When does Christmas officially end in Eastern Catholic rites? cf. related: "When is the end of the Christmas season for Latin Rite Catholics? "

Sola Scriptura can be broken into two parts: 1. Sola - Alone 2. Scriptura - The sacred Scriptures One aspect of Sola Scriptura is the idea that Scripture is the *Sole* **Infallible AND Authoritative** rule of faith over Christians. But in relation to [my last post](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/89214/how-do-proponents-of-sola-scriptura-defend-the-doctrine-without-scripture-being) , there is a question over the canon of scripture. Since no book that anyone would consider scripture (at least among protestants that would claim Sola Scriptura) *never* says what scripture is, who determines what scripture is? Or, as I point out in my [blog post](https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/5957239847810915194/4590423893995530597) : >This poses a two horned dilemma. Horn 1 - The source that canonized the Bible is not infallible and authoritative, thus we could add any books to the Bible and no one would have a basis to reject these additions (this is obviously bad). Horn 2 - The source that canonized the Bible is infallible and authoritative, thus Sola Scriptura is false. So whatever horn you take, you will end up with consequences. So to close on my question, what source has given us the canon of scripture (not scripture, since that has come from God), and is that source infallible or authoritative?

[Athanasius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasius_of_Alexandria) and [Apollinaris](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollinaris_of_Laodicea) were two important figures in the early church, and both were opponents of Arianism. But while Athanasius is regarded as a faithful defender of sound teaching during this period while Trinitarian Christology was being developed, Apollinaris is considered a heretic because he denied that the Son became a full human in the incarnation, but instead only took on a human body, not a human mind or soul. It has been claimed however, since at least the 19th century, that Athanasius' Christology was essentially Apollinarian. Richard Hanson likened his Christology to that of an astronaut and a spacesuit: > Just as the astronaut, in order to operate in a part of the universe where there is no air and where he has to experience weightlessness, puts on an elaborate space suit which enables him to live and act in this new, unfamiliar environment, so the logos puts on a body which enabled him to behave as a human being among human beings. But his relation to his body is no closer than that of an astronaut to his space suit. (*The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God*, p448) > > We must conclude that whatever else the Logos incarnate is in Athanasius’ account of him, he is not a human being. (Ibid, p451) Trevor Hart [says](https://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/eq/1992-2_155.pdf) that Hanson followed Baur, Stülcken, Richard, and Grillmeier in interpreting Athanasius as "virtually ignoring the presence of a human soul or mind in the incarnate Christ." This is a big claim, but not one I've heard before. Lots of early church figures have mixed legacies, being instrumental for powerfully and clearly stating true doctrine in some area, while getting it very wrong in another, but Athanasius does not have this reputation. Athanasius and Apollinaris were active at the same time, though Apollinaris outlived Athanasius. A [previous question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/24916/6071) has asked whether any of Athanasius' writings about Apollinaris survived, but even if they didn't, enough of Athanasius' writings have survived that we should be able to judge whether this claim has merit. Did Athanasius either deny or ignore that Christ in the incarnation had a human mind and soul?

I lead a church small group that has (for over a decade now) switched off between studies of secondary literature and studies of the Bible. We are just now finishing an Advent devotional full of secondary literature and are heading into a period of reading the Bible, in this case the Gospel of Luke. In the past, we have engaged in informal versions of close reading or inductive Bible study, with leadership shifting from person to person with each new session. The composition of the group had changed, however, so that I've become the de facto leader. One member of our group has expressed interest in learning how to read the Bible closely, not having learned inductive Bible study before (or close reading of literature either). The problem is that I have a PhD in rhetoric, literature, and linguistics and am acutely aware of the fallacy of "inductive" anything. I still do "inductive Bible study," but I don't swallow whole what we identify as "the original intended meaning" of a text. I'm tempted to hand out a guide to "inductive Bible study" (e.g., from Intervarsity Christian Fellowship) but complicate it with some insights about how biblical texts are historically situated, culturally interested, and linguistically bounded--even as they are divinely inspired. I think a straight-up inductive Bible study guide such as Mike McKinlely's *Luke for You* series would be very readable and probably welcome, but I don't want to put ourselves in the position of arguing with theology that I can see from an online summary informs McKinley's "induction." Likewise, although I would like everyone to have access to Ched Myers's *Healing Affluenza and Resisting Plutocracy* (a commentary on Luke), I want us to question Myers's assumptions as well (more consistent with mine and those of the rest of the group). So I think what I need is a counterpart to the simple handout about how to do inductive Bible study, i.e., a short guide to bringing an informed mind to the shortcomings of so-called "induction."

Imagine Bob. Bob was, at some point, Christian. Perhaps he was raised that way, or perhaps he came to faith later in life, but at some point, he was confirmed, communing regularly, professing Christ, and has felt God's Presence in his life. Then, something happened. Some event caused Bob to turn away from Christ to pursue a different path. Maybe the breakup was public, or maybe it was just in the privacy of his heart, but at minimum, Bob said to God, "go away; I don't need or want you". ---- A certain user cited Hebrews 6:4-6, claiming that Bob, having apostatized, can no longer be redeemed: > 4For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 5And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, 6If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. (KJV) However, this seems contrary not only to Scripture (with God, all things are possible), but to God's own nature (God is patient, wanting everyone to be saved). Indeed, most sects as far as I can tell teach that there is no sin from which one cannot repent, and that it is only by remaining in sin that one cuts *one's self* off from Salvation, essentially by refusing to accept the free gift. Logically, moreover, this teaching would suggest to Bob that God despises him and that not only should he not bother to seek God, he might as well do all he can to be God's enemy since he has nothing to lose. **Which sect(s) teach that one who has fallen off the path cannot be called back?**

The Sabbath is mentioned about one hundred and forty-five times in the whole Bible (KJV), in the Old Testament the Sabbath is mentioned about ninety times and in almost all the texts it is an instruction to Israel to keep the Sabbath holy. Exodus 31:12 NASB >12 Now the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 13 “Now as for you, speak to the sons of Israel, saying, ‘You must keep My Sabbaths; for this is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, so that you may know that I am the Lord who sanctifies you. Exodus 35:1-3 NASB >35 Then Moses assembled all the congregation of the sons of Israel, and said to them, “These are the things that the Lord has commanded you to [a]do: > >2 “For six days work may be done, but on the seventh day you shall have a holy day, a Sabbath of complete rest to the Lord; whoever does any work on it shall be put to death. 3 You shall not kindle a fire in any of your dwellings on the Sabbath day.” But in the New Testament, it is mentioned about fifty-five times and in almost every text it is used as an index or marker of the cycle of the week as well as relative to an event that took place Matthew 12:1 NASB >[a]At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath, and His disciples became hungry and began to pick the heads of grain and eat Luke 6:7 NASB >7 Now the scribes and the Pharisees were watching Him [d]closely to see if He healed on the Sabbath, so that they might find a reason to accuse Him. I picked randomly the above texts but it seems most of them only refer to the Sabbath relative to the events that were taking place. There seems to be no clear instruction to keep the Sabbath in the New Testament. But many churches do teach that Christians are to keep the Sabbath. So what is the Biblical Basis for Christians keeping the Sabbath?

To me, it would be a profound irony and tragedy—if one of the wisest men in history (1 Kings 3:12; 4:29–31), famed for building the temple (1 Kings 5–6) and writing Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, a foreshadowing type for Jesus (Matthew 12:42), yet potentially missing out on the Kingdom. One of his last mentioned acts is trying to kill Jeroboam (1 Kings 11:40; Exodus 20:13) before his death and burial is shortly described next in 1 Kings 11:42-43. This raises doubtful concern for me, about his standing in terms of salvation (Ezekiel 18:24; 1 Corinthians 9:27) or if counted among the “Hall of Faith” in Hebrews 11. Albeit, not denying the possibility of him yielding to God's profound transformative power and healing over his faith walk in the last parts of his life (Psalm 103:8–12; 136; 145:8-18). "Solomon tried to kill Jeroboam, but he fled to King Shishak of Egypt and stayed there until Solomon died. The rest of the events in Solomon’s reign, including all his deeds and his wisdom, are recorded in Solomon ruled in Jerusalem over all Israel for forty years. When he died, he was buried in the City of David, named for his father. Then his son Rehoboam became the next king." Given that Scripture never clearly affirms or denies Solomon’s salvation, and considering his extraordinary wisdom and accomplishments (1 Kings 11:41), what does his life reveal about the relationship between human achievement, divine judgment, and authentic or saving faith in God (Ecclesiastes 1:16–17, 2:4–9; Hebrews 11)?

Brigham Young taught in April 1852 (as recorded in contemporary journals) that “Adam is Michael or God ... and all the God that we have any thing to do with” (see Wilford Woodruff journal entry dated 1852‑04‑09). Later LDS leaders publicly denounced what they called the “Adam‑God theory” (e.g., Spencer W. Kimball, 1976; Bruce R. McConkie, 1980). In modern discussion, it is often claimed that Brigham Young learned this doctrine from Joseph Smith. Some historians also note that Brigham appears to have believed this attribution, whether or not the transmission can be demonstrated in surviving documents. Question: *What extant primary sources (sermons, diaries, minutes, letters, temple instruction notes, etc.) from Joseph Smith’s lifetime (before June 1844) explicitly teach or clearly imply that Adam is God the Father / the father of human spirits (“the God with whom we have to do”)?* If there are no surviving Joseph‑era documents that state this directly, what are the earliest post‑1844 primary sources that attribute this teaching to Joseph Smith, and what exactly do they say (with dates and provenance)? Please: - Cite primary sources with date and repository (JSP, diaries, archives, etc.). - Distinguish this claim from narrower teachings such as “Adam is Michael” or “Adam is the Ancient of Days,” which might not the same as directly saying Adam being God the Father. I do realize that the Encyclopaedia Judaica shows evidence otherwise and connects them as do other sources, but I'm looking for additional more direct LDS quotes. - Focus on documenting the historical record rather than arguing whether the doctrine is true.

A friend told me that "bad people" are limited when it comes to spreading the Word of God. According to scripture, how, and in what way, does sin hinder one's ability to spread the Word of God?

I was looking at this mormon.org page that mentions that "The current prophet and President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is Thomas S. Monson." 1. Does the LDS church assert that doctrinal statements made by the current Prophet are either "inspired", "infallible", or both? 2. Has the Prophet made any statements about (near)future events that Mormons expect to happen? (I am separating "inspired" and "infallible" because I am not sure how they are interpreted in this context.)

Both Apollinaris and Eutychius believed in one divine subject Christology that the only and whole person of Christ is a divine person, the Logos. Not a divine-humane person. Their Christology were condemned at Constantinople (381) and Chalcedon (451), respectively. Apollinaris teaches that the Logos supplant the rational faculty of Christ not another man. While Eutychius teaches that the flesh of Christ belongs to the Logos and not another man. So that both teach the Logos, a divine person is the only divine subject. How then one in principle manner differentiate their Christology from one another?

As I've looked around the internet at reactions to Athanasius' magnum opus *On the Incarnation*, I've seen some accusations of latent Apollinarism. The work was published before the Apollinarian heresy was formally defined and condemned, but they say that it was materially there in his writings. That's just background, it's not what my question is about. You need not defend his orthodoxy to me. Before the heresy was condemned at the ecumenical First Council of Constantinople, it was condemned at a local council in Alexandria headed by none other than Athanasius. So clearly Athanasius was as opposed to this heresy as he had famously been opposed to Arianism. But are there any surviving writings I can read where he lays out the case against Apollinarism?

It is an observable fact that most people, even most Christians, don't repent of every sin individually before they die. Even that really great guy at church who's everyone's best friend and is first to let you know he messed up probably has been in a tiff or two where he thinks he was completely right and, in a lack of charity, or even with just a hint of pride, he refuses to see that he may have handled things improperly. For Catholics and Orthodox, with their theology of purgatory/tollhouses, as well as the Sacrament of Penance, this is a non-issue. That guy has all of those "venial" sins forgiven when he makes a good, honest confession of at least all his mortal sins. And, even if some venial sins slip through the cracks before death and aren't absolved, or aren't fully properly repented of, he will spend some time suffering in purgatory temporarily, and then will enter heaven for eternity thereafter. However, for Protestants who specifically reject both the doctrine of purgatory *and* make no distinction between mortal and venial sins (I'm thinking of those for whom the statement "stealing $1 and stealing $1 million are both damnable offenses" is generally a thought to be a true statement), it would seem that unless a man manages to truly and fully repent of every single little sin he has committed in his entire life, he would end up going straight to hell. Do Protestants who deny both of these tenets of Catholic faith simply bite that bullet, or do they have another way of working out this theological problem? ## Clarification I'm confused as to why I am getting lots of answers about earning our salvation. I am presuming that those answering believe, like I do, that people must repent of all of their sins in order to go to heaven. What I am asking is what Protestants think happens to people who neglect to repent of a single sin or maybe two or three, but otherwise live holy lives, when they die. I feel I must add this because I must have communicated something unclearly in the original body of the question.

I asked this question on the hermeneutics SE but I was told it would be better to ask here. What I can say is I'm not looking for an answer explaining that salvation is through Christ only, because it is obvious and it was even my assumption for this question. What I'm wondering is more about what Jesus actually meant if we know He is the only way of salvation. In Matthew 23:13, we can read: >But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because **you shut the kingdom of heaven against men**; for you neither enter yourselves, nor allow those who would enter to go in - **Matthew 23:13 (RSV-CE)** In Catholic, Polish Bible "Biblia Tysiąclecia", there's a commentary to this verse (translated to English): >By imposing excessive requirements around the Law, **they made it impossible for people to observe it, thereby closing the way to salvation**. They also bear the greatest blame for the people's unbelief in Jesus the Messiah. Is this commentary accurate? I'm asking because in my opinion, someone could conclude from this verse that the Law could've been observed in a feasible way that leads to salvation which we know is actually impossible because humans are not able to observe the Law entirely and perfectly (that's why Jesus, who can do that, had to redeem us on the cross). And also, would observing the Law in a hard way be considered a sin if it "shuts the kingdom of heaven" or not so much sin as it leads to commiting one? If it is, who is actually responsible for that sin? Were people aware of it? If not, why would God close the heaven for such people if they did it unintentionally? Or were they kind of deceived, so both deceived and deceiver commited sin? The only interpretation that comes to my mind is it refers to observing the Law before Christ's death, but still those people couldn't observe the Law perfectly and needed redemption on the cross. Maybe it is just about observing in the right way as much as possible, not observing perfectly and entirely?

The main characteristic of Sabellianism is that God is only one hypostasis (one Person). Sabellianism is sometimes described as similar to Modalism, in which 'Father' and 'Son' are merely two names for exactly the same Person. Others say that Sabellianism did make a distinction between the Father and Son within the one hypostasis, like one can distinguish between the body, spirit, and soul within one human person. While the Trinity doctrine teaches three hypostases in God, Athanasius, like Sabellianism, held that the Father, Son, and Spirit are a single hypostasis: > "The fragments of Eustathius that survive present a doctrine that is > close to Marcellus, and to Alexander and **Athanasius**. Eustathius > insists there is **only one hypostasis**“ (Ayres, p. 69). > > The “clear inference from his (Athanasius') usage” is that “there is > **only one hypostasis in God**” (Ayres, p. 48). > > “Athanasius' most basic language and analogies for describing the > relationship between Father and Son primarily present the two as > intrinsic aspects of **one reality or person**” (Ayres, p. 46). He taught that the Son is an internal aspect of the Father: > “Athanasius' increasing clarity in treating the Son as **intrinsic to > the Father's being**” (Ayres, p. 113). > > “Athanasius' argument speaks not of two realities engaged in a common activity, but develops his most basic sense that the Son is **intrinsic to the Father's being**” (Ayres, p. 114). > > “Although Athanasius’ theology was by no means > identical with Marcellus’, the overlaps were significant enough for > them to be at one on some of the vital issues—especially their common > insistence that the Son was **intrinsic to the Father's external > existence**” (Ayres, p. 106). For Athanasius, just as the Son is part of the Father, the Holy Spirit is part of the Son and, therefore, not a distinct Person or hypostasis: > “Just as his (Athanasius’) account of the Son can rely heavily on the > picture of the Father as one person with his intrinsic word, so too he > emphasizes the closeness of Spirit to Son by presenting the Spirit as > the Son's ‘energy’” (Ayres, p. 214). > > “The language also shows Athanasius trying out formulations that will > soon be problematic. … ‘The Cappadocians' will find the language of > ἐνέργεια [superhuman activity] used of the Spirit … to be highly > problematic, seeming to indicate a lack of real existence” (Ayres, p. > 214). Athanasius opposed the concept of “three hypostases.” He regarded the phrase as "unscriptural and therefore suspicious” (Ayres, p. 174). For Athanasius, the enemy was those who taught more than one hypostasis (Person) in God. The similarity of their theologies allowed Athanasius to form an alliance with the leading Sabellian Marcellus: > “Athanasius and Marcellus now seem to have made common cause against > those who insisted on distinct hypostases in God” (Ayres, p. 106). > > At the time when both Marcellus and Athanasius were exiled to Rome, “they considered themselves allies” (Ayres, p. 106). > > “Athanasius ... continued to defend the orthodoxy of Marcellus” > (Hanson, p. 220). > > Contrary to the traditional account, “it is … no longer clear that > Athanasius ever directly repudiated Marcellus, and he certainly seems > to have been sympathetic to Marcellus’ followers through into the > 360s” (Ayres, p. 106). Athanasius, in writing, declared the Sabellians to be orthodox: > “About the year 371 adherents of Marcellus approached Athanasius, > presenting to him a statement of faith. … He accepted it and gave them > a document expressing his agreement with their doctrine” (Hanson, p. > 801). If Athanasius was not a Sabellian, how did he differ from them?

When Dr Vance Smith , a Unitarian, was appointed to the Committee to revise the Authorised Version, public opinion objected to the appointment and Drs Westcott and Hort (Hort, also, leaning towards Unitarianism) said that if Dr Smith was not allowed then neither would they be involved in the revision. All three were permitted to contribute to the revision and during that revision Drs Westcott and Hort approached other members of the committee, singly, seeking to influence them in regard to the Greek text being translated - the Received Text, also called the *Textus Receptus*. The ensuing revision resulted in the imposition of a new Greek text (that of Drs Westcott and Hort) in 1881, something not envisaged by the purpose of the revision. Many objected to this, among them Dean John Burgon who, in his book ‘*Revision Revised*’, pointed out that between the two manuscripts upon which the W&H text strongly depended, Codex Aleph (*Sinaiticus*) and Codex B (*Vaticanus*), there was disagreement in over three thousand places *in just the four gospels*. Hermon Hoskier , in his book ‘*Codex B and its Allies*’ demonstrated that there had been a recension (a supposed ‘reversion’ to the original) in the fifth century, based on Egyptian and Coptic influence, resulting in a corrupted text. The *correction* of this recension, of the fifth century, resulted in the Received Text . Hermon Hoskier further demonstrated that the two manuscripts upon which Drs Westcott and Hort so much relied were, in fact, *proof of the corrupt recension*. The reason they survived, say Dean John Burgon and Hermon Hoskier, is that they were recognised for their fault and were little used, just retained as reference. The resulting Greek text of Westcott and Hort can be seen to be weakened, compared to the Received Text, in many places where the Deity of Christ and where the relationship of Father and Son are in view. (See below for just a few of those places.) Overall, about 9,000 alterations, additions and deletions were made to the Received Text (see Dr Scrivener’s comparative text of 1881) amounting to about 7% of the text. And it is noticeable to anyone who studies these changes in detail that there is a definite bias appearing in regard to the deliberate favouring of Codices Aleph and B on these particular occasions. What is the response of those who favour the so-called ‘Critical Text’ above the Received Text to the overall changes in emphasis seen in these texts - the bias evidently towards Unitarianism ? ---------------------------------------------- A full explanation of the following texts and the effect of changing them is available here . (See the PDF version for a much better display of the Greek letters.) - ... and they **worshipped him** ... Luke 24:52 - ... the **only begotten Son** ... John 1:18 - ... the Son of man, **which is in heaven** ... John 3:13 - ... purchased **with his own blood** ... Acts 20:28 - ... Christ came, **who is over all, God blessed for ever** ... Romans 9:5 - ... neither let us tempt **Christ** ... 1 Corinthians 10:9 - ... singing to the **Lord** ... Colossians 3:16 - ... **God** was manifest in flesh ... 1 Timothy 3:16 - ... the dead ... stand **before God** ... Revelation 20:12 ----------------------------- Note (edit) I have used the word 'bias' in its second meaning as listed by the Oxford English Dictionary - 'to exert an influence unduly'. This is exactly, precisely, a description (as demonstrated in detail by Herman Hoskier in '*Codex B and its Allies*' and Dean John Burgon in his book '*Revision Revised'*) of placing undue preponderance on just two manuscripts against the vast weight of evidence contained in over 5,000 other Uncials and miniscules, the Patristic Citations, the Versions and the Lectionary quotations. It results in a bias introduced in the fifth century and reproduced in the Critical Text as the above examples clearly indicate.

The following information comes from *the Manual of Indulgences: Norms and Grants translated into English from the 4th edition (1999) of Enchiridion Indulgentiarum: Normae et Concessiones)* which I think is the most up to date edition. In addition to being a baptized person in the state of grace and performing these two pious acts with the intentions of gaining the plenary indulgences (one for the Day of New Years and the other for the day before)---as only one plenary indulgence can be gained in any one day for oneself, there are the other usual conditions: (1) sacramental confession, (2) Holy Communion, and (3) praying for the Pope's intentions, all within a few weeks of the act, and (4) with complete detachment from all sin, even venial. It would appear from the wording used (e.g., "assist"), that these prayers must be recited publicly (other sources of information also would confirm this). QUESTION: In order to possibly obtain both of these plenary indulgences which, the acts of which are done on separate days (such as before midnight and after midnight), are two sets of prayers for the intentions of the Pope, two separate sacramental confessions, and two receptions of Holy Communion required? Thank you.

Rather than busting out a KJV and a JST and comparing them verse by verse I am lazily hoping that there is, somewhere, a list which has already been generated providing all of the verses from the Bible which the JST has modified or allegedly 'restored'?

James Fodor released a new video on the Resurrection of Jesus Christ saying that the disciple hallucinated and the hallucinations were part of a shared social process that has been shown among faith and non-faith contexts, Jesus's body was reburied, the disciples were biased to believing His Resurrection and socialisation factors may explain the existence of belief despite counter evidence. From a Christian perspective how would you respond to his claims?

Mainstream Christians believe that Jesus was the son of God the Father and Mary, a virgin. So my question is, have any Christian theologians discussed whether Jesus only resemble his mother Mary, or whether he also resembled his adopted father Joseph? God could easily have arranged it so that Jesus resembled Joseph, even if Joseph played no role in the conception of Jesus.