I've been studying how the biblical creation & re-creation in Genesis, from Adam to Noah, foreshadows the Exodus. For instance, Noah is of the 10th generation of mankind. The Hebrews were slaves in Egypt for 400 years = 40 x 10 = 10 generations if we assume 40 years per generation. 10 generations of the righteous line appears to represent a certain fullness of time, after which God enacts judgement. Anyways, what I am interested in for this post is the year of the flood (beginning and/or end) and the significance thereof. Genesis is careful to document what year each person was born in, in terms of the age of their father, up through and including Noah. It also tells us that the flood began in Noah's 600th year - and even specifies the month and day. From my calculations, it looks like the flood began in the year 1656 (from creation) and ended in 1657 (from creation). Off hand, I don't see the significance of either number. Yet, why would the author of Genesis be so specific about these dates if there were no meaning to it? Please share your insights :)

In Acts 10:15 a voice comes to Peter in a trance, saying, "What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy." Is this abrogation of the law?

**How is the fact that Anglican Bishop Sarah Mullally is to become the first women to be the Archbishp of Canterbury and Primate of All England affected Anglicanism?** Are there any serious theological worries about this nomination that is going to take place on January 28,2026? [Dame Sarah Elizabeth Mullally](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Mullally)

According to this analysis, choosing the Sola Scriptura approach is the "safest best" Where could this logic fall apart, and what are your counterarguments?

In the beginning of Jesus's ministry, the Pharisees were angered at Jesus but were afraid of what the crowd thought if they were to arrest Jesus. "They looked for a way to arrest him, but they were afraid of the crowd because the people held that he was a prophet." Matthew 21:46. So, it makes me wonder how they mustered up the courage to arrest Jesus if he became more and more popular. How did they know that if they were to arrest Jesus, the crowd wouldn't turn against them after the display of the crowd just laying down palm trees when Jesus arrived in Jerusalem singing "Hosanna to the Son of David!"?

Some disagree on whether a Christian in this life may fall utterly and lose or forfeit eternal life. However, most Christians do agree that after death, the Christian is eternally secure in heaven (or the new earth). And this seems to be well supported in Scripture: > **[John 10:28](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john+10%3A28&version=ESV)** (ESV) > 28 A)"> I give them eternal life, and B)"> they will never perish, and C)"> no one will snatch them out of my hand. > > **[Revelation 21:4](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=revelation+21%3A4&version=ESV)** (ESV) > 4 A)"> He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and B)"> death shall be no more, C)"> neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.” So it seems clear that Christians could not be susceptible to another Fall . My question is, Why? What is the fundamental reason why Christians would not be susceptible to another Fall or rebellion against God? *Please answer from a Protestant, non-Calvinist perspective.* ---------- ### Possible responses I have considered ### > There will be no law, and thus no concept of sin *But wouldn't rebellion against God would be considered sin, even apart from a "law"?* > After death we no longer have a sin nature, and are thus incapable of sin *But weren't Adam and Eve created without a sin nature, and yet sinned?* > Satan will be vanquished, unable to tempt us *But didn't Lucifer rebel without being externally tempted? If we are unable to rebel without a tempter, that implies that we will have less free will than Lucifer and the angels had.* > We will be unable to sin, either through lack of free will, or prevention by God *The argument that I usually use and hear for the existence of free will is that God would rather have willful obedience than robotic obedience. Is God then hedging on this preference for the sake of our eternal souls?* > We have already been atoned for by Christ, so if we were to sin, it could not be counted against us *This allows for sin in heaven, which I can't buy. It contradicts Revelation 21:4 for one thing, and makes heaven imperfect*

Thomas Cranmer's 42 Articles has Article 10: "those that have no will to good things, he makes them to will, and those that would evil things he makes them not to will the same." Does the C. of E. have an official definition of free will, or what might be the nearest it gets to having one?

> "Intercession is the act of using your influence to make someone in authority forgive someone else or save them from punishment" - [*Cambridge Dictionary*](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/intercession) . > "Intercession definition: Entreaty in favor of another, especially a prayer or petition to God in behalf of another" - [*YourDictionary*](https://www.yourdictionary.com/intercession) . For an act to be "intercession", the intercessor must believe there is a possibility that the act will cause God to act differently than He would have without the intercession. > "The only thing that makes sense is that Jesus must share in God’s divine nature. If that is not the case, then God has either contradicted himself or changed his mind, and he does neither of those things." - from the article "[*What Does It Mean to Be a Trinitarian?*](https://www.christianity.com/wiki/christian-terms/what-mean-to-be-trinitarian.html) " at the Christianity.com website. > "Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities; for we know not what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered" - Romans 8:26 (KJV) > "Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us" - Romans 8:34 (KJV) **Do Trinitarians redefine "intercession"?** I understand that, instead, they could take the Greek words translated "intercession" and translate them differently. Or they could say that God's changing His action because of an intercession does not constitute His changing His mind. *[Entugchano](https://biblehub.com/greek/1793.htm)* One thing I have learned from leading Biblical word studies is, "If you want to discuss *agape*, refer to it as *agape*, not as 'love'". This time it bit me. I forgot the first line of Paul's answer and thought he was discussing "intercession" when apparently he was discussing *[Entugchano](https://biblehub.com/greek/1793.htm)* , instead. - Also see Strongs & similar [here](https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Lexicon.show/ID/G1793/entugchano.htm) and [here](https://www.billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/entynchano) and [here](https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/kjv/entugchano.html)

During Ancient Biblical times, it was common for 1st cousins to get married. > Genesis 24:15 > > New American Standard Bible 1995 > > Rebekah Is Chosen > > 15 Before he had finished speaking, behold, Rebekah who was born to > Bethuel the son of Milcah, the wife of Abraham’s brother Nahor, came > out with her jar on her shoulder. > Genesis 24:67 > > New American Standard Bible 1995 > > 67 Then Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah’s tent, and he took > Rebekah, and she became his wife, and he loved her; thus Isaac was > comforted after his mother’s death. > Genesis 28:2 > > New American Standard Bible 1995 > > So Isaac called Jacob > and blessed him and charged him, and said to him, “You shall not take > a wife from the daughters of Canaan. 2 Arise, go to Paddan-aram, to > the house of Bethuel your mother’s father; and from there take to > yourself **a wife from the daughters of Laban your mother’s brother.** > Genesis 29:21-30 > > New American Standard Bible 1995 > > Laban’s Treachery > > 21 Then Jacob said to Laban, “Give me my wife, for my [a]time is > completed, that I may go in to her.” 22 Laban gathered all the men of > the place and made a feast. 23 Now in the evening he took his daughter > Leah, and brought her to him; and Jacob went in to her. 24 Laban also > gave his maid Zilpah to his daughter Leah as a maid. **25 So it came > about in the morning that, behold, it was Leah! And he said to Laban, > “What is this you have done to me? Was it not for Rachel that I served > with you? Why then have you deceived me?” 26 But Laban said, “It is > not [b]the practice in our place to [c]marry off the younger before > the firstborn. 27 Complete the week of this one, and we will give you > the other also for the service which you shall serve with me for > another seven years.” 28 Jacob did so and completed her week, and he > gave him his daughter Rachel as his wife.** 29 Laban also gave his maid > Bilhah to his daughter Rachel as her maid. 30 So Jacob went in to > Rachel also, and indeed he loved Rachel more than Leah, and he served > with Laban for another seven years. However, if one reads about European Royal families then one will notice that there were inbreeding health problems amongst offspring because cousins married each other. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Excerpt from Credit Reference url: [Royal Inbreeding and the Hapsburg Jaw](https://www.utmb.edu/mdnews/podcast/episode/royal-inbreeding-and-the-hapsburg-jaw) > The Hapsburg dynasty ended with King Carlos the Second of Spain whose > tongue was so large he couldn't chew or talk well and drooled. He was > intellectually disabled and died just short of his thirty-ninth > birthday. > > To confirm that marriage with relatives closer than second cousins > caused the Hapsburg jaw, ten maxillofacial surgeons viewed sixty-six > portraits of fifteen members of the Hapsburg dynasty. They looked for > eleven features of the disorder and found them in at least seven > family members. Researchers also studied a family tree that included > six thousand people over twenty generations and established a link > between inbreeding and the disorder. Excerpt from Credit Reference url: [Royal Inbreeding and the Hapsburg Jaw](https://www.utmb.edu/mdnews/podcast/episode/royal-inbreeding-and-the-hapsburg-jaw) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why weren't there any reports of health problems amongst offspring caused by inbreeding when closely related relatives got married to each other, and produced offspring during the Ancient Biblical days?

In the “centuries-old account of the Council of Nicaea: … The whole power of the mysterious dogma is at once established by the one word homoousios … with one pronouncement the Church identified a term (homoousios) that secured its … beliefs against heresy. ... Such older accounts are deeply mistaken ” (LA, 11) “What is conventionally regarded as the key-word in the Creed homoousion, falls completely out of the controversy very shortly after the Council of Nicaea and is not heard of for over twenty years.” (Hanson Lecture ) “For nearly twenty years after Nicaea nobody mentions homoousios, not even Athanasius. This may be because it was much less significant than either later historians of the ancient Church or modern scholars thought that it was.” (RH, 170) “During the years 326–50 the term homoousios is rarely if ever mentioned.” (LA, 431) “After Nicaea homoousios is not mentioned again in truly contemporary sources for two decades. … It was not seen as that useful or important.” (LA, 96) “During the years 325–42 neither Arius nor the particular technical terminology used at Nicaea were at the heart of theological controversy.” (LA, 100) The word homoousios appears only once in Athanasius’ the Orations. This is understood as “evidence of Athanasius’ lack of commitment to Nicaea's terminology at this stage of his career.” (LA, 115) “Athanasius' decision to make Nicaea and homoousios central to his theology has its origins in the shifting climate of the 350s and the structure of emerging Homoian theology.” (LA, 144) > LA = Lewis Ayres Nicaea and its legacy, 2004 Ayres is a Professor of > Catholic and Historical Theology at Durham University in the United > Kingdom. > > RH = Bishop R.P.C. Hanson The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God > – The Arian Controversy 318-381, 1987 Question: Why was the term homoousios not part of the controversy during the 25 years from 325-350 and when and why did this change, so that it is today regarded as the key term in the Nicene Creed?

This question may seem strange, but I believe it is valid. It is commonly understood that God cannot create logical contradictions, such as a square circle, or make 1+1=3. However, it seems that the trinity itself is a logical contradiction being three distinct persons but still only one God. Why can God not create logical contradictions when his own nature is a logical contradiction? I am a trinitarian, but I am unsure of how to answer this question.

I previously posted the question: > I understand the word theos may be translated as "God" or as "god." > Bible writers added words (the, true, only, or one) to indicate the > Almighty. For example, in prayer, Jesus described the Father as **the > only true theos** (John 17:3). The Nicene Creed describes the Father > as "one theos" and the Son as "true theos from true theos." Is there > anything in the Greek of this phrase to indicate whether this should > read "God" or "god?" But the moderator closed the question and indicated: > Add details and clarify the problem you’re solving. So, let me try to explain why I ask such a question: The ancient Greek word theos is the standard word used by the Greeks for their gods, the pantheon. The modern English word “God” has a very different meaning, for it is used only for one Being, namely the Ultimate Reality; the Almighty. Since no other word was available, the New Testament writers used the same word theos for the God of the Bible. When the context indicates that it refers to the Ultimate Reality, it is translated as “God.” But the New Testament also uses theos for other beings, such as Satan and even certain humans. In such instances, it is translated as “god.” (e.g., 1 Cor 8:5-6) The Nicene Creed refers to Jesus as theos in the phrase “theos from theos.” On the assumption of the Trinity doctrine, in which the Son is God Almighty, this is translated as “God from God.” However, **the authors of the 325 Nicene Creed did not think of the Son as God Almighty**. This is indicated by the following: 1. The Creed itself makes a distinction between the “one God, the Father almighty” and “one Lord, Jesus Christ.” 2. Most of the delegates to the council were followers of Origen Frend WHC (The Rise of Christianity) (<a href="/redirect?url=https%3A%2F%2Frevelationbyjesuschrist.com%2Ferickson%2F" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">Millard J. Erickson <i class="fas fa-external-link-alt fa-xs"></i></a>), and Origen, like all pre-Nicene Fathers, regarded the Son as subordinate to the Father (<a href="/redirect?url=https%3A%2F%2Frevelationbyjesuschrist.com%2Fhanson%2F%23origen" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">Hanson <i class="fas fa-external-link-alt fa-xs"></i></a>). They did refer to Jesus as theos because they <a href="/redirect?url=https%3A%2F%2Frevelationbyjesuschrist.com%2Fhanson%2F%23divine" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">did regard Him as divine <i class="fas fa-external-link-alt fa-xs"></i></a> but, in their theology, there were <a href="/redirect?url=https%3A%2F%2Frevelationbyjesuschrist.com%2Fhanson%2F%23theos" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">many different types and grades of deity <i class="fas fa-external-link-alt fa-xs"></i></a>. 3. The concept or phrase “theos from theos” was used by pre-Nicene fathers (Irenaeus - Proof of the Apostolic Preaching 47, Tertullian <a href="/redirect?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ccel.org%2Fccel%2Fschaff%2Fanf03.v.ix.xiii.html" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">Against Praxeas 13 <i class="fas fa-external-link-alt fa-xs"></i></a>), but they regarded the Son as subordinate to the Father. 4. Later Arian Creeds also referred to Christ as theos from theos. For example, the Creed of Sirmium , in the year 358, refers to the Son as “God from God, light from light.” However, that creed presents the Son as subordinate to the Father. As a defense against the indications in the Bible that the Son is subordinate to the Father, the Council of Chalcedon stated that the Son, during His incarnation, had two natures: a divine and a human nature. Therefore, that council argues, when He said that He is subordinate to the Father, He was speaking from His human nature. However, the 'two natures' proposal only deals with indications of subordination while the Son was on earth in the form of a man. There are also many indications that the Son is subordinate to the Father BEFORE His incarnation and AFTER His resurrection and ascension. To defend against such indications of subordination, Trinitarians argue that the three ontologically equal Persons have a voluntary arrangement amongst themselves – a division of duties, so to speak - in which the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father. However, an eternal voluntary arrangement between three ontologically equal Persons, in which the Son is subordinated to the Father, remains real subordination. (Kevin Giles ) Conclusion and Question -------- Therefore, when Irenaeus said that “the Father is God and the Son is God” (Proof of the Apostolic Preaching 47), I understand that Irenaeus simply meant that both the Father and the Son are immortal beings with supernatural powers. And, therefore, when Irenaeus added that “that which is begotten of God is God,” he simply meant that, since the Father is an immortal being with supernatural powers, and since Jesus Christ is the only begotten of God, He is also an immortal being with supernatural powers. So, the question remains, on the basis of the conclusion that the Nicene Council regarded the Son as subordinate to the Father, how should "theos from theos" in the Nicene Creed be translated? This may be compared to the following quote from Irenaeus: > There is none other called God by the Scriptures except the Father of > all, and the Son, and those who possess the adoption. (IV, Preface). This quote classifies the Father, the Son, and believers under the category theos, showing the general meaning of the word theos. How should theos in this quote be translated?

I understand that Jehovah's Witnesses believe their organisation to be the only one on Earth that is recognized by God as His Kingdom and do not, for example, recognize a baptism performed by another denomination. In my experience, most groups that have such a belief claim some unique source of authority. For example, Catholics claim Apostolic succession from Peter, and LDS claim to have a line of succession that was restored by divine intervention. Is there an equivalent idea in Witness theology, or is it purely a matter of nobody else having a compatible understanding of scripture? I am not necessarily looking for a line of succession, but something the Witnesses can point to to say "this is why you should join us and not Church X". The Witnesses I've spoken to tended to focus on having the correct (in their view) understanding, and I get the same impression in their literature. If understanding is the only criterion, then it should be possible for a separate group to study the Bible, draw the same conclusions and have their theology and practices recognised by the Witnesses as correct. I'm not inviting comment on whether that would be likely or desirable but I would like to know, in light of my main question above, whether it would be considered possible.

I'd say a successful band is one that sticks together for 10 years or so and has one of those TLA or first-name awards or a top-40 hit or is actually played on the radio. I'm not into the music scene, but I noticed a discrepancy when checking out Pandora for Christmas tunes and finding an LDS station, but no specifically Catholic tunes. Has there ever been a successful Catholic group or artist singing music you'd hear on your local Christian rock station? Not just an artist in any genre who happens to be Catholic or an artist who was successful, converted to Catholicism and started appealing to a niche crowd (i.e. John Michael Talbot), but an artist or group like the Newsboys or Toby Mac. --- I think this is an objectively answerable question, there's a wiki page for [Roman Catholic Musicians](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_Catholic_Church_musicians) but it is lacking both John Michael Talbot and The Singing Nun. I edited the question to say, since the Singing Nun since [Sister Smile](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Singing_Nun) would be an example of a "success" in the music business at least, but I've already got her record and I don't need another.

I'm currently reading Eusebius' History of the church and stumbled upon this passage: > These earnest disciples of great men built on the foundation of the > churches everywhere laid by the apostles, spreading the message still > further and sowing the saving seed of the Kingdom of Heaven far and > wide through the entire world. Very many disciples of the time, their > hearts smitten by the word of God with an ardent passion for true > philosophy, first fulfilled the Saviour's command by distributing > their possessions among the needy; then, leaving their homes behind, > they carried out the work of the evangelists, ambitious to preach to > those who had never yet heard the message of the faith and to give > them the inspired gospels in writing. Staying only to lay the > foundations of the faith in one foreign place or another, appoint > others as pastors, and entrust to the the tending of those newly > brought in, they set off again for other lands and peoples with the > grace and cooperation of God, **for even at that late date many > miraculous powers of the divine Spirit worked through them**, so that at > the first hearing while crowds in a body embraced with a whole-hearted > eagerness the worship of the universal Creator. To me, this seems to imply that readers at Eusebius' time would not expect performing miracles to be a gift that one could possess. Is this line of thing correct? To further clarify, I'm using the same definition of cessationism found on Got Questions > Most cessationists believe that, while God can and still does perform > miracles today, the Holy Spirit no longer uses individuals to perform > miraculous signs.

Some might question it that this kind of colossal story would be able to pass on accurately via oral tradition: for example older men telling this story to others among his own tribe Beside the fire. My original intent was to ask that how is it possible that exodus story could be passed on to the next generation so accurately? Some might say that exodus story is a myth, because no-one can pass on this story so accurately as it is written in the Bible.

I read Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Now I am presently in Acts and Jesus isn't being quoted. Are there books outside of the King James Bible that have the word of Jesus? Because I love Jesus, I wanted to know if I could read more of his words.

From George Barna Research the following statistics were submitted. Only 16% of those professing Trinity belief held valid views. This graph is drawn from two Christian surveys. The data from 2014-2022 is from thestateoftheology.com, and the 2025 survey is from George Barna at the Cultural Research Center. All surveys had a minimum of 2,100 participants. What is causing this dramatic decline? Source below. - [Most Americans—Including Most Christian Churchgoers— Reject the Trinity](https://georgebarna.com/2025/04/most-americans-including-most-christian-churchgoers/)

>Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them - Hebrews 7:25 (KJV) How do Trinitarians who believe that the distinct persons of the Trinity share one will, explain how Jesus is making intercession with God? (A previous answer here on Christianity.SE stated that some Trinitarians believe that the Trinity share a single will, while others believe each has a separate but identical will.) I apologize. I thank you all for your answers. But my question wasn't clear enough, so your answers didn't provide the information I am seeking. So I am re-asking my question .

## Introduction From early church fathers such as 2nd Century Justin Martyr (*Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, ch 73*) to the 16th Century Reformer John Calvin (*Commentary on the Book of Psalms, 1:373*), accusations that Jewish scribes "tampered" with the Masoretic Text (the authoritative Hebrew Bible text) to obscure messianic prophecies have circulated for centuries. ## Question Is this belief still held by Christians? Do Christians who believe this provide evidence for this belief? What evidence is there for this accusation?