I know that Martin Luther and Philip Melanchthon tried to oppose the school system introduced by the Catholic Church (according to Luther, Oxford and Cambridge model was influenced by the Paris universities, which in their turn by the Catholic Church). This happened at the beginning of the 16th century, when they founded some of the so-called Reformed Schools (based on the Protestant beliefs) like the University of Wittenberg. As far as I know, a little later, some bigger universities like the University of Halle and University of Göttingen were created on the same model. The latter was indeed a very prestigious institution during the whole 18th and 19th century together with Univ. of Berlin and some other German schools. It looks that at a certain moment, the whole movement ceased to be active. Does anyone know more about this reforming of the schools' movement and what exactly happened with it? Which of the currently prestigious universities in North America have been founded according to the Luther and Melanchthon's ideas?

I am not asking the difference between these, I think I have an okay grasp on that. I am generally asking, what truly does the difference of who Christ was, and the specific way he was divine, make to the individual? I grew up "protestant" *(which should be obvious based on my question)* but specifically, I grew up LDS, and because I grew up LDS, I don't think I have ever seen a Catholic church, let alone a Orthodox Church. *(And no, I am no longer mormon, and I haven't been mormon since like the age of 11. I disagree with pretty much everything.)* And so I have been kind of dabbling in Orthodoxy in my own spare time. And generally, I think I have a very surface level seperation of the differences between the four Orthodox, Antiochene is Assyrian, Miaphysite is Oriental Orthodox, and Chalcedonian is Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic. But just to be sure I know the definitions, 1. Antiochene is like, two distinct natures which are seperate until union? 2. Miaphysite is unified divine and human? 3. Chalcedonian is both natures in one at the same time? But what does this difference really make in the interpretation of the ecumenical councils, and the general bible?

Since the time canon was formed, when did the teaching that salvation can still be obtained by people after their physical death first appear in Christianity?

The wise men were educated and would have documented their experience in detail. Also, they would have shared the Christmas story with everyone they came in contact with on their trip home. Once they were back in their home land their story should have spread far and wide. Outside of scripture, are there any writings telling of the wise men story? If they indeed were educated, respected, and had influence and integrity, there would be non-biblical accounts. Have any been found?

In the Gospel according to Matthew John the Baptist is explicitly shown to be Elijah whereas in John, he denies being Elijah. Obviously the parallels between John the Baptist and Elijah are bountiful ; I suppose the real question is why John denies being Elijah in John ch. 1.

In passages like John 14–16 and the baptism of Jesus, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit appear to act in distinct ways, - The Son is baptized - The Spirit descends “like a dove” - The Father speaks from heaven yet Trinitarian theology teaches that God is one in essence. How do theologians explain the distinction of actions and roles among the Trinity while maintaining perfect unity of will? Are there differences in interpretation between major Trinitarian traditions (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant)?

There is a new United Bible Society Greek New Testament coming out in June. Someone I follow posted something that implied the editorial committee may include atheists, unbelievers, and Resurrection-deniers. I cannot for the life of me find out who is on that committee to verify if that is true or not. Does anyone here know? Thank you.

The Old Testament records many instances of men having concubines or many wives. Why did having concubines not fall under the sin of adultery? 2 Samuel 5:13 - "After he left Hebron, David took more concubines and wives in Jerusalem, and more sons and daughters were born to him." Genesis 25:6 - "But while he was still living, he gave gifts to the sons of his concubines and sent them away from his son Isaac to the land of the east." (Abraham) I suppose the issue here must've been consent between all parties.

One of my close friends has recently taken to believing in a pre-trib rapture, and out of respect for her, I've tried my best to understand why she believes it. I've seen the texts which the pre-tribulationists use to support their views (mainly 1 Thess. 4:13-19, 1 Corinthians 15:50-58, John 14:1-3, Matt 24, Rev. 3:10, and many others) and heard their arguments but I'm still perplexed by how the logic works. I can see how, if you already had the idea of a pre-tribulation rapture, you might think some or all of those verses support that interpretation. However, what I can't see is how you anyone came up with the idea in the first place. Clearly, someone did, since there has not been a continuous tradition of pre-tribulationists and the evidence that anyone at all held that view before the 19th century is pretty scanty. So, what I want to understand is how did the idea of a pre-tribulational rapture originate (or re-originate, if the pre-tribbers are correct and it was the original doctrine)? How does one get to the idea of a pre-tribulational rapture without already having it in your mind? To be clear about what I'm asking (I don't think it's a duplicate of https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/7239/what-scripture-is-used-to-support-a-pre-tribulation-rapture) : I want to know how one would use Scripture to build up the picture of the pre-tribulational rapture, i.e. that Jesus will return in a secret way to gather the church off the earth and we all go into heaven prior to the seven-year Tribulation period, during which many (all?) ethnic Jews will become believers, after which Jesus will return in glory and destroy the anti-Christ and rescue the faithful Jewish believers. If you read the Bible with no pre-conceived notions of the eschaton, what kind of reasoning would lead you to believe that it teaches this timeline?

Are there catholic writings of popes, bishops or catholic church fathers that mention Anne the mother of Saint Mary or narratives from the Protoevangelium of James before its condemnation? Did the ancient catholic church believe that Anne was mother of Saint Mary before the condemnation of the Protoevangelium of James? Some may say that the condemnation of the apocrypha does not mean that they did not believe Anne was mother of Saint Mary, because this could be an unwritten tradition of the church, but the question is if there are written ancient church sources that can prove that, they believed that Anne was mother of Saint Mary and that this idea did not come from the Protoevangelium of James, but from parallel unwritten tradition? > "condemned by Pope Innocent I in 405 and classified as apocryphal by > the Gelasian Decree around AD 500, became a widely influential source > for Mariology." - [Gospel of James](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_James) How would condemned apocrypha become "influential source for Mariology"? Thanks in advance. ------------------------------------------------------------------- **In the East: Probably mentioning the Protevangelium of James** **(c. 375 AD) Ephiphanius of Salamis - Panarion - against collyridians 8** **Pdf page 641:** > For the age-old error of forgetting the living God and worshiping his > creatures will not get the better of me. (4) They served and worshiped > the creature more than the creator,” and “were made fools.”14 If it is > not his will that angels be worshiped, how much more the woman born of > Ann,15 who was given to **Ann by Joachim**16 and granted to her father and > mother by promise, after prayer and all diligence? She was surely not > born other than normally, but of a man’s seed and a woman’s womb like > everyone else. (5) For even though the story and traditions of Mary > say that her father Joachim was told in the wilderness, “Your wife has > conceived,”17 it was not because this had come about without conjugal > intercourse or a man’s seed. The angel who was sent to him predicted > the coming event, so that there would be no doubt. The thing had truly > happened, had already been decreed by God, and had been promised to > the righteous. 12 John 13:23. 13 Cf. Act. John 108–115. 14 Rom 1:25; > 22. 15 Cf. Protevangelium of James 4.1–3. 16 Cf. Protevangelium of James 4.1–3. 17 Cf. Protevangelium of James 4.2. https://ia800501.us.archive.org/18/items/EpiphaniusPanarionBksIIIII1/Epiphanius%20-%20_Panarion_%20-%20Bks%20II%20%26%20III%20-%201.pdf **The book Panarion:** > It was written in Koine Greek beginning in 374 or 375, and issued > about three years later,1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panarion

Prior to Westcott and Hort influencing the Revision Committee which produced the 1881 [Revised Version](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_Version) (the supposed 'revision' of the Authorised Version which, in fact, replaced the Received Text with a new Greek Text - that of Westcott and Hort) these two gentlemen intimated that they would refuse to be on the Committee if the Unitarian Dr Vance Smith was not permitted to be a part of the proceedings. >Dr. G. Vance Smith, a Unitarian scholar, was a member of the Revision Committee. At Westcott's suggestion, a celebration of Holy Communion was held on June 22nd before the first meeting of the N.T. Revision Company. Dr. Smith communicated but said afterwards that he did not join in reciting the Nicene Creed and did not compromise his principles as a Unitarian. **The storm of public indignation which followed almost wrecked the Revision at the outset**. At length however Dr. Smith remained on the Committee. Nesher Resources I have read, somewhere (and it escapes my memory where) that 'thousands' objected to the Unitarian Dr Vance Smith being on the Committee which would oversee the 'revision' of the bible. Yet, somehow, the above mentioned 'storm' and the 'thousands' I have read of, did not result in Vance Smith, Wescott and Hort being removed from the committee. Had they been removed, Professor Scrivener and the other members would have done as was intended and would have adjusted the known defects of the Authorised Version, rather than replace the Received Text with an altogether new text comprising of over ten thousand (seven per cent) alterations, omissions and additions. Why were the 'storm' and the 'thousands' ineffective ? Whose influence was it that overcame the opposition ? EDIT NOTE : The Protocol, referred to, here, by Dean John Burgon in his book 'Revision Revised' indicates the original intent of the 'Convocation' : >That [pg 003]“a Revision of the Authorized Version” is desirable; and the terms of the original Resolution of Feb. 10th, 1870, being, that the removal of “plain and clear errors” was alone contemplated,—“whether in the Greek Text originally adopted by the Translators, or in the Translation made from the same.” Such were in fact the limits formally imposed by Convocation, (10th Feb. and 3rd, 5th May, 1870,) on the work of Revision. Only necessary changes were to be made. The first Rule of the Committee (25th May) was similar in character: viz.—“To introduce as few alterations as possible into the Text of the Authorized Version, consistently with faithfulness.” Dean John Burgon - *Revision Revised*

Most mainstream Christian denominations refer to Christ as having a "glorified body" and teach that saved humans will have glorified bodies in the afterlife. The concept seems to be based on **Philippians 3:20–21**: > For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: > > Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his **glorious body**, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself. The word "glorious" is an adjective, meaning: "*having, worthy of, or bringing fame or admiration*", or "*having a striking beauty or splendor that evokes feelings of delighted admiration*". It is used casually, without further explanation, yet today the term seems to be used quite freely in many publications, as if everyone understands that it means something very specific and very different from the basic meaning of that adjective. For instance, [*A Glorified Body: The Necessity of Our Resurrection*](https://www.gty.org/blogs/B130701/a-glorified-body-the-necessity-of-our-resurrection#:~:text=They%20will%20be%20real,and%20glorified.) says that glorified bodies: > will be real, physical, genuinely human bodies — the very same bodies we have while on this earth—yet wholly perfected and glorified. What exactly is the definition of "glorified body", and what is the origin of this term, the concept and doctrine that it will be physical? --- Note that I'm not asking for what scriptures are consistent with this belief, I'm asking for the history of its development.

What is the basis in the Scripture for the doctrine that those who haven't received salvation during their physical life, especially those who heard of Christ and yet chose not to pray to Him, will still have a chance to get saved after their physical death?

Which early church fathers (pre 500) taught it was possible for a person after their death to hear and receive salvation in Christ Jesus? We know some groups teach the necessity of water baptism to be saved. So for example, for them, a baby born but not baptized would be consigned to hell. Who taught it is possible to be saved even after one died, rather than go to and stay in hell for all eternity?

Some Christian traditions and theologians suggest that there might be an opportunity for repentance and salvation after death. Others reject this view and argue that Scripture teaches salvation must be received in this life. What are the key biblical arguments against the idea of a post-mortem chance for salvation? In particular, which passages are commonly cited to show that the opportunity for repentance ends at death?

Acts 15:29 and 21:25 carry over four requirements from the old testament to apply to gentile Christians - one of which is abstaining from sexual immorality. In Leviticus 20:18, it makes a big deal about having sex with a woman while she's on her period. > If a man lies with a woman during her menstrual period and uncovers her nakedness, he has made naked her fountain, and she has uncovered the fountain of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from among their people. (ESV) However, Leviticus 15:24 makes it sound more like a ceremonial issue than a sexual immorality issue (which in that case may be a requirement which has passed away under the new covenant). > And if any man lies with her and her menstrual impurity comes upon him, he shall be unclean seven days, and every bed on which he lies shall be unclean (ESV) So the question is, what is the Biblical basis for claiming that a Christian husband is/is not permitted to have sex with his wife when she's on her period?

[Isaiah 42:19](https://biblehub.com/isaiah/42-19.htm) says: > “Who is blind but my servant, and deaf like my messenger whom I send…?” When I read this alongside the rest of Isaiah 42:18–25, I struggle with whether this “servant” is meant to describe: 1. Israel as a spiritually blind people, 2. the prophetic servant/Messiah, or 3. both in different senses. My specific concern is this: If Christians interpret Isaiah 42 as a Messianic prophecy fulfilled in Jesus, how should we understand verse 19 describing the servant as “blind” or “deaf”? Does the text imply any lack of understanding in the servant, or is this metaphor meant in a different way? I’m looking for an explanation grounded in the text and Christian theological interpretation, especially regarding how the “blindness” metaphor can be reconciled with Christian beliefs about Jesus’ perfect obedience and knowledge of God’s law.

According to Mormon Doctrine, Adam and Eve lived in Adam-ondi-Ahman . Which was revealed to Joseph Smith to be located in Missouri (see D&C 116:1 ). This would mean that unless Adam's posterity went on some epic intercontinental journey between Adam and Noah's time, that Noah likely built the ark not too far from Missouri, and sailed it from America all the way to the Eastern Continent. Do Mormons believe the ark was built on the American continent? And that everyone who lived before Noah dwelt in America?

The word 'Saviour' (σωτήρ, *soter*) is used twenty-four times in the Greek New Testament scriptures. Eight times, this refers to 'God'. Sixteen times it refers to 'Jesus', 'Christ', 'Jesus Christ', 'Lord Jesus Christ', and 'The Son'. One notable time, the wording used is 'the great God and Saviour of us, Jesus Christ', Titus 2:13, and here I am quoting the original, literal, in which the Greek idiom known as 'Sharp's rule' should be noted. No other person is called a 'saviour' in the Greek New Testament. Moses is referred to as a 'deliverer', the proper translation for λυτρωτῆς, *lutrotes*, in Acts 7:35, in regard to a national, not a spiritual, deliverance: and Noah is said to have 'saved' his household (from a flood, not a spiritual salvation) in Hebrews 11:7 when God was the Saviour by his warning Noah of the future flood. The salvation of one's own soul ; the salvation from one's own, personal sins; the salvation of oneself in regard to the sin which entered into the world and humanity in general; the salvation of one's body in resurrection: all are the province, solely, of 'God our Saviour' and of 'the God and Saviour of us, Jesus Christ.' In the light of this evidence, why do some suggest that Jesus Christ is not 'God' when the evidence appears to be, very substantially, in favour of the opposite conclusion? The list of eight references to 'God our Saviour': Lk 1:47, 1 Ti 1:1, 2:3, 4:10, Titus 1:3, 2:10, 3:4, Jude 25. The list of sixteen references to Christ as Saviour: Lk 2:11, Jn 4:42, Ac 5:31, 13:23, Eph 5:23, Phil 3:20, 2 Ti 1:10, Titus 1:4, 2:13, 3:6, 2 Pe 1:1, 1:11, 2:20, 3:2, 3:18, 1 Jo 4:14. -------------------------------------- All references and quotations relate to the TR Greek text and to the KJV translation of that text.

1 Timothy 3:16 seems like a pretty straightforward knock-out punch for Trinitarianism. > "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was > manifest in the flesh[.]" (KJB) How do Biblical Unitarians, who hold Jesus is not God but also hold to a strong view of scripture, explain this verse?