Is there any archeological or written evidence for image veneration in the first few centuries especially in the ante Nicene period outside the Rome? *Related - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/91037/58919*

John 6:44 (KJB): > “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.” The Bible makes it clear in John 12:32 that Jesus Christ will draw all men to Himself. John 12:32 (KJB): > “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.” Can we say that all those who the Father draws are those who Jesus draws unto himself by his death?

This YouTube video identifies Partialism as a heresy. It states that Partialism is the heresy wherein The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each described as 1/3 of God. To me, it's a vaguely familiar false understanding of the Trinity; but I can't find any solid information about it. **Are there any historical documents, early Church writings, or documents from a major denomination (Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, etc.) that assert this idea *by this or any other name* as a heresy or false understanding of the Trinity?** If the condemnation of this idea can't be pinned directly to a historical document or Church Father, when can we reasonably assert that it was condemned, if ever? --- Per [Peter Turner](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/4/peter-turner) , the wikipedia page on Partialism is an [occasion of sin](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occasion_of_sin) . I have not attempted to verify this, but the relevant Wikipedia page is the one on [divine simplicity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_simplicity) .

The standard reading of John 1:1 > "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the > Word was God." is that the beginning - ἀρχῇ (archē) - refers to the old beginning, i.e., the beginning described in Genesis 1. What are the main arguments in favour of the beginning at John 1:1 referring to the new beginning, i.e., the beginning of Jesus' (human) life or ministry? This question is a mirror of this question .

Since in Revelations there are signs and things that must happen before God comes, do we technically know that God will not come before those things happen? So unless we are living in the end end times that Revelation describes, it's not like every day God could possibly come?

When Jesus was on the Earth, He (obviously) held the authority to declare whatever doctrine he wished, as the ultimate authority in His church. On a tier just below that, prophets like Moses were granted authority to essentially act as God's voice on Earth. To the people following them, there was no functional difference between receiving a commandment from one of these prophets, and from God's actual voice. Exodus 4:16 is an example of principle: > And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people: and he shall be, even he shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and thou shalt be to him instead of God. I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, so I am accustomed to the idea of having a prophet now who still receives revelation from God in the Isaiah or Moses archetype. I can also comprehend fairly easily, after discussing with my Protestant friends, the concepts and practice when one believes in the end of such a tradition, and relies on the scriptures and personal conscience instead. What I'm fuzzy on is what happens in what feels like a blurry middle ground--where one still believes in following a single leader, who has been ordained by God to lead His church, but one does *not* go so far as to give him the same authority as Moses/Elijah/Peter and the like. Does the Pope have power to announce "thus saith the Lord" and pronounce new scripture? To clarify existing doctrines, but not give new (to us) ones? To give definitive interpretations of scripture?

Acts 2 Dispensationalists claim that the birth of the body of Christ happens in Acts 2 with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, because God was no longer dealing with Israel on a national level due to their crucifixion of Christ. But here it clearly seems to teach that Christ's return is dependent upon Israel's repentance to receive their covenanted promises. And we know that Christ's return is not dependent on the church's repentance, so here in Acts it seems God is still dealing with Israel. >**17** And now, brothers and sisters, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did also your rulers. **18** In this way God fulfilled what he had foretold through all the prophets, that his Messiah would suffer. **19** Repent, therefore, and turn to God so that your sins may be wiped out, **20** so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord and that he may send the Messiah appointed for you, that is, Jesus, **21** who must remain in heaven until the time of universal restoration that God announced long ago through his holy prophets. **22** Moses said, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you from your own people a prophet like me. You must listen to whatever he tells you. **23** And it will be that everyone who does not listen to that prophet will be utterly rooted out of the people.’ **24** And all the prophets, as many as have spoken, from Samuel and those after him, also predicted these days. **25** You are the descendants of the prophets and of the covenant that God gave to your ancestors, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your descendants all the families of the earth shall be blessed.’ **26** When God raised up his servant, he sent him first to you, to bless you by turning each of you from your wicked ways.”

My previous understanding of the Catholic Church's teaching was that a human being is of two conjoined natures: physical and spiritual. Also, my previous reasoning was that things like consciousness, the ability to feel and especially free will are impossible in the natural/physical/mathematical world, where all that is possible are non-conscious, non-free, more or less sophisticated mechanisms. Therefore, I would say, free will must have supernatural origins and the claim that a human being has free will implies that there must be a supernaturnatural, spiritual, non-mathematical, non-physical, non-scientific part of the human nature, that cannot be researched nor explained by scientific means. However, now I am being told that what I was thinking and saying were all heresies. I am being told that according to the teaching of the Catholic Church there is no supernatural or spiritual part nor dimension in the human being or human soul. The only fundamental difference between humans and animals, according to the Church, is that God has gifted humans with His grace to a greater extend than animals, and because of this God's favor humans are granted immortality - but otherwise, humans are really simply more intelligent animals and nothng more. Therefore free will, if existent, is absolutely within the scope of science and probably will be fully explained by science. Some people I was talking to were telling me that was I was believing were non-Christian views of Plato, and that I was guilty of believing and spreading the "heresy of Platonic dualism", since the Church has rejected the views of Plato and instead adopted the views of Aristotle, as described above, through St. Thomas. Other people were telling me that while my views were not yet heretical, because these views, since adopted by St. Augustine (who had been inspired by Plato), did have their place in the Church, nevertheless they were unfavorable, since the majority of theologians were instead holding the views of St. Thomas, who had been inspired by Aristotle. The view that free will is a purely natural phenomenon that does not and can not have supernatural origins, since there is no such part nor dimension in the human being is, I have to admit, absolutely counter-intuitive for me and is absolutely opposite to how I used to understand the teaching of the Church. Therefore, could you explain to me, according to the teaching of the Church: 1. Is there no non-natural, non-scientific, non-physical, non-mathematical part or dimension in the human nature? 2. If so, does free will therefore have purely natural origins that are not fundamentally prohibited from being researched and fully explained by science? If I may ask, could you kindly back your answers by appropriate citations of the teaching of the Catholic Church? Disclaimer: Just to keep my conscience clear: This is a summation of views 3 different persons, out of them I know one to have academic background in theology and philosophy and have reasons to suspect one more of such background; these three peoples' views did clash on certain subtleties, however I do not feel competent to state them; finally I am likely to have misunderstood and misinterpreted certain subtleties. The big picture stands, however, for these reasons I cannot 100% say that every word I wrote is an accurate representation of what I was told to be the teaching of the Church.

How do people in Hell survive it? In traditionalist circles, Hell is the full wrath of God, infinitely hot fire and brimstone, and extreme pain, suffering, torture, and it is called eternal death. Now since in traditionalist circles Hell is also physical torture, with actual fire, actual sulfer, physical pain etc, then I do not understand how a physical body can survive this. With a normal human body, if it is burned beyond recognition or tortured for just 50 years, the body... would be destroyed, and the person would probably be dead. If you add in that Hell is the full wrath of God, then if God was using 100% of his might to hurt the people in Hell, it is hard to see how anyone could survive that. There is also all of the NDE's on Hell, which also show things that no one could survive. According to the version of Chrsitianity which believes 1) hell is eternal conscious torment 2) Hell is literal fire and brimstone and 3) Hell is an infinite punishment, and thus infinite in intensity and duration, how do these traditionalist and literalist interpretations of the Bible explain how people aren't dead yet? Note that although the *soul* is immortal and can't be killed, Hell in this view is physical with a physical body, and although the soul cannot be destroyed it is safe to assume that a physical body can be disintegrated, no matter if it is made of an extremely strong material like tungsten or titanium or Depleted Uranium.

Rather than the more traditional “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,” Jehovah’s Witnesses use the New World Translation, which gives John 1:1 as “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” In asking what support there is for the Jehovah’s Witness position, this question is not about whether the New World Translation is correct and is not seeking a hermeneutical response, which is already provided here . I am looking for biblical or historical texts that could support the Jehovah’s Witness translation.

In 1 Samuel chapter 8 we see an aged Samuel giving his sons authority to judge Israel. His sons did not act with integrity and the leaders of Israel come asking Samuel to set a king over them like the nations surrounding them. Samuel is distressed over this request and prays to the Lord, who replies: > Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them. - 1 Samuel 8:7b We see, then, a clear demonstration that the presiding over Israel of a human king is a tacit rejection of God as King. That is to say that God's intention, His highest ideal for Israel is as a theocracy rather than a monarchy: God as King speaking through his prophets. *Note: Even the implementation of the prophetic office was a condescension to the fearful request of the people (Exodus 20:19).* The monarchy, even under God's anointed king, David, is a graceful condescension (and not without consequence) to a wayward and idolatrous people: > According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee. Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them. - v. 8-9 We know that Jesus Christ is given to sit on the throne of his father David and reign as King forever: > He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. - Luke 1:32-33 We also know that Jesus' kingdom is not a worldly kingdom: > My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. - John 18:36 Since Jesus' kingdom is not of this world and the throne of that kingdom is David's throne it stands to reason that David's kingdom was not ultimately of this world either. It was, to use the language of John 17:14-16, in this world but not of this world. Looking back to 1 Samuel we see that it is God's kingdom and God's place on the throne thereof that was rejected. Therefore, since God's kingdom and throne are everlasting, we may say that all human kings (good or bad) sitting on that throne reigned as proxies because God, Himself, was rejected as king. For those who believe that Jesus is less than or other than God (whether merely human or a lesser created being), how does a non-God Jesus sitting as King correct the rejection of God as King that began in Samuel's day and continues even now? In other words, if a proxy King is indicative of the problem of God's being rejected, how is that problem solved by yet another proxy King?

In a discussion about the trinity, I was asked about Numbers. I was completely stumped. **Numbers 23:19** > God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he > should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he > spoken, and shall he not make it good? "If Numbers says that God is not a man, how can Jesus be God?" Is the question I was presented and I had no answer.

There are three occasions when the word 'Godhead' is used in scripture and on each occasion a different Greek word is used, thus giving an 'individuality' to each occasion. ----------------------- In Acts 17:29 ό θειον (*ho Theion*) 'the Divine' or 'the Godhead', is said to be not material like 'gold or silver or stone, graven by art or man's device'. In Romans 1:20, the 'invisible things of God are clearly seen' ... 'even his eternal power and θειοτης (*Theiotes*) Godhead'. In Colossians 2:9, Paul states that 'in him' (that is to say, in Christ) 'dwelleth, bodily, all the fulness of the Godhead θεοτητος (*Theotetos*)'. ------------------------------ This is not a quirk of any one translation but is a fundamental aspect of the original Greek and it demonstrates an 'individuality' being applied to the only three occasions in scripture in which this particular wording is used. They are not inflections of the same word, nor are they parts of speech deriving from a common parent : they are *distinctly different Greek words*. The last two words are never otherwise used in scripture and the first one is only used two times more, as an adjectival form (not a noun form, with an article, as above) in regard to 'divine power', 1 Peter 1:3, and 'divine nature', 2 Peter 1:4. I wonder if the Nicene Fathers (such as Athanasius) commented on this rather remarkable feature of expression in that three individual terms are used, on only three occasions, by two different writers (Luke and Paul) to express the 'Godhead'. -------------------------- My information on the three different words comes from Bagster's Analytical Greek Lexicon, 1900 edition ; from Young's Analytical Concordance 1879, 8th edition ; and from the Englishman's Greek New Testament 1870. The three textual quotations are taken from the KJV (1769).

In Catholic tradition, there are books on spiritual dryness (Dark Night of the Soul by st. John of the Cross is the most famous) and it is mentioned in Catechism of Catholic Church too. Eastern tradition has other books on this topic. But I wonder whether Protestants have anything more sophisticated than "Just hold on!" or "Read the book of Job, it's written for someone like you!" (or, in a worse case: "If you don't feel God, you must have sinned!" ). Is there any Protestant doctrine on this topic? Is it accepted by most denomination, or only by a fraction? EDIT to clarify what I mean with "spiritual dryness": I understand it as usually long-term (lasting for months, years or even decades) spiritual crisis, when a person doesn't feel "presence of God" or "God's grace" and it is hard to sustain faith. On the other hand, people experiencing this might be very good Christians bearing lots of fruits of Holy spirit. Mother Teresa's case is an extreme example, but many Christians experience some milder form of it and this experience often can't be attributed to a sin or a mental illness. I never experienced real spiritual dryness (I'm too young in Christ for this, people rarely experience dryness just three years after conversion), but knowing people who experience it, reading books on it and being advised to prepare that it will probably come some day helps me a lot in my spiritual life - to realize that God's grace might become invisible one day is a good reason not to be proud of all that religious enthusiasm and nice feelings and to carefully try to build my faith on more solid ground than this enthusiasm is. My protestant friends don't understand this; that's why I wonder whether concept of "dark night of soul" is unreflected and more or less unknown in whole or most of Protestantism, or just in some part of its Pentecostal branch.

Arius himself wrote that “the Son of God … is, ***like the Father, 'unchangeable***’” (Rowan Williams, page 96) but Athanasius wrote that Arius taught that the Son is “***like all others … subject to change*** … because he is changeable by nature” (Contra Arianos(v), RW, 100). Are we able to reconcile these statements, or did one of them lie? For one possible answer, see Rowan Williams pages 113-116 , beginning with the phrase "This leaves the third point noted above as a major theme of Arian exegesis to be investigated ..."

The Church in [Catechism of the Catholic Church: **"Outside the Church there is no salvation"**](http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P29.HTM) , 846, has re-formulated positively "Outside the Church there is no salvation", often repeated by the Church Fathers to mean **that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body**. Looking at St. Vincent of Lerins' description for what is truly and properly 'Catholic', in [The "Vincentian Canon", AD 434](http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/434lerins-canon.asp) (3) **"Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all."**, it would appear that the Church would be very hesitant and reluctant to re-formulate any of its doctrines especially when it **was often repeated by the Church Fathers**. The question is what has the Church stated as the advantages or reasoning or prompting to the re-formulation?

Revelation describes the nature of the event that led to Lucifer's demise. It seems to be quite clear that Lucifer and his angels, in rebelling against God, engaged in an act of terrible sin. >**7** And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, **8** And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. **9** And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. **10** And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night. ... **12** "Therefore rejoice, O heavens, and you who dwell in them! But woe to the earth and the sea; with great fury the devil has come down to you, knowing he has only a short time.” (Rev 12:7-10, 12) The Bible says of sin and those who engage in it... >**4** Everyone who practices sin practices lawlessness as well. Indeed, sin is lawlessness. **5** But you know that Christ appeared to take away sins, and in Him there is no sin. **6** No one who remains in Him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has seen Him or known Him. **7** Little children, let no one deceive you: The one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as Christ is righteous. **8** The one who practices sin is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the very start. This is why the Son of God was revealed, to destroy the works of the devil. (1 John 3:4-7) John 3:16 says... >For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that everyone who believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. So given the above, and in particular the notion that Christ made available an offer of salvation by grace through faith to mankind, was that same offer made to those angels and indeed even Lucifer himself during/or after the rebellion in heaven?

A somewhat controversial topic, but there are certain verses in the Bible such as 1 Corinthians 11, which command women to wear head-coverings in church, but was the early church view of women wearing head-coverings in general, did they or did they not support it?

Hebrews 1:1-2 is > 1 On many past occasions and in many different ways, God spoke to our > fathers through the prophets. 2 But in these last days He has spoken > to us by His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, and through > whom He made the universe. (Berean Standard Bible) Biblical Unitarians are broadly of a Socinian bent, denying the literal existence of the Son before his conception, and instead holding the Son is wholly human (not dual-natured). Yet Hebrews 1:2 seems to clearly say the Son was the one through whom the universe was made. The universe was made before Jesus' conception. How do Biblical Unitarians explain this?

What is the history of periodically transferring parish priests? St. John Vianney was the *curé* (parish priest) of Ars until his death (18th cen.). Even today, priests in some rural parts of Mexico stay at their same parishes their entire lives. Yet, in the U.S. it is common practice to transfer priests every (approx.) 4 to 7 years or so. When did this practice begin? Why was it instituted?