I’m trying to compile the History of the Bible, at least the Christian recognition of what was inspired and what wasn’t in the Old Testament. I‘ll neglect the question of who had the authority to chose what books went where, as that is not the point. I have a question: What version of the Old Testament did the Early Church recognize as inspired, as in what Jewish canon did they trust to Remove or keep in the Septuagint? From that, when were books from the Septuagint removed from Western Bibles and for what reason, I already know the East kept the whole Septuagint because they aren’t as legalistic and let local tradition mostly rule, but when did the west do away with 3 and 4 Maccabees, 1 and 2 Esdras, and others? Most importantly, why?

Is anyone aware of any special symbolic significance of Jesus eating *specifically* fish and honeycomb while showing his disciples he was not "a spirit" when he appeared to them (and somewhat scared them) after his resurrection in [Luke 24:42-43](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+24%3A42-43&version=KJV) ?

Here is a simple summary of the purpose of the first six councils: >1. FIRST COUNCIL OF NICAEA (325) – Affirmed the deity of Christ. The false doctrine of Arianism was rejected and affirmed the apostles’ teaching of who Christ is—the one true God and the Second Person of the Trinity, with the Father and the Holy Spirit. >2. FIRST COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE (381) – Clarified the nature of the Holy Spirit and dealt a fatal blow to Arianism. It sharpened the distinctions between the Eastern and Western branches of the church. When the Great Schism occurred centuries later, one of the primary disagreements was the hierarchy of Rome and Constantinople. >3. COUNCIL OF EPHESUS (431) – Clarified the nature of Christ’s personhood. The false teaching of Nestorianism was repudiated and also denounced (and rejected) Pelagianism and re-affirmed the Nicene Creed. The decision to condemn Nestorianism caused an immediate split in the Eastern Church, creating several splinter groups. Some of these survive today, including the Assyrian Church of the East and Chaldean Catholicism. >4. COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON (451) – Clarified the teaching concerning Christ’s nature and person, including the “hypostatic union.” The false doctrine of monophysitism was rejected. The Council produced the “Chalcedonian Definition,” which affirms that Christ is “the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man.” >5. SECOND COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE (553) – Confirmed the conclusions of the first four councils. >6. THIRD COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE (680–681) – Clarified the nature of Christ’s will. I have left out the seventh ecumenical council (the SECOND COUNCIL OF NICAEA in 787) because it established guidelines for the veneration of images. Some Protestants reject this council, while accepting the Council of Hieria of 754, which rejected the veneration of icons. Do Protestant denominations broadly accept the authority of these councils and agree with the theological views as presented in the first six ecumenical councils? I ask because I read an article that said Protestants recognise the first six, although they do not hold those decrees in the same regard as Catholics. Is there a general acceptance by Protestants of the first six ecumenical councils? Or are some parts rejected by Protestant denominations?

The Orthodox Church believed and affirm that there was not a set canon during the church, thus is why they have an unmodified canon. But the Orthodox church has a much more larger canon than both the Roman Catholics and the Protestant, believing that books like 3 Maccabees were scripture, but did any of the Early Church Fathers use the Orthodox canon and did they ever quote form this? (This can be any Church Fathers from 300-400 AD onwards.)

I recently came across the phrase "Three Manifestations of Grace". The author used the phrase as if its meaning were common knowledge. As far as I can tell, some Christian writers do speak of three main types of Grace, but they do not necessarily agree on what they are. The clearest example I could find in terms of a denominational doctrine was from Methodism, which takes it [theology of grace from Wesley](https://www.umcdiscipleship.org/resources/foundations) : - Prevenient grace literally means "the grace that comes before." Prevenient grace calls us into a relationship with God before we are even aware of God. It prepares us for the dawning awareness that God loves us so much that God seeks us out first. - Justifying grace offers reconciliation, forgiveness of sin, freedom from the power and guilt of sin, and the possibility of new relationships with God and with one another. - Sanctifying grace enables us to grow into the image of Christ and to live as a sign of God’s reign among us. Sanctifying grace leads to inward and outward holiness. Wesley's system owes much to Augustine, but I do not know if Catholic theology speaks of three types of grace per se. Also, I notice that writers of other denominations refer to different manifestations or stages of grace... sometimes numbering as high as fifteen. What I'm really looking for is whether 1) prevenient, 2) sanctifying and 3) justifying grace are the most likely types of grace this writer was referring to. Related questions: Do other denominations - especially Catholicism - also formally refer to these three as the main types? Do some denominations use a different three-fold typology?

According to the hymn *The Love of God *, God's love "reaches to the lowest hell": >**The love of God** is greater far > >Than tongue or pen can ever tell; > >It goes beyond the highest star, > >And **reaches to the lowest hell** Does the Bible teach anywhere that God loves those in hell? We know that at present, God loves sinners and wants them to repent, but what if they never repent? Does the Bible ever address whether God will still love sinners even after they are cast into hell?

According to Catholic teaching, would it be a mortal sin if a Catholic were to knowingly pass on their sickness to another person? For example, say that a Catholic has an important project that they have been working on at their workplace and he/she is very close to finishing this project, however, he/she unfortunately comes down with the flu and so he/she needs to take time off from work to recover from the flu. Say that this Catholic were to then decide to return to work before he/she has fully recovered from the flu, because he/she is afraid or paranoid that their project will fail due to their absence, and he/she believes that a failed project could lead to them being terminated from their job. A few days later, several of his/her coworkers come down with the flu and they have to miss work due to coming down with the flu. Has this Catholic commited a mortal sin by knowingly passing on the flu to his/her coworkers?

I am a Roman Catholic, baptised when I was a child and later confirmed and have received communion. The Roman Catholic Church is the “default” church in my home country. I have now moved to the United Kingdom and find myself attending mass in a parish of the Church of England — quite “High Church”, although I don't think it matters. (I could reasonably attend mass in a Catholic Church, but the community + practical reasons make me feel better in the Anglican church.) I would like to take an active part in the parochial church council. For this, I shall enroll in the church's electoral roll, and declare that: > I am a member in good standing of a Church (not in communion with the Church of England) […] and also **declare myself to be a member of the Church of England** […] What does the Roman Catholic Church say on its members declaring themselves (also) members of another Church?

So I heard priests **literally** claiming: "A marriage entered with no desire to have children is invalid." Of course, we all know that in the ceremony, the couple is asked: "Are you prepared to accept children lovingly from God ..." Still, that's not **active** desire. And similarly, I heard that a mere **openness** to children is enough. So what actually is the necessary psychological state to marry according to the Catholic Church? I don't mean how it ideally **should** be, but the **bare minimum** for a valid marriage. Because one sure **can** get pregnant or father a child, while not **wanting** this to happen. Still, it would be strange if a consummated marriage **with** children that was in every other way valid could turn out to be invalid because one of the partners didn't want children. One could point to the existing children, and so at least we can assume they **gave into** unprotected intercourse (they knew what would likely happen!), and became a parent. Is this enough? Historically, this was perhaps not such a rare situation, e.g. on the part of the woman in marriages of high nobility. Some probably had mixed feelings about it, not an active, unequivocal desire – especially since childbirth was so dangerous. PS: at best, I'd like to hear from authoritative sources that explain this issue.

As Isaiah 66:15-24 contains a prophecy for the end times does Isaiah 66:17 (ESV): > “Those who sanctify and purify themselves to go into the gardens, > following one in the midst, eating pig's flesh and the abomination and > mice, shall come to an end together, declares the Lord. Does this mean that eating pork is **still** banned? or does this mean that those who pretend to uphold the law yet still break it are going to be punished?

Jehovah's Witnesses unlike any other Christian sects believe that Jesus Christ was not crucified on a cross but was instead crucified on a torture stake, did the Early Church Fathers believe that Jesus was crucified on a cross or on a stake?

In terms of our current and modern dating system, what year did Joshua and the Hebrew nation cross the Jordan into the land of Canaan? Also, based on this what year would the first Jubilee year have occurred as described in Leviticus 25:1-4,8,9 > When you come into the land which I give you, then the land shall keep a sabbath to the LORD. 3 Six years you shall sow your field, and six years you shall prune your vineyard, and gather its fruit; 4 but in the seventh year there shall be a sabbath of solemn rest for the land, a sabbath to the LORD. You shall neither sow your field nor prune your vineyard.’ 8 “And you shall count seven sabbaths of years for yourself, seven times seven years; and the time of the seven sabbaths of years shall be to you forty-nine years. 9 Then you shall cause the trumpet of the Jubilee to sound on the tenth day of the seventh month; on the Day of Atonement you shall make the trumpet to sound.”

If a Christian kills someone while defending his family in the process, will God hold that person guilty for taking out someone who would have ended that Christian and the Christian's whole family? Apparently God didn't hold Moses guilty after killing the Egyptian who was oppressing the Israelite. He still called him to liberate the Israelites from bondage. Whats the Biblical approach to self defense is not murder?

In Justin Martyr's *Dialogue with Trypho* Chapter 56: > **Justin**: I shall attempt to persuade you, since you have understood the Scriptures, [of the truth] of what I say, that there is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things. -[Dialogue with Trypho (Chapters 55-68)](https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/01285.htm) What does he mean by "there is said to be, another God and Lord subject..." I assumed before that Justin Martyr was a Monotheist but it almost seems like he is implying Jesus is a second God.

Most Protestants recognise only two sacraments, saying something like this (from the Anglican 39 Articles): > There are two sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, > that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord But in the Gospels it is written: John 20:21-23 > Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am > sending you.” And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the > Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if > you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” > Mt 16,18-20 > And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my > church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give > you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will > be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be > loosed in heaven.” > Mt 18,18 > "Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound > in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in > heaven. For who tells that was introduced by Pope Innocent III: Acts 19,18 > Some believers, too, came forward to admit in detail how they had used > spells > John 1,1:9 > If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us > our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. > 2 Corinthians 5,18 > All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and > gave us the ministry of reconciliation Why isn't confession/penance considered a sacrament by most Protestants? Why don't they think these verses institute the sacrament of confession?

The Jehovah's Witnesses state that Jesus was not nailed on a cross, but on a torture stake. The New World Translation of the Bible is phrased accordingly. For example: > **Matthew 10:38 (NWT)** > And whoever does not accept his torture stake and follow after me is not worthy of me. (All the other translations (that I know of) translate *cross* instead.) What is significant about the difference between a **torture stake** and a **cross**, and on which one was Jesus crucified? --- An illustration of what might be a *torture stake:*

Proverbs 8:22-23 (LXX) says > The Lord made me the beginning of his ways for his works. > He established me before time in the beginning, before he made the > earth How can that be Jesus if Jesus was not made but eternally begotten. Secondly Colossians 1:19 (NKJV): > For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on > earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or > principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for > Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. Proverbs 8:26-29 would seem to denote that it was the Father who created, but Proverbs 8:30 seems to say that wisdom participated along with the father in creation (I wanted confirmation on this.)

In my prior question, https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/99697/61679 , several responses concurred that this form of prayer is valid and supported by scripture. Yet, a compelling objection caught my attention: the contention that we should refrain from advising skeptics to pray for signs, revelations, experiences, or 'aha' moments to foster belief. According to this objection, skeptics already possess all the necessary elements for belief, and thus they should simply opt to believe without the need for praying for anything else. In essence, it posits that belief is a decision of the will that can be made instantly, without the necessity of praying for additional guidance or experiences. Consequently, after having heard the preaching of the gospel, a skeptic should encounter no impediment in simply choosing to believe. The purported capacity of individuals to instantly adopt any belief purely through an arbitrary act of the will is termed **direct doxastic voluntarism** in philosophy, a viewpoint that encounters substantial [philosophical objections](https://iep.utm.edu/doxastic-voluntarism/) and is similarly disputed [even within Christianity](https://www.gotquestions.org/doxastic-voluntarism.html) . Nevertheless, I've observed that certain Christians assume its validity. Notably, individuals have cited specific Biblical passages to substantiate their adherence to **direct doxastic voluntarism**. The following are some examples: Mark 1:15 >and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; **repent and believe** in the gospel.” Mark 5:36 >But overhearing what they said, Jesus said to the ruler of the synagogue, “Do not fear, **only believe**.” Acts 19:4 >And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, **telling the people to believe** in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” Luke 8:50 >But Jesus on hearing this answered him, “Do not fear; **only believe**, and she will be well.” John 10:37-38 >**37** If I am not doing the works of my Father, then **do not believe me**; **38** but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, **believe** the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.” John 14:1 >“Let not your hearts be troubled. **Believe in God; believe also in me**. Does the Bible genuinely endorse **direct doxastic voluntarism**, and if it does, does this undercut the validity of the "skeptic's prayer"?

To provide more context addressing the seemingly unfit and vague closing reason, this is a follow up question from [one of my comment threads](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/99632/a-specific-difference-between-christianity-and-other-religions/99638?noredirect=1#comment282363_99638) of my previous [question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/99632/a-specific-difference-between-christianity-and-other-religions/99638) . Suppose **1000** people are simultaneously bestowed God's coming down provisions of grace via his radiation, then these 1000 radiated lights must be his 1000 sons as Jesus Christs since the scripture famously asserted the Way as the Saving Faith can be attained only through Jesus Christ. But the scripture also asserted that Jesus Christ is God's **only** son, so how to resolve this paradox of my hypothetically contemplated 1000 incarnated sons of God simultaneously? Bear in mind that saving faith is all about the person Jesus Christ, not about any of his particular character or words or some other processes. **Addendum**: There's an up-voted answer below pointing out the importance of the Biblical hermeneutic interpretation about Jesus Christ as the only 'begotten' son of God in light of the hermeneutic circle of the whole context as opposed to many other sons of God. But since Jesus Christ is also a person, it seems this interpretation doesn't really add much clarification on above question. Any feedback to my genuine question is appreciated.

For background, this is related to other questions about whether God may have changed in the past. It is often touted that God preceded all creation, and some even say that He is able to violate causality because in some ostensible sense He "is" causality itself and "created time". For those who believe that the Genesis account (or anything else) implies that God participated in essentially just one creation, and who use the nature of God as the Creator as proof that He always existed as an Omnipotent Being, does that not result in a contradiction? If not, why not? If God suddenly decided to create one day (at the "beginning") but didn't before then, is that not proof that God changed? What was He doing for all eternity before He created anything? What caused Him to decide that, after an eternity of not creating anything, He would begin to be a Creator?