Why were ousia and hypostasis synonymous in the Nicene Creed? ---- In the original 325 A.D. Nicene Creed, an anathema is included which has ousia and hypostasis as synonymous. In this case, the Trinity is one hypostasis ( = homoousios). >And in the Holy Spirit. But as for those who say, There was when He was not, and, Before being born He was not, and that He came into existence out of nothing, or who assert that the Son of God is of a ***different hypostasis or substance*** (ὑποστάσεως ἢ οὐσιάς) or created, or is subject to alteration or change these the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes. Source: https://earlychurchtexts.com/public/creed_of_nicaea_325.htm It seems also the meaning of υποστασις in Hebrews 1:3. >He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his ***nature*** (υποστασις) (ESV). The ASV has "substance". However, in later centuries hypostasis began referring to the "person", not the "nature" or "being" of the Trinity. **Why did such change in definition occur?** It would be helpful to address the semantical development of υποστασις on how it changed from "substance" (nature/essence) to "person". >The Church confesses is that God is three Persons (hypostasis) in one Essence (ousia). Source: https://www.google.com.ph/amp/s/exploringthedepthsofthedivine.wordpress.com/2015/08/12/god-as-trinity-orthodox-trinitarianism/amp/

The book of Esther is included in both the Jewish canon and Christian canons of all denominations. However, it seems to have enjoyed a questionable status for much longer than any other of the now-accepted writings. For example, it is the only Old Testament book not to be found at Qumran, it is one of the few OT books not referenced by Sirach, it is omitted from Melito of Sardis's canon, and Athanasius also expressly categorized it with the Apocrypha as useful but not canonical. Jerome, whose opinion is often cited by Protestants in discussions of the canon, counted Esther as canonical but not the deuterocanonical books (although it seems he changed his opinion on the deuterocanonical books at some point in his career). I haven't read Jerome's comments myself but, usually his reason is explained to be that the canonical books were the ones where the Hebrew manuscripts still existed while the others were only preserved in Greek (or were composed in Greek). However, Jerome seems to have known of Hebrew manuscripts of 1st Maccabees, so there must be something else going on to distinguish it from Esther. Protestants usually cite as the main criterion for OT canonicity some prophetic authority guaranteeing the divine inspiration of a book. However, Esther has no association with the prophets, unlike any other book of the Protestant OT canon. However, Esther was included in the canon by the Council of Rome (382) and by all subsequent streams of Christian thought. Why? What reasoning lead the Church to set aside the doubts specifically about the book of Esther that apparently had existed for quite a while prior? **This is a historical question.** I am not asking why it is included in the canon by Protestants or Catholics today, but rather why it was included starting in the 4th century, i.e. **why the doubt which originally surrounded the book was cleared up.**

Science is supposed to be our observations that give an answer to the world around us. Since Darwin there have been many scientists who have sought to explain natural history through theories that exclude God, or limit His ability to create. If this is the case than psychologically couldn't we assume that their findings are biased? They often will point to the fact that since there are fossils that have been found with striking similarities, there must have been an evolutionary leap from one species to another. How can we justify this position since we can only observe the fossils, rather than first hand observation of the process? On top of this some Christians have adopted a position of theistic evolution. Again I would as how this is not contrary to this Biblical account? Why is this not considered a concession to the scientific community in an effort to appear more legitimate? If you start a study with the presupposition that there can be no supernatural causes you have automatically dismissed half of the argument. If you explanation for this is because supernatural theories are to difficult to believe you have missed the point of the word supernatural. Supernatural simply put means the cause of some event cannot be explained by a natural cause and thus since we cannot observe this would mean we might have a difficult time understanding it. Thus it might appear to be illogical, but when you observe it from a philosophical view it begins to make a bit more sense.

Looking at the different translations of Proverbs 8:22, it describes the "Artisan or Wisdom" as separate from God in Proverbs 8:30: >**Douay-Rheims Bible** I was with him forming all things: and was delighted every day, playing before him at all times; >**New American Standard Bible** Then I was beside Him, as a master workman; And I was His delight daily, Rejoicing always before Him, >**Catholic Public Domain Version** I was with him in composing all things. And I was delighted, throughout every day, by playing in his sight at all times, >**New American Bible** then was I beside him as artisan; I was his delight day by day, playing before him all the while, From the different Bible translations, it clearly describes the "artisan or Wisdom" is a separate spirit being, beside God. **Which denomination or Church interprets Wisdom in Proverbs 8:22 as a "created Spirit"?**

In light of ongoing global events—such as wars (e.g., the conflict involving Russia), geopolitical instability, and widespread moral and social upheaval—many Christians interpret these as signs that the “end times” are approaching. My questions are twofold: Imminence of Christ’s return: Within mainstream Christian theology, do these kinds of events meaningfully support the belief that Christ’s return is near? How have passages such as Matthew 24; Luke 21; 1 Thessalonians 5:1–6; and Revelation 6–16 traditionally been understood in relation to historical events versus recurring patterns throughout history? Christ’s presence before the Parousia: Is there any biblical basis for the idea that Christ is presently “walking the earth” prior to His return, possibly until all believe in Him as the Christ? How do texts like Matthew 28:20 (“I am with you always”), John 14–16 (the coming of the Holy Spirit), Acts 1:9–11, and Revelation 1:12–18 inform orthodox interpretations of Christ’s presence now versus His future, visible return? I am seeking answers grounded in Scripture and recognized Christian interpretive traditions (e.g., patristic, Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant), rather than speculative or purely contemporary prophetic claims.

In Genesis 12:10–20, during a famine, Abraham (Abram) goes to Egypt and tells Pharaoh that Sarah is his sister because he fears he will be killed on account of her beauty. Pharaoh takes her into his house, and God intervenes by sending plagues before she is returned. Later, in Genesis 20:1–18, Abraham again identifies Sarah as his sister while sojourning in Gerar. King Abimelech takes her, and God warns him in a dream, after which Sarah is restored to Abraham. Given that Abraham is later commended in Scripture as a model of faith (e.g., Romans 4; Hebrews 11), how should Christians understand these repeated episodes? What do these narratives teach about the relationship between fear and faith in a believer’s life?

What does virginity really mean? It appears to me either not to be a categorical variable, or an arbitrary state. My commonplace understanding of virginity would mean that someone had no sex so far; that would lead to virginity being a continuous variable instead of a categorical one, as sex can mean anything between fingering, licking, masturbation, penetration and so on. In the reception history, virginity seems to be a testable claim (see e.g. Jeanne d'Arc). We know now that there is no test for virginity. We could also assume that virginity is a state of mind, but that would make it kind of arbitrary if we do not assume asexuality. There could be another definition, but I doubt that that is how it could be interpreted in our times, and that would be based on the value of a woman for marriage, which would boil down either to the possibility of pregnancy outside of wedlock or sexual experience of any sort, depending on why virginity has such a high value in certain cultures regarding marriage. I am sure I missed something. How do different denominations teach this? What errors did I make in my naive pre-assessment?

> The Spirit immediately drove him out into the wilderness. And he > was in the wilderness forty days, being tempted by Satan. And he was > with the wild animals, and the angels were ministering to him. (ESV) > > Mark 1:12–13 In this verse, the Holy Spirit sent Jesus into the wilderness to be tempted by Satan. Given that Jesus was the Son of God, the Holy Spirit must have known that Jesus could withstand the temptation. Why did the Holy Spirit do that then?

> Romans 12:20 - "On the contrary: "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head." > > Proverbs 25:22 - "In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head, and the LORD will reward you." Do these two verses have the same contextual meaning or are Paul and the author of Proverbs saying different things? And what might the meaning be given their context?

I am looking for a good overview/introduction to atonement theory that covers multiple points of view so that I can better understand the difference between the various different theories. I am not looking for someone to outline them here, as I would like a more thorough answer than what would be reasonable in a SE answer. I am also looking for something beyond what Wikipedia provides, as frankly it is not very helpful. Perhaps a book that devotes a chapter or two to an academic presentation of several different views, but doesn't (strongly) argue for or against any of them, would be best.

### Background Zechariah 12:10 is cited in the New Testament as an explicit prophecy for Jesus's crucifixion by the Gospel of John: > These things occurred so that the scripture might be fulfilled, “None of his bones shall be broken.” And again another passage of scripture says, “**They will look on the one whom they have pierced**.” *John 19:36-37 (NRSV)* Christians through the ages cite Zechariah 12:10 as one of the clearest prophecies of Jesus's death, down to the details of him being pierced. However a close reading of Zechariah 12, starting just a few verses earlier seems to indicate more to the prophecy than simply someone being pierced: > On that day **the Lord will shield the inhabitants of Jerusalem** so that the feeblest among them on that day shall be like David, and the house of David shall be like God, like the angel of the Lord, at their head. > > And **on that day I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem**. > > **And I will pour out a spirit of compassion and supplication on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem so that, when they look on the one[a] whom they have pierced**, they shall mourn for him as one mourns for an only child and weep bitterly over him as one weeps over a firstborn. *Zechariah 12:8-10 (NRSV)* Critically this passage appears to promise that Jerusalem will be divinely protected, and that the nations who come against Jerusalem will be destroyed by God. This is extremely curious since Jerusalem was famously destroyed a few years after Jesus's death. ### Question How do Christians who believe Zechariah 12:10 applies to Jesus interpret Zechariah 12:8 and 9? Do they believe Jerusalem was miraculously protected in 33 CE and her enemies destroyed? What parts of this passage actually came true in Jesus's time?

I live in a country where the dominant religion is not Christianity and where adherents of all other religions are brutally persecuted. No one in real life knows that I believe in the Lord because I cannot tell anyone due to risk to my safety. The Bible is a dense book with a lot of chapters so even though I am an adult, the first book I read was 365 tales from the Bible written for children. It contained stories in Biblical order from both the Old and New Testaments [possibly [this one](https://archive.org/details/childrensbiblein00batc/page/4/mode/2up) , ed.]. I really liked those stories. But here I can't discuss my faith with anyone and my ethnic group is already persecuted. I have already lost many educational and employment opportunities because of it. **Can you please suggest several non-fiction books written in English / French or several authors writing about the Bible, Christianity, history of Christianity, and Testimonies by believers?** I shall be grateful.

Some modern day charismatic teachers exercise a kind of prophecy that seems very similar to non-Christian psychic readings or secular cold reading techniques. One example is Shawn Bolz prophesying , compared to Deren Brown explaining psychic readings . What Biblical support do these Christians give for calling these techniques prophecy, and what Biblical support do they give for practicing them? ------- *Closely Related To:* 1. https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/34214/what-is-the-biblical-basis-for-modern-day-prophets 1. https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/50899/what-is-the-biblical-basis-for-schools-of-prophecy-where-people-learn-to-pro

Is there anyone who can answer Yes, to the question, ***who is like God***? **Archangel Michael**: *Who is like God*? **Lucifer**: No, I can't be, because I am not created in the image of God. **Jesus Christ**: Yes, I am!, I am the visible image of the invisible God. > 15**The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.** 16For in Him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. All things were created through Him and for Him. - Collosians1:15-16 Is there anyone else, who can claim the ***"I am"***? > "God became man so that man shall became gods." - Athanasius Jesus said, you can do greater things that I am... > 11Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me—or at least believe on account of the works themselves. ***12Truly, truly, I tell you, whoever believes in Me will also do the works that I am doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.*** 13And I will do whatever you ask in My name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. - John14:11-13 We know that God like Jesus as His visible image, also God created mankind, male and female in His image and likeness. >27So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. - Genesis1:27 But we know, God is a Spirit, how then can a man claimed the **"I am"?** One Great Marian Saint named, St. Maximillian Kolbe was puzzled at the answer of the Lady saw by Bernadette in the known Lourdes apparition in the 19th century. The young Bernadette asked the Lady in her vision, *who are you?* The Lady answered, **"I am the Immaculate Conception"** St. Kolbe was puzzled by the answer because the word **"I am"** is divine in nature and in no way can be attributed to Our Lady. And so, if St. Michael asked again, ***who is like God?*** Can the Our Lady answered using the word ***"I am"***, can be seen, that She perfected the image and likeness of God in Her whole being, body mind and soul? Remember, the soul can be transform into a spirit, and since God is a Spirit, and anyone who can worship the Father in spirit and truth, had reached theosis or full divinization. *Here is the question:* **The question is: Can Our Lady, looking at Her holiness, righteousness and transformation as written in the bible, and extra-bibilical sources, can answer YES! to the question of St. Michael?** ***"I am"* the Immaculate Conception!** somehow can be seen, as high degree of holiness, as if Mary is seen here, as quasi-incarnating the Holy Spirit, as contemplated upon by St. Kolbe. And, the RCC is being attacked and criticized for over 500 years since the Reformation, as if the Catholic Church is elevating the holiness of Mary as the fourth member of the Holy Trinity. In closing, If Our Lady, the Blessed Virgin Mary, said the **"I am"**, is that somehow connected to why St. Gabriel bowed down to Her, and more events in Her life, leading to Her life, that can answer YES! to the question of *"Who is like God"?* Also, the question, by Protestant esp. the Bible Alone Believers, how can Mary hear all the prayer address to Her, is She a God, to hear all those supplications?

I went down a rabbit fox hole reading the original sermons of the founder of the Quakers (pun intended). I was not that familiar with George Fox and I found it very illuminating to read his works directly. He certainly had a lot to say about the "inner light". At first I just thought he was meaning the illumination of scripture by the Holy Spirit whereby our faith is lit and kindled. However as I kept reading different parts of his works he simply would not stop talking about this "inner light" and in fact barely talked about anything else. In the end, I grew to dislike the phrase. He also seemed quite envious of leaders in the other churches. But that’s just my initial impression. I began to realize it is not the illumination of scripture but something else that actually **put his mind in anger against the written word in some strange way** that is hard to pin down. The difficulty is that he correctly identified the difference between the inner life of a Christian as described in the scripture and the mere external form, but from there he amplified the difference into a much bigger issue and kept ranting about the "word" of scripture not being the Word (the Son), as though they can’t both be the Son in different senses. It is very difficult sometimes to read in between the lines to fully unravel the threads and I don’t have the time and have already lost interest to work out a fuller understanding. Does anyone actually know what George Fox meant by "inner light" and how it is different from the mainstream idea of the inspiration of the Holy Word and the illumination of the scripture by the Holy Spirit?

Here is the latest of many, many firmly Catholic websites highly recommending C. S. Lewis books more than Catholic classics! I saw this today under the heading "Spiritual Classics"(specific website to be anonymous). Confessions of St. Augustine by St. Augustine, Little Talks with God (modernized version of “The Dialogues”) by St. Catherine, City of God by St. Augustine, The Problem of Pain by C. S. Lewis, Dark Night of the Soul by St. John of the Cross, Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters by C. S. Lewis, The Everlasting Man by G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy by G. K. Chesterton, The Greatest Story Ever Told by Fulton Oursler, Meditations from a Simple Path by Mother Teresa, Interior Castle by St. Teresa of Avila, The Way of Perfection by St. Teresa of Avila, Story of a Soul by St. Therese of Lisieux, My Way of Life/Summa Theologica by St. Thomas Aquinas. Lewis received 3 recommendations when he is NOT Catholic! More recommendations than Augustine and Aquinas. Why would devout, educated Catholics subtly lead people **away** from Catholicism into Protestantism. Why?

Many Christians experience the manifestation of the Holy Spirit through spiritual gifts such as prophecy, tongues, healing, or teaching (cf. 1 Corinthians 12). My question is: If a believer has clearly received and exercised a gift of the Holy Spirit, does this mean they are assured of inheriting eternal life? Or is it still possible for someone to fall away despite having once been used by the Spirit in this way (cf. Matthew 7:21–23, Hebrews 6:4–6)? I am seeking answers from a Christian theological perspective, preferably with biblical support.

## Background Inspired by https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/29919/what-important-mormon-doctrines-are-taught-in-the-book-of-mormon-that-we-couldn The Hebrew bible contains history , religious laws , sensual poetry , creation stories, and more. But scholars have long noted a lack of systematic theology compared with other religious books (not that there isn't theology contained in the Hebrew bible). On the other hand, authors of the New Testament make extensive and explicit theological arguments, a clear example is *Epistle to the Hebrews* which marked the line in the theological sand between proto-Christianity and 1st/2nd Century Judaism. ## Question What are doctrines or ideas, small or large, which are only found in the New Testament? I am interested in all perspectives on doctrines, theology, etc that are 'new' in the New Testament. This question will require an amount of good faith from any answerers, since a *post-hoc* reading of the Hebrew bible ***could*** gin up support for any number of NT innovations. I'm looking for ideas that are clear in the NT but unclear or not found in the Hebrew bible. ## Example answer An example could be: >> For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it *James 2:10* > The idea that breaking any one of the commandments is equivalent to breaking all of them is not found in the Hebrew bible and appears to be a new doctrine found only in the New Testament

In response to this question https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1384/how-does-the-bible-explain-the-existence-of-fossils-that-are-millions-of-years-ol I'm curious to know if Dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible. I understand that the word *dinosaurs* wasn't invented until 1841. So obviously we won't find them by that name. Are there references to animals with the same characteristics as dinosaurs and just known by a different name?

> **Leviticus 11:7-8** (NIV) > > And the pig, though it has a split hoof completely divided, does not > chew the cud; it is unclean for you. You must not eat their meat or > touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you. > **Leviticus 11:11-12** > > And since you are to detest them, you must not eat their meat and you must detest their carcasses. Anything living in the water that does not have fins and scales is detestable to you. > **Leviticus 19:19** > > Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material. I haven't come across many Christians that campaign against the eating of bacon, the eating of lobsters or squid, or that refuse to wear clothes made of mixtures of cotton and wool. If a believer doesn't follow every instruction, how do they decide which to follow? *Note: I must credit the excellent book "The Philosophy Gym" by Stephen Law, from which these examples are taken*