Arius wrote to Eusebius of Nicomedia referring to the eternal Word that, '[B]efore He was begotten ... He was not, for He was not without beginning.'1 Where he qualified his argument on the fact that the Son has an eternal beginning from the Father who alone has no beginning.2 Arius seems trying to say that the Son does not exist apart from being begotten. An idea he claimed to be shared by Church fathers before him. There is a debate on whether or not precursor to Arianism can be found among the earliest church fathers before the First Ecumenical Council at Nicaea. Among the early Christian authors whom the early Church considered authoritative we can find some whose teachings are similar with the Arians that were used by the Arians to assert that their theology is patristic. What then differentiate these Ante Nicene Fathers3 from the Arians in terms of their Christology? --- 1 Arius' letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, NPNF II:3:41. 2 '[The Son] being begotten apart from time before all things.' NPNF II,4:458. 3 Ante Nicene refer to before the Council of Nicaea in 325. They're early Church fathers who are venerated in the 24 sui juris Catholic churches, 16 canonical Eastern Orthodox churches, 6 canonical Oriental Orthodox churches, and Church of the East. Such as St. Justin Martyr, St. Theophilus of Antioch, Tertullian of Carthage, Origen of Alexandria, St. Dionysius of Alexandria, and St Lucian of Antioch.

In Matt 16:24 Jesus tells His disciples to pick up their crosses and follow Him. How would the apostles have understood what He was saying? He spoke these words before He was crucified, so the mention of a cross is a bit strange to me. The Greek word is "stauros" or "stauron" which means an upright stake. Jesus does tell the apostles in verse 16:21 what would shortly come to pass (His crucifixion) but the verse doesn't make any mention of crucifixion. We could surmise that Jesus told them that He would be crucified and the text just doesn't explicitly mention it, that could be a reasonable explanation, but what if He didn't give them those details? It creates a dilemma of sorts. I'd be interested in hearing how other people understand this passage.

I have always found it deeply confusing that Pope St. John Paul II said: "The Rosary is my favourite prayer. A marvellous prayer! " (Angelus Sunday, 29 October 1978) but still recited the *Aves* in the rosary very quickly; at least in the recordings I have found. To me it just sounded like he rushed through the prayers and did not focus on meditation at all. What I nowadays know is that many people recite Aves quickly and can meditate. They might focus more on contemplation or meditation found in Dominican traditions. Dominican friars seem to focus on reciting it in more quick repetitious ways like we can see in this YouTube video: [The Sorrowful Mysteries of the Most Holy Rosary](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7YDElMg8Rg&t=436s) I have listened to some Montfortians reciting the *Aves* and they do not focus on a quick repetitious recitation. The Dominican friars say the rosary in such a way that it become a kind of painful penance. This attitude is really confusing to me. I don't like to view prayer as painful penance but people are different. That is how I understand what the Dominican friars are doing in the video. Sadly it is very hard to find good information on this topic. It is a topic that might be avoided. Most people who recite the rosary seem to be influenced by Dominican traditions and their contemplation. What is Dominican contemplation (found in the rosary) and why do most people focus on Dominican contemplation and not Montfortian contemplation when praying the rosary?

Were there a fair number of representation of Remonstrants (Reformed Arminians) as there were of Contra-Remonstrants (Reformed Calvinists) or was the representation uneven and unfair against the Remonstrants? Thanks!

While walking on a road from Jerusalem to Emmaus, two disciples encountered a man whom they later recognized to be the risen Lord Jesus Christ. The Lord Jesus Christ then, "beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded (διηρμήνευεν ) to them the things about himself in all the scriptures."1 Furthermore, the disciples later said that the Lord Jesus Christ "...opened (διήνοιγεν ) to us the scriptures."2 In addition, it is written that the Lord Jesus Christ "opened (διήνοιξεν ) their understanding, so that they would understand the scriptures."3 According to the doctrine of apostolic succession, the Lord Jesus Christ entrusted and delivered the faith (i.e., the *depositum fidei*) to his apostles whom later entrusted and delivered it to their successors, and so forth. Accordingly, if the Lord Jesus Christ opened the understanding of his disciples (students) by thoroughly expouding the scriptures, wouldn't Jesus' disciples have likewise taught their disciples, and so forth? If so, wouldn't the bishops (apostolic successors to the apostles) in the Catholic Church also possess a thorough understanding of the scriptures about the Lord Jesus Christ in the Old Testament? Would that be part of the *depositum fidei*? **Footnotes** 1 Luke 24:27 2 Luke 24:32 3 Luke 24:45

In the story of the woman caught in adultery, John indicates that the question of the Pharisees was a "trap". > 2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people > gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3 The teachers of > the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They > made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this > woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded > us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 **They were using this > question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.**
> [John 8:2-6 (NIV)](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%208:2-6&version=NIV) What specifically was the trap they were trying to get Jesus to fall into?

Building on the previous question regarding scriptural support (https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/108086/117426) , I'm now seeking historical evidence pertaining to the practice and instruction of contemplative prayer by the apostles or the early Church (i.e., the first two centuries). For a definition of contemplative prayer, please refer to the aforementioned linked question.

John 17:15 >I pray NOT that thou shouldest take them out of this world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil. >Vs 20) Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; This prayer followed Jesus' declaration in the previous chapter of this. John 16:33 >These things have I spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world. How do pretrib rapture proponents interpret and reconcil these verses being compatible with their eschatology?

There some Christians who consider, for various reasons, the KJV to be the only legitimate translation of the Bible.**I am wondering if there are any movements like that surrounding another translation, whether to English or some other language.** To be specific, I'm not asking about the *textus receptus* but rather the translation specifically, as some "KJV-only" people defend it for no other reason than that it is a translation of the *textus receptus* and would accept other translations of TR (at least theoretically). I am also not asking whether any of these people or movements are correct.

I was looking into the accounts of Jesus' birth both in Matthew and Luke and tried to make something of a chronology of the events on a piece of paper so that I can get it clear in my head. The thing that I came to notice is that there could be a large time gap in between Luke 2:38 and Luke 2:39... Now if we read the 2 accounts carefully we will understand that the wise men came to Jerusalem (The city of the King), expecting to find the newborn King there. However, Herod, consulting the scholars of the day sent them to Bethlehem (as it has been prophesied) (Mat. 2:1-6). Now, we are not actually told that they actually went to Bethlehem as the star appeared and guided them again. However, certainly that is the assumption of most people. Later we read (Mat. 2:16-18) that Herod went about killing all the male children aged 2 years or less, based on the information he had acquired from the wise men, concerning the time that the star appeared (Mat. 2:7). So it is safe to say that the wise men came to Jesus anytime before He was 2 years of age. However, what makes it more interesting is that it is written that after the wise men left, Joseph was told in a dream to flee to Egypt with Mary and Jesus. Knowing this, we look back into the account by Luke and see that they went into the Temple in Jerusalem, for the cleansing of Mary (Luke 2:22) as it is written in the Law (Lev. 12:3-8)... According to this passage for a male child this is done 33 days after (birth?). Which would mean that they visited the temple before the wise men came to them? And then returned to Bethlehem where the wise men came (even though Lk. 2:39 says they went back to Nazareth - assuming there is a gap and this speaks after their return from Egypt.) **OR** they went back to Nazareth straight after the cleansing in the temple (approx. a little over a month after the birth), meaning that even though the wise men were sent to Bethlehem by Herod, the star guided them to Nazareth..? **So, my question:** Now, more than one question arise from the comments above, however my main question is: According to my observations, is it safe to say that Jesus went to Jerusalem and into the Temple before the wise men got there? Are there other places in Scripture that confirm this or is there perhaps a flaw in my logic?

I get mixed messages. Protestantism declares that justification is by faith alone. Catholicism declares that justification requires faith supplemented with various stipulations. **Yet both Protestants and Catholics seem to declare that what they really need are the shedding of divine blood.** Faith, works and divine blood... what part does each play in effectual justification for Catholics vs Protestantism?

Studying the Bible as Jewish believer and have a hard time seeing Jesus as God. He was my messiah but I always prayed to God the father, so how do I see them as one person! The Shema reads > Shema Israel, ADONAI Eloheinu, ADONAI Echad! This is translated as > "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. - Deuteronomy 6:4 How can God be one if Jesus is also God?

Revelation 1:4&5 >John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before the throne; vs5) And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness.... Obviously there are three personas addressed in this introduction that provide grace and peace to the churches. How do Jehovah Witness explain the seven Spirits (Holy Spirit) as being a non-person if John addressed Him on an equal basis of respect in this introduction?

This question is NOT: * what does John Bunyan believe about predestination * is predestination biblically accurate? This question is: * Does "Pilgrim's Progress" take a position on predestination? * And if so, which chapter / section? Thanks!

In 1 Corinthians 14, Paul give forbids women from speaking in church. 1 Corinthians 14 NIV > 34 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to > speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to > inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; > for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. ... later > 39 Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and do > not forbid speaking in tongues. 40 But everything should be done in a > fitting and orderly way. I am assuming the word in Greek Paul is using here for church is Ecclesia, and that he wasn't, in fact, referring to a physical meeting place, or house, but rather a Christian gathering in general (but perhaps I am mistaken in this). I wonder how it is that he explicitly forbids them to speak "They are not allowed to speak", but then a mere four verses later he is instructing 'brothers and sisters' to be eager to prophesy, and *speak* in tongues. If not at Christian gatherings, then where else were they prophesying and speaking in tongues? I understand that context is probably the key here, and that things in the Corinthian church had probably gotten very much out of hand, however, It just seems strange to me that if he meant women to speak in tongues and prophesy, he would have said "They are not allowed to speak *out of turn*", or something to that effect.

I recently took the time to re-read the prelusive words of William Lane Craig’s Reasonable Faith. This quote stuck with me:

When a person refuses to come to Christ, it is never just because of lack of evidence or because of intellectual difficulties: at root, he refuses to come because he willingly ignores and rejects the drawing of God’s Spirit on his heart. No one in the final analysis really fails to become a Christian because of lack of arguments; he fails to become a Christian because he loves darkness rather than light and wants nothing to do with God.

A decade after first reading this, I remember I was struggling to understand who he intends the book to be for, and Craig's motivations. If we are not to assume that Craig is not serious or that he is lying about his sincerity, it could be that he is sincere but wrong: in the sense that he genuinely cannot make sense of atheism as an intellectual position. But then it seems to me that he is so caught up in his own religious convictions he cannot fathom the possibility someone could sincerely disagree with his position. An unfortunate position, in my view. The disagreement is also shifted from the intellectual realm of evidence to the moral realm of personal integrity, effectively *faulting the non-believer* for an emotional or spiritual deficiency. It appeals to notions of spiritual deficiency rather than engaging directly with intellectual critiques. The quote makes apologetics seem like its whole purpose is to convince those who already are convinced. I also think this type of argumentation renders the argument difficult to empirically verify or falsify. If non-belief is attributed to an internal disposition (such as a preference for "darkness" over "light"), it becomes impossible to test or refute through evidence. Thus I am curious if Craig has revised these position in recent times, if he has matured as he has gotten older. Questions: 1. Has Craig changed his view or added nuance to his stance? Does he still attribute unbelief primarily to the willful rejection of God rather than to intellectual or evidential challenges? 2. Is evidence still something that, for him, acts only insofar as a dual warrant of one’s Christian beliefs alongside the inner witness of the Spirit? 3. Has he acknowledged intellectual or evidential factors as genuine obstacles to faith? 4. What role does he currently assign to evidence and objective methods in relation to the work of the Holy Spirit?

### Isaiah 7 Background Isaiah 7:14 is famously quoted by the Gospel of Matthew (Matt 1:23) as a prophecy about Jesus’s birth: > She will bear a son, and you are to name him Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” All this took place to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: “**Look, the virgin shall become pregnant and give birth to a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel**,” which means, “God is with us.” - Matthew 1:22-23 (NRSV) Many Christian apologists recognize that the events of Isaiah 7 and the prophecy of the birth of the child had an application in the time of Isaiah during the Syro-Ephraimite war , with the maturation of the child marking the victory of Judah over Syria: > Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son and shall name him Immanuel. He shall eat curds and honey by the time he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. **For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted**. The Lord will bring on you and on your people and on your ancestral house such days as have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah—the king of Assyria.” - Isaiah 7:14-17 (NRSV) Those who believe that there was an immediate context and fulfillment of this prophecy believe that it was later re-fulfilled in the birth of Jesus as a “dual-fulfillment ”, such as Dr. Michael Brown . ### Two Virgin Births? Do Christians who believe in a dual-fulfillment of Isaiah 7 believe that there were two virgin births? If so, do they believe that the first virgin born child was some kind of divine figure like Jesus? If there were not two virgin births, how was this prophecy fulfilled twice?

I was listening on (**audio**) to Wayne Grudem’s systematic theology and in the chapter on biblical inerrancy.. he mentioned some people dispute Gamaliel's historical accuracy on certain uprisings, and they thus dispute biblical reliability & inspiration on such a text. The text at hand: > “But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the Law, respected by all > the people, stood up in the Council and gave orders to put the men > outside for a short time. > > And he said to them, “Men of Israel, be careful as to what you are > about to do with these men. > > > For, some time ago **Theudas** appeared, claiming to be somebody, and a > group of about four hundred men joined him. > > But he was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and came > to nothing. ***After this*** man, **Judas** of Galilee appeared in the days of > the census and drew away some people after him; he also perished, and > all those who followed him were scattered. > > > And so in the present case, I say to you, stay away from these men and > leave them alone, for if the source of this plan or movement is men, > it will be overthrown; but if the source is God, you will not be able > to overthrow them; or else you may even be found fighting against > God.”” ‭‭**Acts‬ ‭5:34-39‬** ‭ Wayne Grudem said that Judas & Theudas were spoken by Gamaliel in the wrong order according to Josephus in his antiquities, in terms of historical chronology. Wayne Grudem was still in defense of biblical inerrancy and gave some reasons for certain views on Acts 5 with Gamaliel, but what can we interpret here for historical accuracy?? Who made the error here? The Holy Spirit cannot err, so what’s going on? This is my main question below: **Q: According to Protestant NT scholars/historians did Gamaliel get the chronology & history wrong in Acts 5?**

In the book HOLY ABANDONMENT by Rt. Rev. Dom Vitalis Lehodey, O.C.R. we read: ""The signified will comprises a fourfold object: the commandments of God and of His Church, the evangelical counsels, Divine inspirations, our particular rules and constitutions." and "With regard to the counsels, He certainly would like us to observe them also, yet He rather desires this than wills it absolutely. Hence we do not forfeit His friendship by failing in courage to undertake the practice of the counsels, provided we do not treat them with contempt. We are not even permitted to take upon us the observance of them all, but of such of them only as are conformable to our state of life, some of the counsels being opposed to others. . . . " https://www.catholictradition.org/Classics/abandonment2.htm The evangelical counsels are poverty, chastity and obedience. A Carmelite website has the following text: "They are called the ‘evangelical’ counsels because we find them lived and therefore recommended (counselled) by Jesus in the four accounts of the Gospel (‘evangelium’ in Latin). Jesus Christ was poor in spirit, chaste in heart, and obedient in love to the will of his Father." https://carmelite.org/spirituality/evangelical-counsels/ That text seems to say that chastity and obiendience is not something that is required for a good life. For some unchastity and disobedience are ok. Rt. Rev. Dom Vitalis Lehodey, O.C.R. says: "With regard to the counsels, He certainly would like us to observe them also, yet He rather desires this than wills it absolutely." He also seems to say the exact thing. The Catechism (CCC 2349) states "People should cultivate [chastity] in the way that is suited to their state of life." This text seems to say that chastity is for everyone and even required for a good life. Rt. Rev. Dom Vitalis Lehodey, O.C.R. says: "We are not even permitted to take upon us the observance of them all, but of such of them only as are conformable to our state of life, some of the counsels being opposed to others. . . . " He seems to say that the evangelical counsels can be opposed to each other. What is he actually saying? Does he use "counsels" to refer to something else than the evangelical counsels? Why do some Catholic writers say, or seem to say, that chastity and obedience are not for required for a good life?

From [*Lumen Gentium*](https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html) chapter II, paragraph 16: > (126) But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. I find this really confusing on two levels. Firstly, this seems to imply that Muslims worship the same God as the Christian God; secondly, perhaps a corollary of the first point, it suggests that Muslims are also given salvation. What does the Vatican actually mean by this?