Colossians 2:9 -------------- > > HCSB For the entire fullness of **God’s > nature** dwells bodily in Christ, > > NASB: For in Him all the fullness of **Deity** > dwells in bodily form, **How did Arius interpret Colossians 2:9?** How did Arius view the Greek word Θεότητος ?

In an example of exceptional cases, NIV of Mtt 27:17 reads: > When the crowd had gathered, Pilate asked them, “Which one do you want me to release to you: Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus who is called the Messiah?”. < The Gospels sometimes use the nick- names of persons, for instance, Thomas which literally means 'the twin '. Now, Barabbas is a prominent figure in the Passion . The literal meaning of the name is ' Son of the Father, implying that his father was equally or more notorious as a criminal. But, then he was not born a criminal, and the nick-name Barabbas was probably imposed on him after he started showing his true colours! So, what was his given name ? In case Jesus shared his given name with the person nicknamed Barabbas, Pilate in the capacity of the judge in the capital punishment proceedings had to be extremely careful in identifying each of the two convicts before him. Is that the reason why he used the attribute of Messiah for Jesus ? Are there any apocryphal writings or scholarly views on the topic ?

In a [previous question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/101109/61679) addressing skeptical analogies aiming to cast doubt on the evidential worth of testimonies for extraordinary claims, I cited [this source](https://youtu.be/MEEEJ0SrC60?t=525) which I'd like to revisit here with a different focus: > *Stephen Meyer*: And then that there were reports that he had been, that he had appeared to many after being resurrected. So there's a whole ... > > *Joe Rogan*: Right, but there's reports of Bigfoot. > > *Paulogia*: Right again Joe, but at least for Bigfoot we have first-hand reports. For Jesus's resurrection all we have are **reports of reports**. At best. More likely, **reports of reports of reports of reports**. Bigfoot is in higher evidential standing. Suppose I pick up a modern Bible, say, a contemporary King James Version, and peruse the four gospels. How can I ascertain that I'm indeed delving into a reliable eyewitness account sourced directly from about 2000 years ago? How do I know I'm not just perusing a 'report of a report of a report of a report' that might have undergone significant manipulation and alteration over time due to tradition, vested interests pushing certain agendas, and so forth? What lines of evidence and arguments should persuade any rational, neutral, and open-minded individual into believing that the gospels we possess today genuinely preserve trustworthy eyewitness testimonies, and aren't merely dismissible as 'reports of reports of reports of reports' as Paulogia seems to suggest in the quote?

The most standard problem of miracles, attacked by Christian apologists, is that miracles break the immutable laws of physics, and therefore by definition are logically impossible. This was put forward best by David Hume. Many Christian apologists address and possibly rebute this, in various ways. But what about the second-order problem of miracles? That is, let's grant that the Creator and wonderworkers intervene in the laws of nature. How, then, do you guarantee that you get the right type of miracles and avoid the wrong type of miracles? That is, how do you get the happy miracles like Elisha filling the widows jars with superabundant oil, and avoid the unhappy miracles like turning into a halite formation? Every Christian who believes in miracles seems to be bent that they'll be something good, like getting an incurable cancer healed. But how does the Christian get these joyous miracles without also opening the possibility that they could accidentally turn someone to stone as a result? Why do faith pastors rejoice that they can multiply food but don't fear that they'll literally turn their son into a literal sheep? It sounds silly, but it's difficult to imagine a world where you allow only good energies to pour from Heaven (which is what all faithful Christians really want) without also allowing for evil energies from Greek mythology to flow from Gehenna. What is your reflection?

[An old CSE question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/91994/how-do-biblical-unitarians-explain-1-timothy-316-which-says-god-was-manifest) which has recently attracted a bounty has an answer that criticises the King James Version translation of 1 Timothy 3:16. This question is not about that specific Bible verse but is about the claim that the KJV is biased when it comes to Scriptures that support the Trinity, that it is peppered with error and is not a true translation but an adaptation of previously released translations with selective interpretation. The King James Version used the Received Text (the Textus Receptus) in the compilation of the New Testament. In 1881 Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton J. A. Hort printed their New Testament in Greek, later known as the Critical Text. Dismissing the Textus Receptus as an inferior text rife with errors, Westcott and Hort compiled a new Greek text, with special focus on two fourth-century manuscripts, the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus. The Critical Text has become the standard Greek text used for modern interpretation and translation for nearly two generations. The Critical Text was the one chiefly used for the English Revised Version and the later American Standard Version. Today, the updated and revised Critical Text is the Greek manuscript basis for the New International Version, the New American Standard Bible, the English Standard Version, and virtually every other modern English translation of the Bible. My question is whether there is any evidence to suggest that the Critical Text is less biased when it comes to the doctrine of the Trinity or if the Received Text is a more reliable and authentic rendition of New Testament Greek. See this question about the Unitarian influence with Westcott and Hort: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/90360/how-do-proponents-of-the-critical-text-respond-to-the-claim-that-it-preserves

I previously asked *https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/101067/61679* . Here I'm relaxing the conditions. In other words, I'm happy with articles published in [Answers Research Journal](https://answersresearchjournal.org/) , [Journal of Creation](https://creation.com/journal-of-creation-articles) , or any other similar venue. According to the Young Earth Creationist research community, have there been significant research breakthroughs, such as figuring out a successful model that does away with some nagging scientific objection to YEC, etc.? To avoid excessively long answers, listing a representative sample with the 10 most notable research articles along with a brief summary and explanation would be fine.

I am looking for an ESV Bible website that allows you to save your bookmarks in a more flexible way. I find that I usually bookmark certain passages but I'm always challenged in not being able to find those bookmarks. Most Bible apps/sites give you all of your bookmarks in a long list, typically from most recent to oldest, which does not work well for me. **Is there a platform that lets you organize said notes like a file directory?** I have already looked at [YouVersion](https://www.youversion.com/) , [BibleGateway](https://biblegateway.com/) , [esv.org](https://www.esv.org/) , but they don't have the feature.

Do pseudepigraphical books such as the testaments of the patriarchs or the gospel of Thomas still contain accurate historical information about the biblical era even if they contain some false doctrine?

To the best of my knowledge, when Jews fast they either have - a **minor fast**, where they don't eat or drink anything at all, not even water, from sunrise until what they traditionally consider the next day, that is, sunset, OR - a **full fast**, in which, again, total restraint from all food and drink, from sunrise until sunset, and *throughout* the darkness of the "next day", so that is a full 24-hour day in our modern understanding. When Jesus fasted for 40 days in the desert (*cf*. Matthew 4:1-11), did he not have anything to eat or drink at all?

Recently I was reading some of the writings of a Christian writer named Steve Quayle, and was wondering if what he teaches is supported by the Bible. From what I understand he teaches that the Nephiliim mentioned in Genesis 6 were fallen angels, and that their offspring were literal giants. Then, as time progressed, these giants somehow ended up becoming the modern day bigfoots. Along with their large size he also teaches that they can use 'stargates' to travel around, and that they can move objects with their voices. My question I suppose, is whether or not any of this is biblical. (Here's the link to his website, he used to have another website called genesis6giants but I cant seem to find it. https://www.stevequayle.com/

Bigfoot was brought up by Joe Rogan during his interview with Stephen Meyer, as discussed in Paulogia's review of the interview in [this video](https://youtu.be/MEEEJ0SrC60?t=525) : > **Stephen Meyer**: And then that there were reports that he had been, that he had appeared to many after being resurrected. So there's a whole ... > > **Joe Rogan**: Right, but there's reports of Bigfoot. > > **Paulogia**: Right again Joe, but at least for Bigfoot we have first-hand reports. For Jesus's resurrection all we have are reports of reports. At best. More likely, reports of reports of reports of reports. Bigfoot is in higher evidential standing. Another [atheist source](https://www.atheistrepublic.com/gallery/bigfoot-has-more-eyewitness-claims-jesus-christ-s-resurrection) similarly asserts: > Bigfoot Has More Eyewitness Claims Than Jesus Christ’s Resurrection Indeed, according to [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigfoot#Sightings) (which in turn cites other sources): > **Sightings** > > According to Live Science, there have been over 10,000 reported Bigfoot sightings in the continental United States. About one-third of all claims of Bigfoot sightings are located in the Pacific Northwest, with the remaining reports spread throughout the rest of North America. Most reports are considered mistakes or hoaxes, even by those researchers who claim Bigfoot exists. > > Sightings predominantly occur in the northwestern region of Washington state, Oregon, Northern California, and British Columbia. According to data collected from the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization's (BFRO) Bigfoot sightings database in 2019, Washington has over 2,000 reported sightings, California over 1,600, Pennsylvania over 1,300, New York and Oregon over 1,000, and Texas has just over 800. The debate over the legitimacy of Bigfoot sightings reached a peak in the 1970s, and Bigfoot has been regarded as the first widely popularized example of pseudoscience in American culture. To provide additional material for consideration, here is a two-part interview with a Bigfoot eyewitness that a Reddit user recommended [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/bigfoot/comments/16mdj38/sharing_my_favorite_witness_video_interview/) : [part one](https://youtu.be/TsDM4b5SqaQ) and [part two](https://youtu.be/aROJHXkSm64) . (It's interesting to note there's a whole Reddit community dedicated to Bigfoot.) So, the atheistic argument from analogy goes something like this: Given the multitude of eyewitness reports supporting Bigfoot's existence, with many still alive and accessible for interview today, it's still deemed rational by most people to dismiss Bigfoot's existence, because most people consider the evidence weak and uncompelling given such an extraordinary claim (i.e., the well-known *"extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"*). Thus, if we use the same epistemology consistently, says the atheist, shouldn't we also dismiss claims about Jesus' resurrection? After all, this is similarly an extraordinary claim, and the evidence available is arguably even weaker, as the number of purported witnesses is far fewer, and none are alive today for interrogation (and as Paulogia remarks in the video linked at the beggining, it's quite likely that what we have is not even reports of reports, but reports of reports of reports of reports). How do Christians break the symmetry? How is this atheistic argument from analogy invalid? --- **Note**. There is a similar purported analogy between Jesus' resurrection and the golden plates. The following is a very thought-provoking discussion: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/84581/61679

The Book of Enoch is famous for being quoted quite a few times in the New Testament. [This wikipedia page lists dozens of books that bible quotes that aren't canon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-canonical_books_referenced_in_the_Bible) . I've seen arguments for why these books aren't included, but I've never seen anyone explain why the bible quotes them then. If the Book of Enoch isn't canon for instance, then why is Jude when it quotes it 4 or 5 times? What about all the other books the page lists? To be clear again, I'm not asking why these books aren't canon. You can find plenty of explanation for them. I want to know why books that quote it are considered canon. Wouldn't this invalidate them? Some of these are pretty major claims, like mentioning 'the watchers' from the book of Enoch. On top of this, there's also the common assumption that demons are fallen angels, but I've heard this isn't mentioned in any canonical book other than The Book of Enoch! Why is it such a common belief when its only mentioned in a non-canonical text. And yes, I know the Ethiopian church accepts it as canon, but that doesn't fix all the other less famous non-canonical books. What's the justification? As far as I'm aware, no bible verses defend these non-canonical books, they just take them for granted. Its also well-known that the infamous Book of Enoch heavily influence Christianity in its earliest years, thus why its quoted so many times. Regarding this, I do know that some books are simply lost. The letters mention other letters that are considered lost. Famously one of them is nothing but a reply to a letter that was sent to Paul mainly questioning his authority. This doesn't explain most books though, namely the ones that are 'historical' in nature.

I was wondering in what conditions a believer could make a religious marriage with an atheist/agnostic in the Orthodox church. In some places I read that this is fully impossible, but some people told me that this could be accepted in some places. NB: is it different in eastern and western Europe?

Is there anything in Christian canon that stipulates a belief in God is required to call oneself a Christian? Like in Islam, the shahada (profession of faith in Allah), is required to call oneself a Muslim. A reason an atheist would want to participate in Christian social frameworks, as I understand it, is if they compartmentalize the foundational dogma/mythology, which they find false or contrary to evidence, and the actual effect that resulting institutions have had on society, which would be positive. In a way, it would be the opposite from a person who believes in god but dislikes organized religion, a person who affirms the value churches and their social impact have imparted on society despite the fiction of its foundational narratives. A pragmatic Christian.

The *Ten Commandments* is often shown as a nice list with ten short statements, whereas in the Bible it exists as a long block of text in Exodus 20:2–17 and Deuteronomy 5:6–21. For reference: > *Exodus 20:2-17 (HCSB)* > > 2 I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the place of slavery. > > 3 Do not have other gods besides Me. > > 4 Do not make an idol for yourself, whether in the shape of anything in the heavens above or on the earth below or in the waters under the earth. 5 You must not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the fathers' sin, to the third and fourth [generations] of those who hate Me, 6 but showing faithful love to a thousand [generations] of those who love Me and keep My commands. > > 7 Do not misuse the name of the LORD your God, because the LORD will punish anyone who misuses His name. > > 8 Remember to dedicate the Sabbath day: 9 You are to labor six days and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. You must not do any work—you, your son or daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the foreigner who is within your gates. 11 For the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and everything in them in six days; then He rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and declared it holy. > > 12 Honor your father and your mother so that you may have a long life in the land that the LORD your God is giving you. > > 13 Do not murder. > > 14 Do not commit adultery. > > 15 Do not steal. > > 16 Do not give false testimony against your neighbor. > > 17 Do not covet your neighbor's house. Do not covet your neighbor's wife, his male or female slave, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor. If I were given the above text **without paragraphs nor verse markers** (which are a later addition), I'd have trouble spotting how it should be divided to exactly ten commandments. This might be a reason that there are multiple "competing" divisions. The different divisions that I know of are (adapted from a better table on Wikipedia ): | | A | B | C | |-|:-:|:-:|:-:| | I am the Lord your God | pre | 1 | 1 | | You shall have no other gods before me | 1 | 1 | 1 | | You shall not make for yourself an idol | 2 | 2 | 1 | | Do not take the name of the Lord in vain | 3 | 3 | 2 | | Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy | 4 | 4 | 3 | | Honor your father and mother | 5 | 5 | 4 | | You shall not murder | 6 | 6 | 5 | | You shall not commit adultery | 7 | 7 | 6 | | You shall not steal | 8 | 8 | 7 | | You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor | 9 | 9 | 8 | | You shall not covet your neighbor's wife | 10 | 10 | 9 | | You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor | 10 | 10 | 10 | For fun, see if you know which is used by whom! The answer is below, mouse-over to see it: >! **A**: Anglican, Reformed *(pre = preface)*
>! **B**: Orthodox; Jewish (Talmudic)
>! **C**: Catholic, Lutheran
>! As far as I know, almost all other denominations use A or B. What are the reasonings for these different divisions? Especially since the first division didn't stick, I'm quite sure the differences can't be arbitrary.

I am planing to get one of these translations for my personal use. If these are _too different_ from one another, I would like to get both. I love to compare _(for my personal study)_ different versions _(even different languages within the same version)_ of Bible. I own many Bibles, but as of **KJV** or **NKJV** I presently do not own any translation. This is why __I want to get some knowledge about each__ before deciding which one I will get... I have read a [Wiki webpage](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_King_James_Version) about NKJV, but the results there are not enough, as I'm not about modernized English language. I'm interested for the accuracy to the original scriptures. **What are the differences between _NKJV_ and _KJV_ translations?**

Well, recently I've been trying to better understand the different apologetics approaches, but am having a hard time understanding the presuppositional apologetics standpoint. I've heard several apologists claim that the book of Acts shows the apostles using evidentialist apologetics, and that even Jesus used a form of evidence based apologetics by using miracles to persuade people of his divinity. They use this as an argument against presuppositionalism. I was simply wondering how someone of the presuppositonal persuasion would respond to this argument.

Among some Protestant groups such as Evangelicals and Pentecostals, it is a very common question to ask "*Are you saved?*" or *"Are you born again?*". They say that the moment you believe in Jesus Christ, confess your sins, ask for forgiveness and have the peace of forgiveness, you are saved. The evidence of Salvation is then found in the life of the person through repentance, change in character, desire for God and His word, desire to share the gospel, etc. Do Catholics also have Assurance of Salvation? At what point in their life can they say that they are saved and will go to Heaven? Or, do they strive their whole life in order to have Salvation?

If God can preserve an inerrant Bible despite the fallibility of the humans who transmitted it, shouldn't He also be able to ensure an inerrant interpretation of that Bible despite human fallibility? Yet, disagreements on interpretation persist among Biblical inerrantists. After all, we only have access to our understanding of the text, not the text itself. So, what's the point of presupposing that we have an inerrant manuscript if its interpretation is prone to error? Take, for instance, the dispute between Old Earth and Young Earth Creationists over Genesis 1-11. Why presuppose the inerrancy of Genesis if interpretations are likely to be flawed? Similarly, consider debates about miracles, like [whether we should expect miracles from God or only those of Satan in the end times](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/100994/61679) . Or the debate between cessationists and continuationists on the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 13. Or disputes over how to interpret certain writings from Paul, with implications on the role of women in ministry. What's the use of assuming textual inerrancy if most interpretations are bound to be fallible and ambiguous anyway? How do Biblical inerrantists make sense of this prevalent phenomenon of exegetical disagreements? According to Biblical inerrantists, why hasn't the God who inspired an inerrant Bible also inspired an inerrant interpretation thereof?

From moral justification view, this verse about slavery is concerning to me, not really about the slavery, it's about the wife and children of a few slave that are left behind when he's freed. It states this in the verse >If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave and they had sons or daughters, then only the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. [ ‭Exodus 21:4 NLT‬] My questions are: 1. Would the kids continue as slaves for the master? 2. When the wife needs her conjugal rights, what should happen?