Unknown date). Translation](https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/origen_on_prayer_02_text.htm) - [Origen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen) - [Early Christian Prayer and Identity Formation](https://gnosis.study/library/%D0%93%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%81/+%20%D0%9D%D0%B5%20%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%BE%20%D0%BE%20%D0%B3%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%B5/ENG/Early%20Christian%20Prayer%20and%20Identity%20Formation.pdf) 10. (Maybe before 238 - 244 AD (Maybe 220 - 230 AD in Alexandria?)) Origen of Alexandria (c. 185 – c. 253 AD) Origen (185-253 AD) Homily on Numbers 2:1-34 - [Homilies On Numbers](https://vdoc.pub/download/homilies-on-numbers-656uqi23omg0) - [Homilies on Numbers](https://books.google.bg/books/about/Homilies_on_Numbers.html?id=P4pPyRXeWkUC&redir_esc=y) - [Origen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen) 11. (c. 185 – c. 253 AD) Origen of Alexandria (Similar to Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 7.7.43–46;) (Origen - Homily on the Third book of Moses) (Origen - Homilies on Leviticus) - [Homilies on Leviticus 1-16 (Fathers of the Church)](https://dokumen.pub/homilies-on-leviticus-1-16-fathers-of-the-church-0813200830-9780813200835.html) - [Няма налична електронна книга](https://books.google.bg/books?id=Eo9Da7xaBuUC&printsec=frontcover&redir_esc=y#v=snippet&q=%20from%20the%20east&f=false) Old Testament: Leviticus 16:14-16 (I think that the priest that sprinkles with the figner is facing West, facing the mercy seat - sprinkles on the mercy seat - the eastern direction - I think the face/the front side of the mercy seat and before the mercy seat - the priest seems to look towards the West, not East? In the Old Testement) 12. (330-379 AD) Basil the great St. Basil the Great, The Holy Spirit, 27,66 Basil, De Spir. Sancto 27.66; - [De Spiritu Sancto](https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3203.htm) 13. (c.335 – 394 AD) Gregory of Nyssa (Similar to Basil the Great, The Holy Spirit, 27,66) Gregory of Nyssa - Homily 5 on Lord's Prayer (Adam in Us) - [Homily 5 - Forgive Us Our Debts As We Forgive Our Debtors. And Lead Us Not Into Temptation, But Deliver Us From The Evil One.](https://orthodoxprayer.org/Articles_files/GregoryNyssa-Homily5%20Lords%20Prayer.html) - [Why do many old churches face east?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/62632/why-do-many-old-churches-face-east/80757#80757) 14. (c. 313 - 386 AD) Bishop Cyril of Jerusalem Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystogogic Catecheses XXXIII, 1073 B. as quoted in Jean Danielou, The Bible and the Liturgy, 30. - [Catechetical Lectures 13-23 (incl. Mystagogical Catecheses)](https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/catechetical-lectures-1323-incl-mystagogical-catecheses-9085) - [Early Christian Prayer and Identity Formation](https://gnosis.study/library/%D0%93%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%81/+%20%D0%9D%D0%B5%20%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%BE%20%D0%BE%20%D0%B3%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%B5/ENG/Early%20Christian%20Prayer%20and%20Identity%20Formation.pdf) 15. (3th. c. - late 4th. c. AD? - Syria?) Didascalia Apostolorum - The Teaching of the Apostles (1) The Holy Apostles have therefore decreed, first, that people should pray towards the East, because, that as the lightning that flashes from the East, and is seen unto the West, thus shall be the coming of the Son of Man. By this let us know and understand when we pray, that He shall be seen from the East, and towards it we expect Him and we worship Him. Commandments from the writing of Addai the Apostle. (Syrian Didascalia Apostolorum/Didascalia Addai, Teaching of the Apostles/Teaching of the Apostle Addai) - [The Teaching of the Apostles](https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0854.htm) - [The *Didascalia Apostolorum* in English](https://ia600205.us.archive.org/9/items/didascaliaaposto00gibsuoft/didascaliaaposto00gibsuoft.pdf) - [Facing east](https://tradice.net/2016/04/2016-04-14/#gsc.tab=0) Source say - Mentioned by Ephiphanius - (Haer. 70) refers to the Audians’ use of the Didascalia to justify their Quartodeciman practice. The text is called τῶν ἀποστόλων διάταξις; - [The reception history of the Didascalia](https://ancientchurchorders.wordpress.com/tag/epiphanius/) At the end of the 4th century it is quoted in the Pseudo-Chrysostom's *Opus Imperfectum in Matthaeum*. - [*Didascalia Apostolorum*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didascalia_Apostolorum) John Damascus may have his interpretations on (Matthew 24:27, Luke 17:24) from the *Didascalia Apostolorum*. 16. (c. 339 – 397 AD) Ambrose of Milan Bishop Ambrose’ De Mysteriis, (Myst. 2.7) - [Early Christian Prayer and Identity Formation](https://gnosis.study/library/%D0%93%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%81/+%20%D0%9D%D0%B5%20%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%BE%20%D0%BE%20%D0%B3%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%B5/ENG/Early%20Christian%20Prayer%20and%20Identity%20Formation.pdf) 17. (354 - 430 AD) Augustine of Hippo Augustine of Hippo, Augustine, Sermon on the Mount 2.5.18: - [ Our Lord’s Sermon On The Mount, according to Matthew](https://documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/0354-0430,_Augustinus,_De_Sermone_Domini_In_Monte_Secundum_Matthaeum_[Schaff],_EN.pdf) - [On the Sermon on the Mount, Book II](https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/16012.htm) 18. (c. 342–347 – 420 AD) Jerome - commentary on Ezekiel 8:15-16; - [Commentary on the Prophet Ezekiel](https://historicalchristian.faith/by_father.php?file=Jerome%2FCommentary%2520on%2520Ezekiel.html) - [Ефрем Сирин, прп. (†373)](https://azbyka.ru/biblia/in/?Ezek.8:16&r) 19. (c. 450 AD) - Pope Leo I (Leo the great) (c. 391 – 461 AD) - Leo the Great in Sermon XXVII Leo the Great, Sermons, ed. by Thomas P. Halton, trans. by Jane Patricia Freeland and Agnes Josephine Conway, The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1996), XCIII, 113: - [Why do many old churches face east?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/62632/why-do-many-old-churches-face-east) - [Sermon 27](https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360327.htm) 20. (c. AD 675/676 - 749 AD) John of Damascus Chapter 12. Concerning Worship towards the East. - [An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith (Book IV)](https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/33044.htm) - [John of Damascus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_of_Damascus) St. John of Damascus, John Damascene, Three Treatises on the Divine Images 2.16

Most discussions of the Creed suggest that both the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches accept the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed and that the only substantive difference between them is the Filioque. Yet there is one other significant difference: The Catholic Creed includes "God from God" in the section on the Son of God (see ), while the Orthodox Creed does not have a similar clause (see , ). Why do they differ on whether to include this language, and does it signal any difference in dogma? NOTE: As of January 11, 2026, this question has not been answered. The discussion has provided documentation of the difference by not an explanation of why they are different.

Jesus is high priest to his god currently. Is his god the triune god? If not, why do trinitarians have a different god than Jesus' "Only True God"? Does this not define 2 gods in their theology? For example... John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with the triune god and the Logos was the triune god....." Remember there is only 1 God. Its very simple. Ask yourself... Is my god the same as Jesus' god? If your god is not ONLY the person of the Father (like Paul's), but rather a 3 person being, wouldn't that mean there are 2 different gods being served? The triune god. And Jesus' god? I imagine Trinitarians will say their God is also the Father. But they can only claim 1 god. So is it the Father or the being? Which is the best answer between the 2? Y is defined as the complete composition of X,Z,and W. Y needs to be all 3. If we define Y (the Trinity) as being completely comprised of X (the Father), Z (the Son), and W (the Holy Spirit), then logically, if Y encompasses multiple distinct entities, it cannot ever equal just one of those entities (X). X can never equal Y. This leaves us with 2 different gods being served. How do Trinitarians get around this logical failure?

I know the story that they lacked our current biological knowledge. I know the story that they still considered abortion to be a grave evil. These two excuses seem inadequate to me. Regardless, they are still quoted to this very day by pro-abortion apologists. Aquinas was even quoted by name in *Roe vs. Wade* in support of historical theological confusion about abortion.*
*cf. *The Fake and Deceptive Science Behind Roe v. Wade: Settled Law v. Settled Science* by Thomas Hilgers, W., MD . Since they were so brilliant all they had to do was look at Psalm 51:5 “in sin did my mother conceive me” which clearly proves original sin is present at conception which necessitates a spiritual soul. The answer escapes me and causes me to question if they were they really so brilliant. If they were brilliant, then why the primitive thinking on ensoulment?

Sometimes, when I talk with LDS missionaries about passages in scripture, they'll reject some verses I have memorized because they are NLT or NIV, not KJV. I had tried memorizing the KJV first in the past, but I got discouraged really quickly. It was hard for me to remember the older versions of words (thee/thou/ye), older grammatical conventions, slightly devolved word definitions. I gave up and decided to stick with the NLT. But recently, I encountered another pair of missionaries, prompting me again to re-evaluate my NLT decision. Sometime in the past I dismissed the NKJV to be just as difficult to memorize as the KJV, but after giving it another look... I can't imagine why. Surprisingly, the NJKV seems to fall on the easier side of the memory-difficulty spectrum😄. I was very relieved and happy when I discovered this, so I'm more than comfortable with switching over... but only if it would be useful for discussions with Latter Day Saints. What is the LDS perspective on the NJKV? Is there an official stance? Crucially, a stance that *most missionaries* would know about and reiterate? On a practical level, would the NJKV be a safe choice to memorize and recall for discussions? Or would it become just as futile as an NLT when there are word/phrasing differences? **Edit:** Thanks to Hold To The Rod for clarifying to me that Latter Day Saints are not actually KJV-only. My mistake!

We read on [p. 15](https://archive.org/details/a591687700mannuoft/page/n18/mode/1up) of Cardinal Henry Edward Manning's [*Lectures:*](https://dn790008.ca.archive.org/0/items/a591687700mannuoft/a591687700mannuoft.pdf) >A man whom Englishmen are fond of calling the greatest philosophical intellect that England ever produced, in one of his essays, has used these words: Quoting the book of Psalms, he says, "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." It is not said, "The fool hath thought in his heart;" that is, the fool did say so in his heart, because he hoped there might be no God. He did not say it in his head, because he knew better. Based on the context of the text from which the extract was taken, it appears that the unnamed philosopher was an atheist or sorts. Cardinal Manning died in 1892. I vaguely recall having read something some time ago in which Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) quoted Psalm 14:1 to suit his purposes, but I have since not been able to locate it. Besides, it is quite unlikely, I think, that Cardinal Manning was referring to someone who was at most in his twenties when the comment was made. Also, I have not been able to determine if David Hume had ever quoted from the Psalms. (I thought he might be a candidate.) QUESTION: Does anyone know (or know likely) whom Cardinal Manning was referring to in the above extract? If so, can you also provide the source where Ps. 14:1 is used by that person? Thank you.

According to this article from the The Society for Effective Evangelism : > Up until Billy Sunday, altar calls were invitations for seekers to come to an after-meeting or inquiry room where counselors would help people understand their heart condition. These ministers worked in concert with the Holy Spirit to help seekers repent and yield to God, and to pray that God would save them. Someone was saved only when they were born again—when the Holy Spirit came into them. Conversion and being born again meant the same thing. Of course, I've been to _many_ Christian events that feature altar calls and even more where the speaker simply asks non-Christians to "pray the Sinner's Prayer " with them. I assumed the practice went back at least to Revivalists such as Charles Finney, but according the the article, evangelists before Sunday provided individual counseling before telling people they were saved. Is there any evidence the practice of "salvation by altar call" is older than Sunday?

The Catholic Church teaches that Peter was the first pope and that papal succession continued down through history to the present day. However, neither the Orthodox nor the Protestant churches recognize this. So, what are the biblical arguments (Protestant or Orthodox) against the papacy and papal succession?

Doctrinal differences abound in Christianity. This is attested to by the numerous times the Church has suffered splits and given birth to different denominations, branches, and sub-branches. The question [Can somebody summarize the different “branches” of Christianity to me, and explain why they exist in the first place?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/74835/can-somebody-summarize-the-different-branches-of-christianity-to-me-and-expla) gets this point across tremendously well. But this inevitably leads us to ask the question: **Why did God allow something like this to happen in the first place?** If we look at the root causes of the many divisions in the history of the Church, one main reason that immediately stands out is the many different ways in which the Scriptures have been interpreted throughout history. And this is nothing to be surprised about when you have Scriptures that are inherently ambiguous, lending themselves to different, and sometimes mutually exclusive, interpretations. And just to make matters even more complicated, even before we get to interpret anything, the question about what is considered part of the canon of Scripture and what isn't is also controversial in and of itself (for evidence of this, simply take a look at the [many questions](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/canon?tab=Votes) that have already been asked on the topic of the canon of scripture). If God was behind the scenes inspiring and guiding the compilation of the Bible, then it follows that the existence of ambiguity in Scripture (what should be included in the canon, how Scripture should be interpreted, etc.) couldn't have been a coincidence. It had to be intentional. God, for some unknown reason, deliberately and intentionally allowed ambiguity to exist in Scripture. Why? ____ *(\*) Note: I don't intend this question to be opinion-based, so I would rather encourage answers that draw on reputable sources, e.g., the works of reputable Christian philosophers or theologians that have discussed this question before, etc. Alternatively, if a denomination has an official denominational answer to the question, it would be great to know about that too.* ______ Related questions: - [How do proponents of Sola Scriptura choose the “correct” interpretation of a key Bible verse?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/83846/how-do-proponents-of-sola-scriptura-choose-the-correct-interpretation-of-a-key) - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/89211/50422 - [Are there any denominations that give official advice on how to handle the uncertainty in their doctrines?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/81069/are-there-any-denominations-that-give-official-advice-on-how-to-handle-the-uncer)

I will often engage in dialogue with Catholics and Orthodox Christians who tell me that the doctrine of their churches affirms that salvation is by grace through faith. If that is true, then what distinguishes Lutherans from Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians?

A friend recently made the following statement regarding the heresy of Arianism: >The conflict was about the nature of Christ before the Creation of the Universe. It was a Philosophical/Metaphysical cum Theological difference which really had no practical manifestation in terms of Saving Faith or practice. As Arianism denies the divinity of Christ and the fullness of the Godhead, I am inclined to disagree. (The emphasis of my studies are mostly biblical theology with an Old Testament emphasis and this is a systematics issue.) What impact, if any, does an Arian view of Christ have on a person's salvation? While I welcome answers from a purely biblical perspective, I also welcome historical arguments and answers quoting authors from the time of and close to the controversy.

The Babylon spoken of in Revelation chapter 14;8 KJV is clearly labeled as a city, and in Chapter 18:1 & 2 it seems to be more of a systematic degradation of God's holy words. In chapter 19:1, 2 & 3 God is judging Babylon which would lead me to believe that it would more suit judging Satan and his minions. Rev_14:8 KJV And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication. Rev 18:1 & 2 KJV 1 And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory. 2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird. Rev 19:1, 2 &3 KJV 1 And after these things I heard a great voice of much people in heaven, saying, Alleluia; Salvation, and glory, and honour, and power, unto the Lord our God: 2 For true and righteous are his judgments: for he hath judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand. 3 And again they said, Alleluia. And her smoke rose up for ever and ever. David Gusik puts forth these words in his commentary on Revelation 14:8; >Revelation 14:8 An angel announces Babylon's fall. >And another angel followed, saying, "Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she has made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication." Babylon is fallen: More on Babylon will come in Revelation 17. For now, it is enough to see it representing mankind in organized rebellion against God. "Prophetically, 'Babylon' sometimes refers to a literal city, sometimes to a religious system, sometimes to a political system, all stemming from the evil character of historic Babylon." (Walvoord) Because she has made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication: When we are told that Babylon has led all nations into fornication, the main idea is spiritual fornication - the worship of other gods. However, we are never surprised to see spiritual fornication accompanied with literal immorality. Revelation 18 - The Fall of Commercial Babylon A. Announcing the fall of Babylon. 1. Introduction: is this the same Babylon as is described in chapter 17? a. Good scholars see the issue differently. Some point to two manifestations of Babylon, one religious and one commercial or material. Others see the two as one, both being judged at the same time. b. There are definite similarities between Babylon as described in Revelation 17 and Revelation 18. Both are under the rule of Antichrist, and have ruling queens; both are filled with blasphemy; both hate the saints, and shed their blood; both are associates with kings in fornication; and both are under judgment and destroyed. c. However, there are also some significant differences: Religious Babylon (Rev. 17) Commercial Babylon (Rev. 18) 1. Mystery Babylon 1. Great Babylon; Babylon the Great 2. Symbol: a harlot woman 2. Symbol: a great city 3. Identified with Rome (inland) 3. Identified with a port city 4. Woman, whore, and mother 4. Habitation, great city, market place 5. Guilty: religious 5. Guilty: greed, self-indulgence abominations 6. Destroyed by a political 6. Destroyed by a sudden act of God power that previously supported her d. In my view, it is best to see them as intertwined, yet somewhat distinct. Religious Babylon of Revelation 17 is judged at the mid-point of the seven- year period of tribulation. Commercial Babylon is judged at the end of that period.< Those and other commentaries I have studied have caused me to wonder if they were the same or one religious and one Commercial Can anyone recommend any sources for further study on this subject?

I have four closely related questions on this topic (if overall this is considered too broad, I'm happy to receive advice as to which questions—if any—would be better off in a separate post): 1. What is the earliest documented use of the term "Queen of Heaven" being applied to Mary, the mother of Jesus? (cf. Wikipedia on *the Virgin Mary as Queen of Heaven* - there seems to be a contradiction between the first and second paragraphs in this section ). 2. Given that the only Biblical references to this title are regarding a false goddess being worshipped in the nation of Judah during Jeremiah's time (cf. Wikipedia's *Queen of heaven (antiquity)* ), is there evidence of any discussion or dissent (over whether such a title was in any way appropriate) in evidence in the wider church when this title was being adopted and disseminated (prior to the Reformation)? 3. Are there any arguments from Church Fathers or other historical records of why such a title would have been adopted in the first place? 4. It seems on the surface (at least to some) that this might be an example of Syncretism , but perhaps there are convincing arguments that can exclude that possibility - if so what would be the outline of such arguments? Or otherwise, what additional evidence (ie not covered in 2. or 3.) would support the idea that this *is* an example of Syncretism? **Please note**: I'm looking for answers that are supported by quotes from Church fathers and Church historians, not doctrinal expositions from denominational perspectives. I'm only looking for a very brief outline of an argument (one way or the other) to question 4 (one or two paragraphs maximum) - if there are the seeds of a worthwhile further question to be developed from such responses, I will ask a separate question to elicit a more detailed answer."

When reading this [*Wikipedia* article on Sealing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealing_(Mormonism)) there is this paragraph: > The union of a sealed couple is regarded as valid only if both individuals have kept their religious covenants and followed Christ's teachings. **Just as deceased individuals may refuse any temple ordinance (such as a sealing) done by proxy on their behalf**, couples, parents, and children who were sealed to each other in life may refuse to accept a sealing of which they were a part. **No one will be sealed to any one with whom they do not want to be sealed.** I also read this about [Baptism (by proxy) for the dead](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/baptisms-for-the-dead) : > Some people have misunderstood that when baptisms for the dead are performed, deceased persons are baptized into the Church against their will. This is not the case. **Each individual has agency, or the right to choose**. The validity of a proxy baptism depends on the deceased person accepting it and choosing to accept and follow the Savior while residing in the spirit world. The names of deceased persons are not added to the membership records of the Church. With the LDS church having practices where my descendants *may* in the future convert into the LDS church, and who then potentially want to baptize me by proxy (after my death) in a temple ordinance, how should I express my desire so that my future descendants will respect my wish *not* to be baptized into the LDS church (or sealed to them) by proxy? Hence the question: **How do individuals who refuse, notify the church so that living members do not attempt to perform temple ordinance on their behalf, after they pass away?** Will noting the wish in their Last Will and Testament be sufficient, or do they need to do something more, such as filling out a form?

Recently, I was discussing with some other users on this site the question of whether birds are dinosaurs or not. *(If you have a strong opinion on that, no need to leave a comment on this post - the discussion is in this chatroom .)* This leads to a slightly different topic, i.e. how organisms are classified in the first place. For the evolutionist, the question of whether birds are dinosaurs is a question of fact. In evolutionary biology, taxonomy is meant to reflect the family tree of organisms descended from a common ancestor. Therefore, a grouping is a claim of objective fact. Granted the *rankning* of taxa as "genus" or "family" etc. is subjective, but there is an objectively correct nesting based on ancestry. For instance, the category of "Mammalia" is all the descendants of the ancestral mammal. "Chiroptera" is all the descendants of the ancestral bat. When evolutionists classify bats as mammals, they are making the factual claim that the ancestral bat is descended from the ancestral mammal. (And of course, the existence of an objectively correct nesting should never be interpreted to mean that it can always be accurately discerned.) For the creationist, on the other hand, I don't see any apparent objective standard for classifying organisms that aren't descended from a common ancestor. On the topic of birds and dinosaurs, for instance, many creationists hold that birds are definitely not dinosaurs. Of these, Answers in Genesis is probably the most hardcore. They claim that this position is necessitated by Scripture , and go so far as to accuse young-earth creationists who believe otherwise as compromising with evolutionists and label them "Young Earth Evolutionists". They argue as follows: > Dinosaurs are land-dwelling animals. That means they were made on day six of creation (Genesis 1:24–25). Almost all birds are flying creatures to some degree, and they all have wings. Therefore, they most likely were all made on day five (Genesis 1:20–22). By saying or agreeing with the evolutionary claim that birds are dinosaurs or are most similar to dinosaurs, Dr. McLain is mixing groups made on different days of creation. However, AiG are somewhat inconsistent on this standard, as pointed out by this blog post by Joel Duff. The Bible classifies bats as birds (Leviticus 11:19), while Answers in Genesis is happy to teach children that bats are not birds but mammals. Also, other creation science organizations are more open minded. For instance: > However, the Bible uses functional classifications, according to the mode of locomotion and where they live, not anatomical ones...So on Day 5, the air creatures are called *‘ôph*, a generic word for flying creatures. This includes not only birds, but also bats and pterosaurs. Feathers are not mentioned. Similarly, there is nothing about the Day 6 land creatures that says that they cannot have feathers. **Thus creationists can’t rule out ‘feathered dinosaurs’ from Scripture alone.** > > "Did dinosaurs evolve into birds? " by Carter and Sarfati, published by Creation Ministries International. [emph. add] All this raises the question of how animals (or plants) can be classified objectively. It is not apparent what criteria are being used to determine whether bats are birds or mammals, other than the subjective judgment that they seem more mammalish than birdish. **Is there an objective standard which determines that traits like fur and lactation are more fundamental for classification than wings and flight?** Within the context of creation science, is the claim that bats are birds not mammals a claim of some objective reality? AiG does have an article related to this topic: "How Should Christians View Biological Classification? " by Henry F. Sanders, III. This goes at great lengths to criticize the evolutionary assumptions behind modern taxonomy, and calls for a return to Linnaeus's original idea. However, they give no argument that Linnaeus's system is *actually* correct. Sanders's conclusions are a little hard for me to construe. To those who would throw out taxonomy altogether, he says: > Some Christians have rejected taxonomy entirely in favor of a purportedly more biblical system. However, this position is functionally untenable. (I'm not sure exactly what he's referring to here.) His concluding argument in favor of Linnean taxonomy is based solely on practicality: > Having a system of classification, **however arbitrary,** is better than the abject disorder that would result without it. Removing the Linnaean system would return taxonomy to the veritable “Wild West” that it was before Linnaeus published his work, with names at the discretion of the taxonomist. This is certainly not a desirable outcome, nor could a Biblical replacement be achieved under the current ruling paradigm in the scientific community. > > [emph. added] They don't go as far as to say Linnean taxonomy is *actually* arbitrary, but make the softer claim that even if it is, it's still useful. So that's all building up to my main question: **For the Creation Science movement, is there an objective meaning to Linnean taxa (above the *baramin*-level)? Or are higher-level taxa indeed arbitrary?**

Lk. 2:35 (Douay-Rheims, 1899): > And thy own soul a sword shall pierce, that, out of many hearts, thoughts may be revealed How does a sword piercing Mary's heart cause thoughts to be revealed out of others' hearts? cf. Hermeneutics StackExchange question: "In Luke 2:35 what is meant by 'so that thoughts from many hearts may be revealed'? "