In Genesis 1, we observe that God the Father appears to be the one speaking creation into existence (“God said…”) and the Spirit of God is described as “hovering over the waters” (Genesis 1:2). However, the Son is not seen engaging in any form of activity in the narrative. This seems puzzling in light of John 1:1–3, which identifies the Word (the Son) as being present in the beginning and as the agent through whom all things were made, and Colossians 1:16, which states that all things were created through Him and for Him. Why doesn't Genesis include any mention or visible action of the Son in the creation account? How do Christian theologians reconcile this apparent absence with New Testament claims about the Son's role in creation?

I've heard Christians claim that at the Second Coming Christ will return with a physical human body, what is the Bible basis for this belief? It is clear that he has a physical flesh body once: > And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us > > John 1:14 I'm interested in an answer from any mainstream Christian belief that believes Christ will have a physical body at the Second Coming.

From what I can tell the majority of Protestants use and prefer the Masoretic Text, believing it to be a trustworthy representation of the original Hebrew text of Scripture. I see this based on the Bible translations they tend to use. These translations use the Masoretic Text primarily. - King James Version (KJV) - Revised Version (RV) - 1885 - American Standard Version (ASV) - 1901 - Revised Standard Version (RSV) - 1952 - New American Standard Bible (NASB) - 1971, updated 1995, 2020 - English Standard Version (ESV) - 2001 - New King James Version (NKJV) - 1982 - New International Version (NIV) - 1978, updated 1984, 2011 - Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) - 2004 - Jewish Publication Society Tanakh (JPS) - 1917, updated 1985 - Christian Standard Bible (CSB) - 2017 - Luther Bible (German) - 1534 - ... At the same time, most Protestants reject Orthodox Church Tradition as being untrustworthy. Here are 5 clear examples. 1. Veneration of Icons: The Eastern Orthodox practice of venerating icons—honoring images of Christ, the Virgin Mary, and saints through bowing, kissing, or lighting candles—is rooted in an oral tradition emphasizing their role as "windows to heaven." This practice, developed and defended during the Iconoclastic Controversies (8th-9th centuries), holds that icons facilitate a connection to the divine prototype they represent. Mainstream Protestants, particularly those from Reformed and Baptist traditions, reject this as idolatry, citing the Second Commandment (Exodus 20:4-5) against making graven images. They argue it lacks biblical mandate and reflects a later human tradition, not an apostolic one, despite Orthodox claims of its roots in early Christian art and the Seventh Ecumenical Council (787 AD). 2. Theosis (Divinization): The Orthodox doctrine of theosis, the process of becoming partakers of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4), is an oral tradition elaborated through the teachings of the Fathers (e.g., Athanasius: "God became man so that man might become god"). It emphasizes sanctification and union with God through participation in the sacraments and ascetic life. Many Protestants reject this as unbiblical or semi-Pelagian, asserting it overemphasizes human effort over divine grace alone. While some Protestant theologians acknowledge sanctification, they distance themselves from the Orthodox framing, seeing it as a development beyond scriptural boundaries. 3. Prayer for the Dead and Intercession of Saints: The Orthodox practice of praying for the departed and seeking the intercession of saints is an oral tradition traced to early Christian commemorations and the belief in a "communion of saints." This is evident in liturgical texts and the writings of figures like John Chrysostom. Mainstream Protestants, especially Evangelicals and Reformed churches, reject this, arguing it lacks explicit biblical support (e.g., Hebrews 9:27) and introduces mediators beyond Christ (1 Timothy 2:5). They view it as a later accretion, despite Orthodox assertions of its apostolic origin. 4. The Role of Tradition as Equal to Scripture: The Orthodox belief that oral tradition, including unwritten apostolic teachings (e.g., on worship practices or sacramental theology), holds equal authority with Scripture—based on 2 Thessalonians 2:15—is a foundational oral tradition. Protestants counter that this contradicts sola scriptura, insisting that only what is written in the Bible is authoritative. They see the Orthodox reliance on tradition as unverifiable and prone to human error, challenging the claim that it preserves an unbroken apostolic witness, especially given historical variations in practice. 5. Liturgical Practices and Sacramental Theology: Specific unwritten traditions, such as the detailed structure of the Divine Liturgy (e.g., the use of incense, specific chants, and the Epiclesis in the Eucharist), are considered apostolic by the Orthodox, passed down orally and refined over centuries. Mainstream Protestants, particularly low-church denominations like Baptists, reject these as non-essential or extra-biblical, favoring simpler worship forms aligned with their interpretation of New Testament gatherings (e.g., Acts 2:42). They question the apostolicity of these practices, suggesting they evolved post-apostolically. To my understanding, and based on other interactions on this website. They believe that the Church’s oral tradition could not possibly preserve Truth over a long period of time. (That is, it was affected by the additions of man, it was corrupted over time) But at the same time we know that the Masoretic text added Vowel points to Hebrew. The original text was all consonants, **the reader of the text had to remember from oral tradition the proper vowels**. This means since the Time of Moses until the 5th century AD when the Masorites added the vowels to every word in the Old Testament the proper understanding of the text was preserved through oral tradition alone. (See my answer here ) So my confusion is based on this apparent contradiction. 1. the Masoretic vowels are trustworthy, the Jews successfully preserved the vowels of Scripture for thousands of years, **through oral tradition alone**, until the Masoretes finally invented the vowel points hundreds of years after Christ. 2. But things like the oral traditions I listed above are untrustworthy, despite the oral tradition claim that these are directly from the Apostles. My question is simply if we cannot trust the early church to maintain oral tradition for a few hundred years, why do we trust the Jews to maintain oral tradition **inerrantly for millennia?** --- I looked at this other question, but it doesn't really answer my question. https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/40843/how-are-emendations-to-the-masoretic-text-viewed-within-the-doctrine-of-inerranc *P.S. I do not see how the catholic church would be relevant, I'm referring to the oral traditions of the Eastern Orthodox Church.*

The International Committee on Biblical Inerrancy has set out two magisterial documents related to an understanding of inerrancy: the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978) and the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics (1981). Earlier (1959), the Christian Reformed Church of North America settled on a definition and understanding of Biblical infallibility . According to one member of the Council on Infallibility: > The committee discussed at some length the usefulness of the word *inerrant* to describe the Bible. We concluded that it is not the most felicitous term to express the unique character of the Scriptures. We agreed that *infallible* and *trustworthy* fit the nature of the Bible more appropriately. The rest of his article speaks in general terms on why they rejected the term, but I'm looking for more than that. I'd like to understand specifically what about the reliability and authority of the Bible the ICBI affirms and denies that the CRCNA would not affirm and deny, and vice-versa.

***This might usefully take us back to what the [first question in this series](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/107548/10672) pointed to – Paul’s explanation to Christians*** in Galatians 3:10-12. That last verse is connected to Leviticus 18:5. And perhaps 1 Peter 3:18 might show God’s plan of saving humanity from this curse of the law. But I don’t want to cramp your answers, just so long as they actually stick to the confines of this last series of questions – if you don’t mind! Is it reasonable to suggest that justification cannot be obtained through human efforts; that faith in the work of Christ avails for salvation, and that reliance to any degree on works excludes trust in the finished work of Christ? This question is scoped for any Christians who believe perfect obedience to God’s laws are the goal all Christians should, and could, aspire to, to be justified; but as there may be very few such individuals on this site, to also seek answers from those who say such a thing is impossible, but that there are aspects of God’s law Christians must follow, albeit not with salvation in view, but to please and honour him.

In Catholicism is it a serious sin to make major decisions as if you don't believe in Catholicism? >"844. Negative doubt is the state of mind in which one remains suspended between the truth contained in an article of faith and its opposite, without forming any positive judgment either of assent to or dissent from the article, or its certainty or uncertainty >(a) If this suspension of decision results from a wrong motive of the will, which directs one not to give assent on the plea that the intellect, while not judging, offers such formidable difficulties that deception is possible, then it seems that the doubter is guilty of implicit heresy, or at least puts himself in the immediate danger of heresy. >(b) If this suspension of judgment results from some other motive of the will (e.g. from the wish to give attention here and now to other matters), the guilt of heresy is not incurred, for no positive judgment is formed. Neither does it seem, apart from the danger of consent to positive doubt or from the obligation of an affirmative precept of faith then and there (see 925), that any serious sin in matters of faith is committed by such a suspension of judgment. Examples: Titus, being scandalized by the sinful conduct of certain Catholics, is tempted to doubt the divinity of the Church. He does not yield to the temptation by deciding that the divinity of the Church is really doubtful, but the difficulty has so impressed him that he decides to hold his judgment in abeyance. It seems that there is here an implicit judgment (i.e., one contained in the motive of the doubt) in favor of the uncertainty of the divinity of the Church. Balbus has the same difficulty as Titus, and it prevents him from eliciting an act of faith on various occasions. But the reason for this is that an urgent business matter comes up and he turns his attention to it, or that he does not wish at the time to weary his brain by considering such an important question as that of faith, or that he thinks he can conquer a temptation more easily by diverting his thoughts to other subjects (see 257), or that he puts off till a more favorable moment the rejection of the difficulty. In these cases there is not heretical doubt, since Balbus forms no positive judgment, even implicitly, but there may be a sin against faith. Thus, Balbus would sin seriously if his suspension of assent should place him in immediate danger of positive doubt; he would sin venially, if that suspension be due to some slight carelessness." (McHugh & Callan, *Moral Theology* Vol. I) For example, suppose Bob is dating a Catholic woman and would like to marry her as soon as possible. However, he has some doubts about whether Catholicism is true or not and whether he will ultimately remain Catholic although he continues to practice Catholicism in the mean time. For this reason he is delaying getting married. What will happen to Bob if he dies suddenly? Sure he is theoretically a Catholic in good standing, but he is living as if he doesn't believe in it.

According to dispensationalist theology, sin is not directly caused by Satan - though he plays a significant role in temptation and deception - but rather originates from humanity's free will. However, if Adam and Eve were created with free will and declared "very good" by God (Genesis 1:31), does this imply an inherent flaw in their design that free will itself be a vessel for sin? If so, how does Dispensationalism reconcile God's perfect creation with the capacity for rebellion embedded in it?

It is my impression that across denominations that [compatibilism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism) is the dominant position and answer to the question of divine sovereignty and human free will. The main alternative is [libertarian free will](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_(metaphysics)) , which states that humans have totally free wills with no control (or maybe even no influence) by God. (The other alternative to compatibilism is total determinism, but that is not generally considered compatible with Christianity.) When it comes to the Bible, Christians have historically believed that God [inspired the writing of the scriptures](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inspiration) , but in a way that left the human author utilising their full creative capabilities. This has been called the "dual authorship" of the scriptures: when we ask who wrote the Bible, we can truly say both its human authors and God. This doctrine fits perfectly with compatibilism; it can be seen as just one particular application of how divine and human wills coexist. So how do those who reject compatibilism explain the inspiration of scripture? Can they also uphold the dual authorship of scripture? Can they uphold the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy/infallibility, or do they say that only when the Biblical authors wrote down a direct divine revelation (such as Habakkuk 2) is the text without flaw?

Those who believe in a pre-tribulation rapture often claim that it is clearly taught by the Scriptures, and the only possible interpretation for those who take the Bible at face value seriously. However, the arguments used to prove a pre-trib rapture are extremely complex and difficult for me to follow. Proponents generally acknowledge that no passage of Scripture teaches it plainly, but rather that it is an inference from a collage of different passages. Fair enough; I don't want to go into a full discussion of the arguments for/against here. Rather, I was struck while reading *Amillennialism and the Age to Come: A Premillennial Critique of the Two-Age Model* by Matt Waymeyer by this argument he presents rebutting a particular amillennialist argument regarding the meanings of "first" and "second" within Rev.20: > The third difficulty with this argument relates to the **perspicuity of Scripture.** Simply stated, it is difficult to imagine that any interpreter would ever have taken this approach...prior to its discovery in the second half of the 20th century. How could even the most diligent of Bible students be expected to reach this conclusion? Why would the apostle John use such obscure language, demanding such a convoluted interpretive process?...As Harold Hoehner observes, "The complexity of this view makes it suspect." > > (*Amillennialism and the Age to Come* page 221, emph. added) (*Note: this is not Waymeyer's argument against Amillennialism as a whole, nor any key part of it, but rather against a particular interpretation of the words "first" and "second" used in Rev. 20:5-6*.) Waymeyer is himself a dispensationalist and a believer in a pre-trib rapture. But I cannot see how his argument here does not apply equally to the pre-trib rapture. I am wondering how he might respond to his own argument: - It is difficult to imagine anyone taking this approach prior to its discovery in the 1800s. - How could even the most diligent of Bible students be expected to reach this conclusion? - Why would Jesus and the apostles use such obscure language, demanding such a convoluted interpretive process? - The complexity of this view makes it suspect. To be clear, **I am not asking about the correctness of the pre-trib rapture**. Rather, I am asking **how adherents reconcile this belief with the doctrine of perspicuity of Scripture**, when it is the conclusion of an extremely complex reasoning process, and there is little-to-no evidence that anyone took this view prior to modern times. ---- *Update in response to comments:* The comments have suggested two possible reconciliations: either the perspicuity of Scripture is false or the pre-trib rapture theory is not an important enough issue for perspicuity to be relevant (as perspicuity properly only applies to central doctrines). Both of these would resolve the issue, but I do not think many who believe in a pre-trib rapture would take either option. Waymeyer certainly would not, as he uses perspicuity as an argument against a minute detail in the whole amillennialist argument, demonstrating both that he believes in perspicuity of Scripture and that he thinks it may be applied to issues not of central importance.

Claims of unexpected and spontaneous fillings or full restorations of teeth with gold are not unheard of in many faith healing services and other religious gatherings. For example, in a [video](https://youtu.be/j09HsDbjLPg?t=28) recorded at the [Demonstrate Conference](https://www.facebook.com/events/living-faith-church/demonstrate-conference/390125865229060/) (an event hosted by [Jennifer Eivaz](https://www.jennifereivaz.com/)) , a woman testifies (*): > [...] I was, you know, asking God ... Holy Spirit to come ... and the miracle started happening ... **and then I got a gold tooth**! And it's so crazy, because you open your mouth, and everyone has their cameras looking at your mouth ... so I can't wait to brush my teeth and look at my gold tooth. Similarly, in [this thread](https://www.christianforums.com/threads/its-a-miracle-i-got-a-gold-tooth.3262453/) a woman shares (*): > [...] I attended a healing/revival meeting tonight, put on by Jeff Jansen, of Global Fire Ministries, and **the Lord gave many people gold teeth**!!! I had been praying and fasting all week for the Lord to show Himself big and make Himself soooo real to me !!! And guess what? **I got one, too**!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [...] > **Many people got gold teeth tonight** and NO ONE can tell me that it wasn't real because I saw it with my own eyes....one lady first noticed that **God turned 3 of hers gold on the top and I looked and saw them**. A few minutes later, **two of hers on the bottom had turned and I saw them**. **A few minutes later, 8 had turned gold and I saw them all--before and after**!!!! (*) Emphasis mine. In fact, the phenomenon seems to be relatively widespread, as many more examples recorded in different places and countries can be found with a quick YouTube search: [A](https://youtu.be/Y8GK_I5aiHc) , [B](https://youtu.be/yS4zzVCpXG0?t=35) , [C](https://youtu.be/ojyo_P5FBA4?t=35) , [D](https://youtu.be/wXu96t8ar4g) , [E](https://youtu.be/b402eJ3TdUc) , [F](https://youtu.be/1nNc6_Ycg_o) , [G](https://youtu.be/y7YaOdFlSqY?t=162) , [H](https://youtu.be/_0Iqk2YREyM) , [I](https://youtu.be/WW-dUYjVJwg) , [J](https://youtu.be/UItU6qlKvvA) , [K](https://youtu.be/nS6w5qAw7XY) , [L](https://youtu.be/5Qwn9JA8HU4) , etc. What are the oldest records of this phenomenon? Is it a relatively recent phenomenon in Church History (a few decades old) or can we find older records?

It seems like the overwhelming majority of Dispensationalist theologians today are Young Earth Creationists. However, this has not been the case historically as there have been many famous Old Earth Creationists in the Dispensationalist camp, including C.I. Scofield, author of the *Scofield Reference Bible*, who believed in the gap theory himself but expressly allowed for the day-age theory as a legitimate interpretation in the Reference Bible. More recently, I know that Norman Geisler was dispensationalist and Old Earth Creationist while opposing theistic evolution. **I am wondering whether there are any notable Dispensational theologians, pastors, or apologists, who would embrace theistic evolution instead of YEC or OEC.** I have not been able to find any. This makes sense given modern dispensationalism's emphasis on the plain reading of Scripture, but given that this wasn't always a principle of dispensationalism, it isn't categorically impossible for a dispensationalist to be a theistic evolutionist.

During Paul's second missionary journey, he meets Timothy and wants to take him along on the rest of his journey. The Bible makes a special point about Timothy being circumcised to avoid offending the Jews: > **Acts 16:1-3 (NASB) **
1 Paul came also to Derbe and to Lystra. And a disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek, 2 and he was well spoken of by the brethren who were in Lystra and Iconium. 3 Paul wanted this man to go with him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those parts, for they all knew that his father was a Greek. I understand that the Jews who knew Timothy would assume that he wasn't circumcised because his father wasn't Jewish. How would they know that he had been circumcised? Would Paul and Timothy just announce it? Would the Jews insist on verifying it?

I am wondering if there are any buildings that are still standing that Jesus visited. Thanks.

Relative to research I'm doing, I wanted to pick the brains of the community at large and see if anyone had an answer to a question. Josephus states that Pompey took Jerusalem in the third month (Sivan) of 63 BCE during the solemn fast. He then later states that Herod captured Jerusalem in the third month, on the same day, also on the solemn fast, in 37 BCE. >**Taken by Pompey:** [...] the city was taken on the third month, on the day of the fast, upon the hundred and seventy-ninth olympiad, when Caius Antonius and Marcus Tullius Cicero were consuls [...]. (Joseph. *AJ* 14.66) >**Taken by Herod:** This destruction befell the city of Jerusalem when Marcus Agrippa and Caninius Gallus were consuls at Rome, on the hundred and eighty-fifth olympiad, on the third month, on the solemnity of the fast, as if a periodical revolution of calamities had returned since that which befell the Jews under Pompey; for the Jews were taken by him on the same day [...]. (Joseph. *AJ* 14.487-88) To head certain responses off at the pass, Josephus did not say that it was the Day of Atonement (Joseph. *AJ* 14.66, 487) as some are wont to suggest. In a careful examination of both instances, that of Pompey and Herod, you will find, first, that Pompey started his war with the Jews in the spring (Joseph. *AJ* 14.38). It was a three-month siege that ended in the “third month,” on a day of fasting (Joseph. *AJ* 14.66; *BJ* 1.149). In the case of Herod, he started his siege toward the end of winter (Joseph. *BJ* 1.343; *AJ* 14.465). It was a five-month siege that ended in the “third month,” on a day of solemn fasting (Joseph. *BJ* 1.351; *AJ* 14.487-8). In the case of Pompey, a three-month siege beginning around the “beginning of the spring” would have had its conclusion in late spring, coincident with the third month of the Jewish ecclesiastical calendar. In the case of Herod, a five-month siege, which he began in winter, puts the fifth month likewise in the vicinity of late spring. So, to be clear on the subject, by context, neither instance can be even remotely construed to have occurred in autumn, which is where Tishri and the Day of Atonement fall. Concerning the third month, Sivan, I can find no record in any of the Jewish literature to pinpoint what fast this might have been. Nor can I definitively establish a day of the week. For the fast, the 23rd of Sivan is the closest example I could find, observed in modern times as the fast for omitting the offering of the first fruits in Jerusalem during the days of Jeroboam (*Shulchan Arukh*, Orach Chayim 580.2). However, it is suspect, since the circumstances surrounding the incident of Jeroboam interfering with the sacrifice of the people in Jerusalem looks to be coincident to Tabernacles rather than anything occurring in Sivan (1 Kgs. 12:25-33; Joseph. *AJ* 8.225-230). The earliest reference I could find to corroborate such a fast was the *Shulchan Arukh*, by Joseph Karo, 1563, as noted. Meanwhile, his most significant predecessor, Maimonides, made no mention of this fast in his *Misneh Torah*, c. 1168-1178. Nor are there any such references in the Talmud. I did find another reference to weekly fasts on Mondays and Thursdays (Tosef. to Ta'an. 2:4), but I couldn't determine their origin in terms of date, whether this was a regular practice in the first century BCE, or if it was something that came in vogue much later, as so many other observances did. For the day, there is an inference that Pompey took the city on the sabbath (Joseph. *AJ* 14.64), but regular, ritual fasting is prohibited on the sabbath (bErub. 41a, bTa’an 27b), so this inference is likely just a coincidence of wording. Dio Cassius also tells us that Jerusalem was taken on the Day of Saturn, or Saturday, in the instances of both Pompey and Herod (Dio Cass. 37.16.1-4, 49.22.2-5). However, I suspect, because of the prohibition against fasting on the sabbath (apart from occasional exceptions), that he merely inferred the Day of Saturn because of Pompey's tactics. Soooooo, I'm at a bit of an impasse. I can live with the conclusion that there was some unnamed fast in the month of Sivan if I can't find an answer. That Josephus says there was one is proof enough for me that a ritual fast in the third month existed in the first century BCE. The lack of a specific answer will neither make nor break the conclusions of my research. However, I've seen some intelligent people on here already. I'm hoping someone might be able to point me in the right direction to discover the identify of this enigmatic fast. It would be nice icing on the cake. And I would be much obliged if responses were confined to the question. I know the temptation is great to expound upon the various death of Herod hypotheses. But I just want to know about the fast if anyone can provide me with some useful information. The relevance of this question concerns the birth and life of Christ. It is part of a greater study on the death of Herod, which has a direct impact on the nativity, and by extension the ministry of Jesus Christ.

If someone quotes e.g. Leviticus 6:7, will this be the correct position no matter the language or translation?

Do Greek speaking Christians still use the Septuagint and original New Testament text? Or do they have a "modern Greek translation"? I ask because the New Testament is 2000 years old, presumably the Greek language has changed and evolved a lot in that time and so the original NT might not even be understandable to a modern Greek speaker. I'm interested in what Greek speaking Christians use in general (Catholics, Orthodox, Protestant), but I'm also very interested in the Greek Orthodox church in particular. I'm curious what version of the scriptures they draw upon in their liturgy: the originals? or a modern paraphrase/translation?

I'm curious about the relationship between those who adhere to young-earth creationism, and those who adhere to Rapture theology (as expressed in the *Left Behind* series, for example, and similar related belief systems most commonly associated with fundamentalism and dispensationalism). Are these, generally, the same people? Or is there a large divergence between these two groups? I know a good many Christians who believe in both. I know a few who reject both. I don't know specifically of anyone who accepts one view, but rejects the other, although they may exist and I just don't know because the discussion topic hasn't come up. And at least superficially, they both appear to have their roots in fundamentalism. But I wonder how substantial this similarity is. To be a bit more specific, 1. Are there any theological foundations on which both views are built? Or does one view depend in any way on the other? (Does Rapture theology depend on an literal Adam, for instance.) 2. What is the cultural relationship between the two theologies? If we were to, for example, draw a Venn diagram of these two theologies, what would it look like? Have any polls or studies been done on this topic?

One version I have says "The Gospel According to St. John." Another says "The Gospel of John." Is there not a history of the earliest titles given?

Sacred geometry is a part of the world's religions. It is found in ancient Africa, the ancient Middle East, ancient China and Asia and tribes in America. Methods of determining the spread of humans around the earth from artifacts fossils and cave painting it is possible to gain a temporal map of early humans and the cultures of these early humans. There is a common cultural trait amongst humans that have spread around the world in that of religion and the belief in God. These faiths involve a sacred geometry that is used to explain the beliefs of their cultures and can be found by archaeology in their architecture and objects of these cultures. During the phases of the ages such as the Bronze and Iron age, we find the use and knowledge of crystal geometry in forming metal tools in forges and the common geometric patterns in jewelry & symbols of these cultures. Science uses mathematics as an expression of scientific thought and geometry is used as an explanation of life on earth from fractal patterns in nature and Fibonacci to the golden Ratio and the movement and formation of the elements of the universe. If we all share this same interest in mathematics as an explanation of the world then why is there so much disagreement around the world in our religions and their deniers? This might sound like a naive question. However I wondered how Christianity could shed some light on this as they believe in the Trinity, a triangle of the form of God?

How did the early church fathers accepting the doctrine of the Trinity regard Christians who didn't accept the doctrine of the Trinity? By early I'm mean 2nd century or before. Constantine changes the picture of government interference. My understanding is they accepted them as Christians but heretical (a schism). But I'm not familiar enough with the church fathers to answer this. Related: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/107892/as-a-jewish-believer-in-jesus-i-view-him-as-my-messiah-the-son-of-god-but-not