John says that in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Why not "Word is God" - in present tense (because the scriptures are still valid)? It looks like that Word was God initially, but it got changed afterwards and now we cannot say Word is God. When did this change happen? What are reasons responsible for this change? How certain are we that this translation is correct and we are not having the past tense verb "was" due to mistranslation?

I originally posted this question under the Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange site, but I noticed a number of references to the Dead Sea Scrolls in this community so I thought I'd try my luck here. In reading Robert Alter's book on the Psalms, he mentioned a missing (DSS) verset in Psalm 15 (𝜳15:3 — ". . who slanders not with his tongue."). I found a DSS link to these verses in a work by Leon Levy, Dead Sea Scrolls digital library. The specification for these missing words is: Manuscript - 5/6HevPs; Location - 5/6Hev 1b. In trying to find the Plate/Fragment# containing Ps. 15:1-5, I haven't had much success and was hoping someone in this community has traversed this terrain before me and can point me in the right direction. Interestingly, the LXX does have this reference to slandering with the tongue, which introduces a whole other topic/thread regarding the relationship between the Septuagint and the Masoretic text. However, currently that's not my interest as much as the original(?) Hebrew text. Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks!

I’m not asking what this question asks. The statement often is made that God exists outside of space and time. The Logos was with God in the beginning. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Is it the belief of mainstream denominations that time began when the universe was created? Or did time begin when time keepers started keeping time that is to say when humans were created? Would time exist prior to physical creation? Doesn’t our counting of time rely on planetary movement? What does before time mean? Angels were on hand to applaud the foundation of the earth. Were angels created outside of time?

I read from a little book called the *Manual of Catholic Devotions* (by Regina Press, with an imprimatur dated 24 July 1963) that the rules for fasting and abstinence in the United States at that time were: > Abstinence alone is prescribed every Friday, unless a holiday of obligation falls thereon. > > Fasting and Abstinence are prescribed in the United States on the Wednesdays and Fridays of Lent and Holy Saturday forenoon (on all other days of Lent fasting alone is prescribed and meat is allowed once a day), the Ember Days, viz., the Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday following the First Sunday of Lent, Pentecost or Whitsunday, the 14th of September, and the Third Sunday of Advent; the Vigils of Pentecost, All Saints, Immaculate Conception, and Christmas. > > There is no fast or abstinence if a Vigil falls on a Sunday. Whenever meat is permitted, fish may be taken at the same meal. The same book defines fasting and abstinence as follows: > Abstinence forbids the use of flesh-meat and of the juice thereof (soup, etc.). Eggs, cheese, butter and seasonings of food are permitted. The Law of Fasting forbids more than one full meal a day, which must not be taken before noon. Based on the description there doesn't seem to be much difference between the Ember Days in Lent and the other days in Lent: both fasting and abstinence are required on Wednesdays and Fridays of Lent, so the Lenten Ember Wednesday and Friday appear to have the same rules as any other Wednesday or Friday in Lent. Therefore only Ember Saturday appears to have an additional restriction of abstinence compared to other days in Lent. Is this correct? If so, is the similarity between the Lenten Ember Days and the other days of Lent at this time (early 1960s) due to the relaxation of fasting/abstinence rules over time, or were they always so similar?

Is consubstantiality and homoousis the same thing? Or are they different concepts?

In his book *The Miracles of Exodus * (2003), chapter 6, physicist Colin Humphreys argues that the description of Mt. Sinai in the book of Exodus is characteristic of volcanic activity (and identifies Mt. Sinai with contemporary Mt. Bedr, which has a volcanic cone atop a table). In particular, Exodus 19:16-19 describes Mount Sinai as follows. > On the third day, when morning came, there was **thunder and lightning**. > A **thick cloud** was upon the mountain, and a very **loud blast** of the > ram’s horn went out, so that all the people in the camp trembled. > 17 Then Moses brought the people out of the camp to meet with God, and > they stood at the foot of the mountain. > > 18 Mount Sinai was completely **enveloped in smoke**, because the LORD had > descended on it in **fire**. And the **smoke rose** like the smoke of a > furnace, and the whole mountain **quaked** violently. 19 And as the sound > of the ram’s horn grew louder and louder, Moses spoke and God answered > him in the **thunder**. All the elements that are bolded are associated with volcanic activity. Are there any criticisms in the literature of the idea, as argued for by Humphreys and others, that Mt. Sinai was a volcanic mountain, either scriptural or scientific? Note: this question is similar.

Disclaimer: I understand that there is no monolithic Protestant belief on any topic except a protestation of the Catholic Church. That being said - I would appreciate it if this answer contained some attempt to get as close as possible to stating the general "protestant orthodoxy" or "protestant consensus" no matter how contradictory those terms may be. In Matthew chapter 6 verses 9-13 our Lord instructs all Christians to pray as such: > 9 Thus therefore shall you pray: Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. > > 10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. > > 11 Give us this day our daily bread. > > 12 And forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors. > > 13 And lead us not into temptation. But deliver us from evil. Amen. As a Catholic I interpret verse 11 to be referring (at least tangentially) to the Holy Eucharist. Do Protestants interpret this to be a literal request for a daily slice of bread? If they see this as a reference to their form of symbolic "communion", why do they not all offer "communion" daily?

This question arose from the understanding that God being one nature and three persons. Though (I am trinitarian myself), I observe that in these discussions it is presupposed that humans have one nature and one person (here and here ). **So I ask: Is there a single human nature or there are multiple human natures?** - *If you answer one human nature = multiple human persons*, how come that (unlike God), we speak of humanity as "being**S**" and not "being"? but; - *If you answer one human nature = one human person*, what then do we mean when we say "human nature " in a collective sense (ex. "It is human nature to XYZ.")? What do we make of the similarities of our own individual natures? And is it right to say instead that we have "multiple yet similar human natures"? ___________________________ **UPDATE:** I was looking through this few days back, and I think I found resources that profoundly helped me in this question. Here's a Catholic Exchange article discussing 'individuation' , to quote: > "Remember, Aquinas says, that a person is “an individual substance of > a rational nature.” On first blush that seems to work quite well. But > hold on. Something shouldn’t sit well with us in thinking about > individuals within God. Surely Father Son and Holy Spirit are not > three individual persons having the divine nature in the same way that > John, Joe, and James are three persons having a human nature. > > Aquinas readily recognizes this objection. He notes that > ‘individuation’ only happens when we’re talking about matter—which we > have, but God doesn’t. So when it comes to God, we have to recognize > that we use the word ‘person’ with a meaning somewhat different than > when we talk about man. In the case of God, Aquinas says we have to > use Richard of St. Victor’s definition of a divine person as “the > incommunicable existence of the divine nature.” Another resource I found is James E. Dolezal's All That is in God - a subsection in Chapter 4 called Real Distinction among Divine Persons. (albeit just a Google Books preview . One has to click it as the text can't be copied).

I have recently read that many pagan religions have their creation myth being creation by bringing order to primordial chaos. The accounts, if you squint, are not that different from what we have in Genesis 1, yet today the mainstream interpretation is, as far as I am aware, creatio ex nihilo. Do we know when creation began to be interpreted as creatio ex nihilo rather than creation from chaos? It seems the chaos concept is ancient, widely believed in historically, and Genesis doesn't stray far from this description, so when did abrahamic religion start to use creatio ex nihilo, assuming such a start exists? Can we tell?

Another user made the comment: > What is undisputed is that the Fathers left no room for evolution. Now, the Church Fathers for the most part believed that Earth was Created some time between about 3,000 BC and 10,000 BC (and certainly not billions of years ago), which is a serious problem for the idea that chance processes are solely responsible for the extant diversity of life. Elsewhere I also asked https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/94425 However, while there is evidence to *suggest* that the idea was not unknown (see previously cited question), it is difficult to establish for certain whether it was or was not. Conversely, the more general notion that chance processes are responsible for Creation — that is, the claim that intelligent design played no role — is much more evident, with one author going so far as to claim: > I was astonished to find how many of the pronounced and basic features of the Darwinian theory were anticipated even as far back as the seventh century B.C. (Henry Fairfield Osborn, *From the Greeks to Darwin*) What did the Church Fathers have to say in defense of Providence / Design *specifically* in the context of refuting claims to the contrary? I'm particularly interested in claims that *life* was not designed, but will accept arguments against *cosmological* non-design as well.

There is sometimes a misunderstanding or differing opinion of who wrote what in the Bible. Is this issue relevant to any particular Christian sect? Does the topic play an important role?

I've been reading this passage a few times over: > When Jesus had finished these parables, he moved on from there. Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. “Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?” they asked. “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?” And they took offense at him. > > [Matthew 13:53-56 NIV](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2013&version=NIV) and my son keeps on asking me about where all the Apostles were mentioned in the Bible, I assumed that James as James the Less (not John's brother) and Simon and Jude (not Judas) the Apostles, but who is Joseph? I was wondering specifically because it seems odd, if he was a son of Jesus' foster Father St. Joseph, would a 2nd-5th born son in Jewish traditions be apt to be named after the Father? Does his name or the order of the names indicate his place in the family?

What is the basis for the Catholic teaching that Mary is holy? Most other denominations don't hold to doctrines like perpetual virginity. They see Mary as special because she was chosen by God but are unlike Catholicism which seems to teach that she is holy in a way that other denominations don't. I don't understand the basis for this. Can you please explain?

The reason I ask is that the Most Rev Justin Welby, Archbishop of Canterbury (Anglican Church of England) was recently interviewed on *BBC Radio 4’s ‘Today’ programme* and said that in the wake of Black Lives Matter protests, the way the Western church portrays Jesus needs to be thought about again. He suggested that a Middle Eastern looking Jesus is the most accurate. *The Daily Telegraph (Saturday 27 June 2020)* reported that a spokesman for Westminster Abbey said: “The Dean and Chapter of Westminster have begun a conversation about the Abbey’s memorials and how we can better reflect the attitudes of our time.” A photograph of the pulpit of Canterbury Cathedral showed a distinctly European looking Christ nailed to a cross with a very European looking Mary and Apostle John on either side of him. For Jesus to be accepted by the society into which he was born, he would have looked like them. The Jewish community in which Jesus grew up did not doubt that Jesus was the son of Joseph, the carpenter: >"Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren’t all his sisters with us?” (Matthew 13:55) Had Jesus been born with white skin, blond or light brown hair and blue eyes, eyebrows might have been raised! Is there any biblical basis for the Western Church (Catholic or Protestant) to depict Jesus as a European or some other ethnic race?

According to Catholicism: 1. **When Mary delivered Jesus from her womb, she labored without pain**; see Catholic Answers articles [Was Mary Free from Labor Pain?](https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/was-mary-free-from-labor-pain) and [Evidence for Mary's Painless Childbirth](https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/evidence-for-marys-painless-childbirth) . 2. **Mary is the Queen of Heaven according to Rev 12:1-6**; see Catholic Answers article [Is Mary the Woman in Revelation 12](https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/is-mary-the-woman-in-revelation-12) . Then how do Catholics explain Rev 12:1-6 which clearly refers to the birth of Jesus with the usual labor pain: > 1 Then I witnessed in heaven an event of great significance. I saw a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon beneath her feet, and a crown of twelve stars on her head. 2 **She was pregnant, and she cried out because of her labor pains and the agony of giving birth**. ... 5 **She gave birth to a son who was to rule all nations with an iron rod.** And her child was snatched away from the dragon and was caught up to God and to his throne. 6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where God had prepared a place to care for her for 1,260 days.

The Catechism says: > God is in no way, directly or indirectly, the cause of moral evil. He permits it, however, because he respects the freedom of his creatures and, mysteriously, knows how to derive good from it: For almighty God... because he is supremely good, would never allow any evil whatsoever to exist in his works if he were not so all-powerful and good as to cause good to emerge from evil itself. > > [CCC 311](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/311.htm) > In time we can discover that God in his almighty providence can bring a good from the consequences of an evil, even a moral evil, caused by his creatures... > > [CCC 312](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/312.htm) But the principle of double effect teaches that it is not permissible to take a good through a bad effect. So how can God be allowed to deliberately take a good through an evil?

In Trinitarian theology, when Jesus uttered the following words that indicate his subservience to the Father, **which nature was Jesus "accessing" / "operating in": his divine nature, or his human nature?** - [John 5:19](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%205%3A19&version=ESV) : > So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise. - [John 14:28](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john+14%3A28&version=ESV) : > You heard me say to you, ‘I am going away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. - [Luke 22:41-42](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke+22%3A41-42&version=ESV) : > And he withdrew from them about a stone's throw, and knelt down and prayed, saying, “Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done.” Excerpt from [Henry Bettenson's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_S._Bettenson) English translation of the AD 451 [Chalcedon Formula](http://anglicansonline.org/basics/chalcedon.html) : > ... > > and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the Godbearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather **the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons**, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ I borrowed the language "operate in his divine/human nature" from Eleonore Stump's explanation of [Jesus as God](https://www.closertotruth.com/interviews/58405) (min. 5:40-5:55). To me, especially from [dythelitism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyothelitism) perspective where each nature has a distinct will, it makes more sense that in the 3 verses above Jesus operated in his **human** nature, whose divine nature communicated His will, just as we discerned God's will for us. Because if Jesus was operating in his **divine** nature, in order for these 3 verses to have any *real* meaning of subservience, how can one being has two potentially conflicting wills? If there are major camps representing different answers, I'll edit this question to add a comparative-christianity tag.

**Premise** Jesus tells the woman at the well to worship the Father in Spirit and Truth. > 23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seekth such to worship him. 24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. - John 4:23-24 (KJV) In this passage we see the only begotten Son of YHWH, once again declaring his God to be the Father (and is a Spirit), who seeks worship as the one true God. Paul makes it clear that there is 1 Spirit. > There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. - Eph 4:4 **Question** ***In light of these two New Testament scriptural passages, how do Trinitarians understand who or what the Holy Spirit of God to be?***

It seems clear that the Catholic Church rejected Origen's claim that souls were created and existed before conception and birth. Does the Church pinpoint fertilization of the egg as the moment a soul is created? Is it upon implantation, or once the heart starts beating? Is it at some other stage before birth? Maybe it is upon the taking of the first breath, since the Greek word *pneuma* ("breath") is associated with the word "soul". Or does it happen at some other point in time? According to the Catholic Church, when do souls start to exist?

Theistic evolution sounds similar to Old Earth Creationism . Both ideas start with the premise that God created. After this, I've heard tale of wars fought between the two camps. What is the gist of the differences between these two ideas?