John 1:1 says: >"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." -KJV The Greek says: >Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος How do Unitarians (those that deny a preexisting Messiah) interpret this verse? If there is more than one, please provide an overview of the various interpretations.

The New Testament was originally written in Greek. But yet Roman Catholics held Mass in Latin for hundreds of years. What scriptural evidence, if any, caused Latin to be picked over Greek? Was any scriptural reasoning used to defend keeping the Mass in Latin for so long? What are the reasons?

God created mankind in His image. Gen 1 >26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. > >27 So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. In the first verse of this passage, we read one of very few instances where the 1 God uses a plural pronoun for Himself. Perhaps God is not alone or unique in this particular image He is about to also share with mankind. In the very next verse, we also read one of thousands of instances of God using singular pronouns as He continues to do so throughout the rest of scripture. Trinitarians very often use v26 as support for their concepts but in doing so, they indirectly overlook v27's singular pronouns. So it seems like a deeper inspection is necessary. Are we triune? Are we eternally begotten? Are we an indwelling spirit? Question ***In what sense is mankind made specifically in the image of a triune essence?*** --- *Triune is defined as being 3 persons sharing 1 nature/essence. Please explain how humans are a triune image. This question is not inquiring how mankind is made in the general image of God; but rather, is asking **specifically** about the image of the 1 Diety of 3 persons: the truine essence.*

Searching for a complete audio of Septuagint - Ancient, not Modern Greek translation. Is it available anywhere online? I seek audio in ancient Greek, no matter if it's Erasmian or Reuchlinian pronunciation.

The text of Consecration of the Holy Mass has two integral parts namely the blessing of the bread followed by the blessing of the wine. As the second part commences, the celebrant says "When the supper was ended...". It implies that there was a time-gap at the Last Supper, between the breaking of the bread and sharing of the wine, which would turn into the Body and Blood of the Saviour, as evidenced by Lk 22:20 and 1 Cor 11:25. Going to the physical passion of Christ, we see him shedding blood by way of sweat in Gethsemane followed by the breaking of his flesh at the flogging. Separation of one's blood from flesh signifies death. There must have been a reason why the Lord separately broke the bread and blessed the wine with a time-gap between the two. Perhaps he wanted to allow sufficient time for the apostles to fully understand the mystery of trans-substantiation, and also to watch their response. My question is: **Is the time-gap between the breaking of the bread and the blessing of the wine, as mentioned during Consecration, of significance to the Christian faith? Does the Catholic Church offer any teachings on the subject?**

Apropos [Ken Graham's Question of 18th August](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/96729/looking-for-sources-of-mediaeval-church-architecture-that-shows-and-or-explains) on medieval church architecture. One rarely comes across literature on the big crosses constructed around churches. For instance, you find an obelisk, a construction that traces its origin to Egyptian culture, at the centre of St Peter's Square, Rome. Of course, it has a cross on the top. Curious enough, the churches of Southern India, some of which trace their origin to the first century, have such peculiar constructions. St Thomas, the Apostle is believed to have reached India in 52 AD and established a few churches. The Portuguese who landed in 1498 rebuilt many such ancient churches, supplementing the local architecture with their own (See [Christianity in Kerala: Church Architecture](https://www.keralatourism.org/christianity/church-architecture/24)) . One particular feature is that of three crosses on a pedestal—erected on the south, north, and west of prominent churches, which almost invariably faced east. Some of these crosses, erected at a distance of say, half a mile, from the church, are accompanied by a small chapel locally called 'Kappela', the word tracing its root to the Portuguese language. These chapels would not host the Holy Eucharist and would be used for devotions like rosary and novena. Historians say that the construction of such an extension of the main church by way of crosses, was in vogue even before the arrival of the Portuguese since some of them have inscriptions in Syriac language. That would imply that the custom had originated with the Jews or any other people like the Chinese, Persians, and Arabs who had settled in India for trade. I am not aware if the tradition can be seen in the West. From where did the tradition of erecting three crosses around a church originate?

Can you love someone when a big portion of his personality is a mystery or beyond your comprehension? A picture of God is in my mind, portrayed by the books I've read but it's not the whole picture. I can follow, respect and trust God but to love is something way deeper. I remember the love of my youth and how my heart used to pound whenever I saw her... - How can someone achieve that level of intimacy with God?

We read in Exodus 15 how Moses and the Israelites sing a song praising the Lord who defeated the Egyptians. In verse 11 we see the words “Who among the gods is like you?” Of course, the Israelites had been aware of the worship of pagan gods that the Egyptians were doing. However, did they acknowledge the actual existence of such pagan gods? Note that the Ten Commandments had not yet been given in writing to Israel at the time of the song. Is it possible that some Israelites worshipped lesser gods apart from the True God Yahweh? My question therefore is: Does Exodus 15:11 hint at the possibility of the existence of lesser gods? Inputs from scholars of any denominations (please specify) are welcome.

David Fitzgerald published a book called *Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed at All* in 2010. Are there any published refutations or rebuttals to this work?

The author of the Voyager books, Ashayana Dean, offers a graph that is called Diamond Sun DNA 12 strand Celestial human silicate lineage related to that of Jesus. Can you tell me if modern day humans have carried on this lineage?

In 1 Kings 11:1-10 we read: > 1 But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the > daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, > Zidonians, and Hittites; > > 2 Of the nations concerning which the LORD said unto the children of > Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto > you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: > Solomon clave unto these in love. > > 3 And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred > concubines: and his wives turned away his heart. > > 4 For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned > away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with > the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father. > > 5 For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and > after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites. > > 6 And Solomon did evil in the sight of the LORD, and went not fully > after the LORD, as did David his father. > > 7 Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of > Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the > abomination of the children of Ammon. > > 8 And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense > and sacrificed unto their gods. > > 9 And the LORD was angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned > from the LORD God of Israel, which had appeared unto him twice, > > 10 And had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go > after other gods: but he kept not that which the LORD commanded. Now Solomon was the son of David, God spoke to him twice, God gave him literally the world and in return he just asked for obedience. Why should someone who God spoke with directly turn away from God? It's difficult for me to understand how a God chosen person can do such thing, worship other "gods" and build temples for them! Why do you need 1000 wives and concubines? As I'm studying old testament, there's -NONE- that can be compared to Jesus, God even didn't let Moses enter the promised land because of his "lack of faith". So I'm coming to conclusion that what happened to the God chosen people was part of God's plan, so there will be only one **perfect** man who truly lived up to God's standards. “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:14). Am I on the right path?

> 1 Kings 3:5-14 > > New American Standard Bible 1995 > > 5 In Gibeon the Lord appeared to Solomon in a dream at night; and God > said, “Ask what you wish Me to give you.” > > Solomon’s Prayer > > 6 Then Solomon said, “You have shown great lovingkindness to Your > servant David my father, according as he walked before You in [a]truth > and righteousness and uprightness of heart toward You; and You have > reserved for him this great lovingkindness, that You have given him a > son to sit on his throne, as it is this day. 7 Now, O Lord my God, You > have made Your servant king in place of my father David, yet I am but > a little child; I do not know how to go out or come in. 8 Your servant > is in the midst of Your people which You have chosen, a great people > who are too many to be numbered or counted. **9 So give Your servant > [c]an understanding heart to judge Your people to discern between good > and evil. For who is able to judge this [d]great people of Yours?”** > > > > God’s Answer > > **10 [e]It was pleasing in the sight of the Lord that Solomon had asked > this thing. 11 God said to him, “Because you have asked this thing and > have not asked for yourself [f]long life, nor have asked riches for > yourself, nor have you asked for the life of your enemies, but have > asked for yourself [g]discernment to understand justice, 12 behold, I > have done according to your words. Behold, I have given you a wise and > discerning heart, so that there has been no one like you before you, > nor shall one like you arise after you.** 13 I have also given you what > you have not asked, both riches and honor, so that there will not be > any among the kings like you all your days. 14 If you walk in My ways, > keeping My statutes and commandments, as your father David walked, > then I will prolong your days.” > > 1 Kings 11:1-13 > > New American Standard Bible 1995 > > Solomon Turns from God > > **11 Now King Solomon loved many foreign women along with the daughter > of Pharaoh: Moabite, Ammonite, Edomite, Sidonian, and Hittite women, 2 > from the nations concerning which the Lord had said to the sons of > Israel, “You shall not [a]associate with them, nor shall they > associate with you, for they will surely turn your heart away after > their gods.”** Solomon held fast to these in love. 3 He had seven > hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines, and his wives > turned his heart away. 4 For when Solomon was old, his wives turned > his heart away after other gods; and his heart was not [c]wholly > devoted to the Lord his God, as the heart of David his father had > been. 5 For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians > and after [d]Milcom the detestable idol of the Ammonites. 6 Solomon > did what was evil in the sight of the Lord, and did not follow the > Lord fully, as David his father had done. 7 Then Solomon built a high > place for Chemosh the detestable idol of Moab, on the mountain which > is [e]east of Jerusalem, and for Molech the detestable idol of the > sons of Ammon. 8 Thus also he did for all his foreign wives, who > burned incense and sacrificed to their gods. > > > > **9 Now the Lord was angry with Solomon because his heart was turned > away from the Lord, the God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice, > 10 and had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go > after other gods; but he did not observe what the Lord had commanded. > 11 So the Lord said to Solomon, “Because [f]you have done this, and > you have not kept My covenant and My statutes, which I have commanded > you, I will surely tear the kingdom from you, and will give it to your > servant.** 12 Nevertheless I will not do it in your days for the sake of > your father David, but I will tear it out of the hand of your son. 13 > However, I will not tear away all the kingdom, but I will give one > tribe to your son for the sake of My servant David and for the sake of > Jerusalem which I have chosen.” Why was Solomon’s Godly Wisdom Not enough to prevent him from sinning by marrying “Non-Hebrew” women? To elaborate, if Solomon had so much Godly Wisdom then he should have been Wise enough to know that marrying “Non-Hebrew” women would be disastrous. And What should he probably have asked God for in addition to his request for Godly Wisdom that might have prevented him from sinning?

There are much simpler ways to frame this question, but for dramatic effect, consider the [Adoration of the Mystic Lamb](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghent_Altarpiece) which was finished in 1432 and the [Qunisext Council](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinisext_Council) . In the roughly 700 years separating these two events, much changed in terms of the Church's institutional setup, including the Great Schism. The early ecumenical councils laid out detailed doctrines to govern the appropriate depiction of Christ in visual media. Among the most well-known from the Quinisext Council is canon 82, which bars artists and court artisans from depicting Christ as a lamb, and further asserts that the only canonical representation of Christ is the human form. Essentially, this canon had came about from the ongoing debates on Christology at the time -- whereby the church fathers took the side of a dual-nature. Of course, that Christ did have a human nature was critical for the soteriological function of his blood and sacrifice. Thus, if we were to cherry-pick the Adoration of the Mystic Lamb, then, clearly it would be incompliant with this canon, as the lower panel depicts just such a lamb. Though there is reason to think that the artist was not unaware of the legacy perspectives around this category of iconography: the lamb has a human-like face and explicitly depicts the lamb as having stigmata, with blood flowing into a chalice.

Question

The Catholic and Protestant theological view on the proposon having a human aspect remains consistent with the stance of Fathers of the Quinisext Council, however, in the following centuries, strictures around lamb iconography has loosened, why is this likely the case and what if anything replaced the canons on iconography laid out in the Quinisext Council?

According to many Catholic apologists, like Dr. Robert Sungenis,1 the dogma of the immaculate conception of Mary is not simply binding because it is a divinely revealed dogma, but according to them it is binding additionally because logically speaking without Mary being sinless Jesus could not accomplish the redemptive work in the first place. **What exactly do they mean by this?** The story goes like this, to save mankind Jesus had to be sinless. Therefore Mary had to be sinless to not pass on original sin. But then Protestant apologists just say "the grace could have been given directly to Jesus" or "why wasn't the grace given to the mother and father of Mary, or even further back?" > Accordingly, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for the honor of > the Holy and undivided Trinity, for the glory and adornment of the > Virgin Mother of God, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith, and > for the furtherance of the Catholic religion, by the authority of > Jesus Christ our Lord, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by > our own: > > **We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that > the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, > by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of > the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was > preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed > by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the > faithful.** Hence, if anyone shall dare -- which God forbid! -- to think > otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand > that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered > shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the > Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the > penalties established by law if he should are to express in words or > writing or by any other outward means the errors he think in his > heart.” > > **Blessed Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, 8 December 1854** Questions in formal form is as follows: **Why was it necessary for the salvation plan to have specifically Mary the mother of Jesus be utterly without sin?** ---------- 1. For example, in this [video debate](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wus6CrzleRw%22) at 1:05:18 ("because if she isn't sinless, she's going to produce a sinful Savior") and 1:13:00.

***Ad Orientem*** and ***Versus Populum*** are two concepts in relation to the stance of the celebrant of Catholic Liturgy . In the former, the priest faces the Altar along with the faithful. In the latter, the celebrant faces the faithful, by taking a position between the Altar (which houses the Tabernacle) and the Lord's Table, while the faithful face both the Altar and the celebrant. While the former one was followed by all liturgical rites till the 2nd Vatican Council, many rites shifted to the latter one , in a development that owes its origin not to a direction from Rome, but to the need felt for making the Mass more faithful-oriented. Of late, there has been a controversy in the Syro Malabar Catholic Church of Southern India, following the decision of a Synod of Bishops which directed for restoration of *Ad Orientem*. With a good per cent of clergy and the laity supporting the Versus Populum, the dispute is likely to continue. My question in this context is: **Are there any Roman Catholic rites (other than the Syro Malabar and Syro Malankara rites) traditionally following the Ad Orientem liturgy in any part of the world?**

I have often wondered what day of the week Jesus died. I believe it was on a Friday, the day before the weekly Jewish Sabbath. However, others claim Jesus died on a Wednesday. They claim that the Sabbath that followed the day of the crucifixion was not referring to the weekly Sabbath, but a so-called annual Sabbath, namely the first day of Unleavened Bread that falls on the first month of the Jewish calendar. Those who believe Jesus died on Thursday claim the same thing, that the Sabbath that followed the crucifixion was not the weekly Sabbath but the annual Sabbath (Nisan 15). For support, those that believe it was the annual Sabbath quote John 19:31 where the Sabbath is called a high day. This, they assure us, refers to the Jewish Nisan 15 Sabbath and not the weekly Sabbath. > 31 Then the Jews, because it was the day of preparation, so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath ([a]for that Sabbath was a high day), asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. - John 19:31 They also quote John 19:14 which states the day of the crucifixion was the preparation of the Passover. The Preparation of the Passover, they claim, is Nisan 14. > 14 Now it was the day of preparation for the Passover; it was about the [a]sixth hour. And he *said to the Jews, “Behold, your King!” - John 19:14 The Preparation of the Passover was the day when the homes had to be cleansed of all leaven, which required cleaning and inspection, and preparations for the meal that followed when the sun set on Nisan 14. There is also the claim that Jesus would be in "the heart of the earth" for three days and three nights. See Matthew 12:38-40: > 38 Then some of the scribes and Pharisees said to Him, “Teacher, we want to see a [a]sign from You.” 39 But He answered and said to them, “An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet; 40 for just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. Now simple math would dictate that if the "heart of the earth" referred to the subterranean region of Sheol (Hades in the Greek scriptures) then Jesus could not have died on a Friday, the traditional view. That's because the scriptures claim Jesus was resurrected from the dead when the women came to the tomb on the predawn morning hours on the first day of the week. > 28 Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to look at the grave. 2 And behold, a severe earthquake had occurred, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it. 3 And his appearance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow. 4 The guards shook for fear of him and became like dead men. 5 The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid; for I know that you are looking for Jesus who has been crucified. 6 He is not here, for He has risen, just as He said. Come, see the place where He was lying. - Matthew 28:1-8 > 16 When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought spices, so that they might come and anoint Him. 2 Very early on the first day of the week, they *came to the tomb when the sun had risen. 3 They were saying to one another, “Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb?” 4 Looking up, they *saw that the stone had been rolled away, although it was extremely large. 5 Entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting at the right, wearing a white robe; and they were amazed. 6 And he *said to them, “Do not be amazed; you are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has risen; He is not here; behold, here is the place where they laid Him. - Mark 16:1-6 > 1 But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they came to the tomb bringing the spices which they had prepared. 2 And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb, 3 but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. 4 While they were perplexed about this, behold, two men suddenly stood near them in dazzling clothing; 5 and as the women were terrified and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them, “Why do you seek the living One among the dead? 6 He is not here, but He has risen. Remember how He spoke to you while He was still in Galilee, - Luke 24:1-6 > 1 Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene *came early to the tomb, while it *was still dark, and *saw the stone already taken away from the tomb. 2 So she *ran and *came to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and *said to them, “They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him.” 3 So Peter and the other disciple went forth, and they were going to the tomb. 4 The two were running together; and the other disciple ran ahead faster than Peter and came to the tomb first; 5 and stooping and looking in, he *saw the linen wrappings lying there; but he did not go in. 6 And so Simon Peter also *came, following him, and entered the tomb; and he *saw the linen wrappings lying there, 7 and the face-cloth which had been on His head, not lying with the linen wrappings, but rolled up in a place by itself. 8 So the other disciple who had first come to the tomb then also entered, and he saw and believed. 9 For as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that He must rise again from the dead. - John 20:1-9 All four accounts relate this as happening on the first day of the week. So, how could Jesus have been crucified on a Wednesday? Elsewhere the Bible mentions many times that Jesus would rise on the third day. If Wednesday was the first day of Jesus's death, then Friday would be the third day, and if Jesus died on Thursday, then that would be the first day of Jesus's death and the third day would be on Saturday. > From that time Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised up on the third day. - Matthew 16:21 > 22 And while they were gathering together in Galilee, Jesus said to them, “The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men; 23 and they will kill Him, and He will be raised on the third day.” And they were deeply grieved. - Matthew 17:22-23 > 18 “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem; and the Son of Man will be [a]delivered to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn Him to death, 19 and will hand Him over to the Gentiles to mock and scourge and crucify Him, and on the third day He will be raised up.” - Matthew 20:18-20 > 21 But He warned them and instructed them not to tell this to anyone, 22 saying, “The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed and be raised up on the third day.” - Luke 9:21-22 > 32 For He will be [a]handed over to the Gentiles, and will be mocked and mistreated and spit upon, 33 and after they have scourged Him, they will kill Him; and the third day He will rise again.” 34 But the disciples understood none of these things, and the meaning of this statement was hidden from them, and they did not comprehend the things that were said. - Luke 18:32-34 > 6 He is not here, but He has [a]risen. Remember how He spoke to you while He was still in Galilee, 7 saying that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.” - Luke 24:6-7 > But we were hoping that it was He who was going to redeem Israel. Indeed, besides all this, it is the third day since these things happened. - Luke 24:21 > and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, - Luke 24:26 Mark, on the other hand, writes that the resurrection would occur "after three days" or "three days later". > 31 And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. - Mark 8:31 > 31 For He was teaching His disciples and telling them, “The Son of Man is to be [a]delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill Him; and when He has been killed, He will rise three days later.” -Mark 9:31 > 34 They will mock Him and spit on Him, and scourge Him and kill Him, and three days later He will rise again.” - Mark 10:34 Furthermore, some scriptures say "in three days." > 60 They did not find any, even though many false witnesses came forward. But later on two came forward, 61 and said, “This man stated, ‘I am able to destroy the [a]temple of God and to rebuild it [b]in three days.’” 62 The high priest stood up and said to Him, “Do You not answer? What is it that these men are testifying against You?” - Matthew 26:60-62 > 39 And those passing by were [a]hurling abuse at Him, wagging their heads 40 and saying, “You who are going to destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, save Yourself! If You are the Son of God, come down from the cross.” 41 In the same way the chief priests also, along with the scribes and elders, were mocking Him and saying, - Matthew 27:39-41 > “We heard Him say, ‘I will destroy this temple made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands.’” - Mark 14:58 > Those passing by were hurling abuse at Him, wagging their heads, and saying, “Ha! You who are going to destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, - Mark 15:29 And, in John 2:18-21 we have: > 18 The Jews then said to Him, “What sign do You show us as your authority for doing these things?” 19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” 20 The Jews then said, “It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?” 21 But He was speaking of the temple of His body. Is there any way to reconcile these accounts? By the way, all my **scripture quotes are from the NASB 1995 edition.**

Are there rules in place that a pope must follow when he wishes to excommunicate a bishop? If so, what are they; or where may they be found?

[Doubting Thomas (Apostle, Patron Saint of India)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_the_Apostle) was the naysayer who just wouldn't believe in the miracle that defines Christianity (the resurrection). There are paintings that depict the Apostle Thomas poking his finger (ouch!!) into the risen Christ's cruxifixion wounds, symbolizing the lack/absence of faith. Many, many, years earlier, [Sanjaya Belatthiputta](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanjaya_Belatthiputta) , an Indian ascetic was expounding a radical brand of skepticism (the five-fold denial, if you're interested) that took Buddhist skepticism and went to town with it. Rumors go that skepticism (*doubt* in all its forms) has Indian roots; at the very least, there's an uncertainty as to whence skepticism sprang from, Greece? India? Both? Neither? 😌 Coincidence ... or not ... or both ... or neither?

One of the main points of debate between the Eastern and Western churches concerns the words "and the Son " in the Nicene Creed's description of the Holy Spirit. The so-called Athanasian Creed includes the words "and the Son" when describing the Holy Spirit. How does the Orthodox Church view the Athanasian Creed?

This is a **historical** question. I'm interested in **the earliest instance that the Catholic Church** (whether by the Vatican or by a bishop) **accepted a Protestant baptism for a catechumen** (a convert), thus the Confirmation sacrament **did not have to be preceded by even a *conditional* sacrament of Baptism**. Was this before Trent, after Trent but before Vatican II, or only after Vatican II? Which bishop did it first? **What was the occasion, the rationale?** Was the *original* rationale back then the same as the current rationale? Maybe the council of Trent itself addressed this? Was there a document? A related question that does not need to be answered, but only to sharpen the issue to be addressed in the rationale. By the same rationale to accept Protestant baptism for catechumens, **what if these *same* Protestants did NOT become catechumens?** Was it *possible* for them to be saved (since baptism is only a factor) while remaining in their Protestant churches because the Catholic church teaches that by any valid baptism they would have received the Trinitarian life (born again)? If the answer is yes, wouldn't this contradicts the (older) Catholic notion that Protestants who denied certain Catholic-specific dogmas were not saved? Or perhaps only Protestants who through no free and conscious act of denials were saved? For example: they live in a country whose prince is Protestant ([*cuius regio, eius religio*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuius_regio,_eius_religio)) so they were not free to convert to the Catholic Church, **OR** they were open minded about these dogmas?