> Isaiah 44:6, Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel And His Redeemer, the Lord of host; I am the first and I am the last, AND THERE IS NO GOD BESIDES ME. > > Isaiah 44:24, Thus says the Lord your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, I. the Lord, am the maker of all things BY MYSELF, And spreading out the heavens BY MYSELF. > > Isaiah 45:5, I am the Lord and THERE IS NO OTHER; BESIDES ME THERE IS NO GOD." Now that it’s established that there is no other God, then why do Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that Jesus Christ is "a god" according to their NWT of the Bible at John 1:1? They explain their position here: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1984647#h=18 So the specific question I'm asking is as follows: is Jesus Christ a true god, or a false god? > John 17:3, "And this is eternal life, that they may know Thee, THE ONLY TRUE GOD, and Jesus Christ whom Thou has sent." John 5:44, "How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another, and you do not seek the glory that is FROM THE ONLY GOD?" If there is only one true something, then everything else is false. The Apostle Paul speaks about this at 1 Corinthians 8:5-6: > For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth as indeed there are many gods and many lords, yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him. So in view of the following statement, "Jehovah’s Witnesses do not deny Jesus’ godship, or divinity" "Jesus himself said that he lived in heaven before being born as a human. As a spirit creature in heaven, Jesus had a special relationship with Jehovah." "He is called the firstborn of all creation, for he was God's first creation. "This means that Jesus is the only one directly created by God. Again, is this first spirit creature created by God and described as "a god" at John 1:1 a true god or a false god, and what is his nature? Galatians 4:8, "However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those WHICH BY NATURE ARE NO gods." Some of the information is from the following site. https://answersingenesis.org/jesus/jesus-is-god/is-jesus-the-creator-god/

It appears from this question and answer that the Jehovah's Witnesses hold a slightly different understanding of God's omniscience than the typical Orthodox view wherein God always and at all times knows absolutely everything past, present, and future. From what I understand, the JW position is that God **can** know anything He wishes to know but, when it comes to foreknowledge, He does not choose to exercise the ability universally. In other words, God chooses what things He will and, by extension, will not foreknow. Various branches of Open Theism attempt to describe how the future can be epistemically open to God and the two main branches hold the future to be either alethically settled or open. This related question outlines the 4 main branches of Open Theism and, of the four, I believe JW thought lines up most closely with Voluntary Nescience (although I am not sure if JW believe that the future is alethically settled): > Voluntary Nescience: The future is alethically settled but nevertheless epistemically open for God because he has voluntarily chosen not to know truths about future contingents ... Even if Vulontary Nescience is not an accurate summation of JW belief regarding God's omniscience, still they do assert that God chooses what He will and will not foreknow. Searching through the Scriptures it seems that there are a great many things which it was critical for God to have foreknown and which, indeed, He did foreknow. Most notably, all prophesy spoken by or through God consists of foreknown future events. I say foreknown because God is not guessing: He is telling beforehand what **will** come to pass. Some of those are things that He brings to pass and one might say that He foreknows what He Himself will do. Others are things that hinge upon human decisions (often a multiplicity). My question is, according to Jehovah's Witnesses, How does God foreknow which things He must foreknow and which things He can safely leave unforeseen without resorting to the equivalent of guessing? Another way of phrasing this is, If God chooses to foreknow certain things from the set of all of the possible things that there are to foreknow how can He identify the critical items and choose to foreknow them without knowing what all of the non-critical items actually are?

I understand that the Roman Catholic Church teaches that Mary is the eternal virgin in that she never had sexual relations with Joseph (or any other man)--either before or after the miraculous conception of Jesus. What Biblical evidence is there that contradicts this doctrine?

I'm interested in whether there was an early Church Father who ***explicitly*** drew the connection that Trinitarians commonly draw today: the connection between Jesus' "**I am**" statement, found in **John 8:58** and God Almighty calling Himself the "**I am**" in **Exodus 3:14**. I would be interested in any Trinitarian answer that holds on to the Chalcedonian creeds. **When did the Church start drawing this connection?** I couldn't find such an **explicit** reference to such a connection being made by any of the 1st to 3rd-century Church Fathers in my research and am wondering if I'm missing something.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says >“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God” (Matthew 5:9). However, in some situations, people might use deception to bring about peace — for example, concealing the truth to prevent violence or lying to stop conflict. From a Protestant theological perspective, would such a person still be considered a “peacemaker” in the sense Jesus describes in Matthew 5:9? Or would the use of deceit disqualify them from that blessing, given the biblical prohibitions against lying (e.g., Proverbs 12:22; Ephesians 4:25)?

This question regarding whether the Catholic Church considers the Assyrian Church of the East to be heretics made me wonder: are *any* Christians outside the Catholic and Orthodox churches *not* considered heretical by the Catholic Church?

How did the early church fathers accepting the doctrine of the Trinity regard Christians who didn't accept the doctrine of the Trinity? By early I'm mean 2nd century or before. Constantine changes the picture of government interference. My understanding is they accepted them as Christians but heretical (a schism). But I'm not familiar enough with the church fathers to answer this. Related: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/107892/as-a-jewish-believer-in-jesus-i-view-him-as-my-messiah-the-son-of-god-but-not

I think Romans is clear about law, and transgression, here is my understanding, if anyone wanted to answer feel free, or comments welcome. The law is a negative, nothing to do with the promises of God, no righteousness for the law, righteousness is through faith. So we hear about those of the law, that they are not heirs of the promises of life. **What does the law do, or serve as ?** It shows wrath in man, that is what the law works, transgression, and where there is no law, ( by faith) there is no transgression. > Romans 4:13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, > was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the > righteousness of faith. 14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, > faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect: 15 Because > the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression So where there is no law there is no transgression, which is precisely what Romans 4:4-8 speaks, how those who do not work ( not in the law/not in transgression.) believe on Him who justifies the ungodly. ( Their faith is counted as righteousness.) Those in the law ( where there is transgression, by man working wrath) work, their reward is not of grace, they are IN DEBT. ( as many as are of the WORKS of the law/Cursed is every one THAT CONTINUES NOT in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.) David also described the blessing of the man unto whom God imputes righteousness without works testifying, blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. ( the law works wrath, works transgression, where there is no law there is no transgression, as told clearly in this same passage, where righteousness without works is imputed, the man is blessed, whose iniquities are forgiven, whose sins are covered/ believing the promises of God is where there is no transgression/faith is imputed as righteousness.) > Romans 4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of > grace, but of debt. 5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on > him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for > righteousness. 6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the > man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, 7 Saying, > Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are > covered. 8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. > > Galatians 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under > the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not > in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

So I am not asking about Mary and Joseph's genealogy. I am asking about their children's descendants. So Jesus's siblings' children, their children's children, etc. Whenever I search for this, I only receive results about their family history genealogy. So essentially, what happened to Jesus's nieces and nephews?

By conditionalist doctrine, I mean the belief that hell is the destruction of those souls that go there, rather than the everlasting torment or eventual purification of said souls.

### Background Early (pre Protestant Reformation) Christian writers from the 1st through 5th centuries like St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Jerome, and others seem to have universally condemned usury and defined it as charging any interest on loans, not merely excessive or extortionate rates. St. Ambrose of Milan (4th c.) explicitly stated the classic definition: > “Food too is usury and clothing is usury, and **whatever is added to the capital is usury**. Whatever name you wish to put upon it, it is usury” St. Augustine (late 4th–early 5th c.) likewise defined a usurer as anyone who expects back more than he lent : > "If thou hast given the loan of thy money to one from whom thou dost expect to receive something more than thou hast given; not in money only, but anything... **if you expect to receive more than you have given, you are an usurer**, and in this are not deserving of praise, but of censure." ### Question The practice of usury has had a mixed history in the Christian Church. How do modern Protestants define it, and do they still believe it is a sin? And what do they base their definition on? For example, is usury the collection of interest at any rate on a loan? Is it the collection of excessive interest?

In Romans 7:12–14, Paul writes that the law is “holy, righteous, and good,” yet he also emphasizes that it cannot save humanity from sin. How have theologians, especially in the Protestant tradition, reconciled this apparent tension?

My question is for protestant Christians. If salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, then what does 2 Thessalonians 2:13 mean by saying that people are saved by the sanctification of the Spirit and believing the truth?

In its article on the decline of human life spans, [CreationWiki](http://creationwiki.org/Human_longevity) states, >Interestingly, Noah died only two years before Abraham was born. Unfortunately for readers they provide no biblical support. What is the biblical basis for this claim?

Polycarp is said to be a student of the Apostle John. Yet he never mentions it in his epistle, nor does he quote the Gospel of John. Why is that?

In Romans 4:1-15, Paul has argued that Abraham was justified by faith apart from works of the law and apart from circumcision. Then comes 4:15a, "because the law brings about wrath;" But then he says in 15b, "And where there is no law there is no transgression." Why was this 15b written? What is the point after what was said before? I don't see how "transgression" enters the flow of text.

**Introduction** Arius believed that Jesus was a creature, a created god. What did he write about John 1:1? Or if there is no such extant manuscript, how would he interpreted ''the Word was God'' in John 1:1 based on his Christology? > Arius was was a Libyan presbyter and ascetic, and priest in Baucalis > in Alexandria, Egypt. His teachings about the nature of the Godhead in > Christianity, which emphasized God's uniqueness and the Christ's > subordination under the Father,and his opposition to what would become > the dominant Christology, Homoousian Christology, made him a primary > topic of the First Council of Nicaea, which was convened by Emperor > Constantine the Great in 325.'' (Source ). > > In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and > the Word was God. John 1:1 (ESV) ---------- **Question** What was the stance of Arius on the third clause of John 1:1?

It is my understand that John Calvin arrived at Geneva in 1537; and then, because of various theological disagreements and conflicts, was exiled a year later. Then, some years later (1541 I think it was), he not only returned to Geneva, but had been *invited* to do so. QUESTION: Why was John Calvin invited to return to Geneva?

Master Jesus was crucified on a tree, according to Apostle Peter. >**Acts 5:30** 30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and **hanged on a tree**. >**Acts 10:39** 39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and **hanged on a tree**: >**Acts 13:29** 29 And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, **they took him down from the tree**, and laid him in a sepulchre. >**1 Peter 2:24** 24 Who his own self bare our sins in **his own body on the tree**, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. On some accounts, He was crucified on the cross. >**Matthew 27:40** 40 And saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come down **from the cross.** >**Matthew 27:42** 42 He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down **from the cross**, and we will believe him. >**Mark 15:30** 30 Save thyself, and come down **from the cross.** >**Mark 15:32** 32 Let Christ the King of Israel descend now **from the cross**, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him reviled him. >**Luke 23:26** 26 And as they led him away, they laid hold upon one Simon, a Cyrenian, coming out of the country, and **on him they laid the cross**, that he might bear it after Jesus. >**John 19:19** 19 And Pilate wrote a title, and put it **on the cross**. And the writing was JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.

In Leviticus 18:29 NIV, it states as follows: > Everyone who does any of these detestable things—such persons must be cut off from their people. And in Exodus 6:20, it states as follows: > Amram married his father’s sister Jochebed, who bore him Aaron and Moses. Amram lived 137 years. Since marrying your father's sister was considered a forbidden act by God, does this mean that by doing so, both Amran and Jochebed caused their sons to be cut off from their own people?