In Biblical Unitarianism, Jesus Christ is a mere man, maximally inspired by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, a mere man died on the Cross, was resurrected, and now sits at God's right hand. How does this differ soteriologically from the orthodox Trinity doctrine? As I understand it, in this doctrine, the Father, Son, and Spirit are a single immortal (cannot die) and immutable (cannot suffer) Being with a single mind, will, and consciousness. Therefore, the Son did not die because he cannot die. Chalcedon explained this as that Jesus Christ has or had two natures and only the human nature died. So, in both Biblical Unitarianism and the orthodox Trinity doctrine, it was a mere man who suffered and died on the Cross. Is there a difference between the two systems in terms of why Jesus had to die? Some of the comments below deny that the Trinitarian God is a single Being with a single mind, will, and consciousness. Therefore, I add the following: The orthodox Trinity doctrine is often explained to people by saying that the Father, Son, and Spirit are one God existing as three Persons. The phrase “three Persons” implies three distinct minds. However, in the Trinity doctrine, the Father, Son, and Spirit share a single mind and, therefore, a single will, consciousness, and self-awareness. They do not each have a distinct mind. For example: > “When today we speak of person in the plural, we think almost > necessarily, because of the modern meaning of the word, of several > spiritual centers of activity [minds], of several subjectivities > [biases, views] and liberties [freedoms].” (Karl Rahner, a leading > Catholic scholar, in ‘The Trinity) > > “There are not three of these in God. … There are not three > consciousnesses; rather the one consciousness subsists in a threefold > way. There is only one real consciousness in God, which is shared by > the Father, Son, and Spirit.” (Rahner) > > “The element of consciousness … does not belong to it [the Person] in > our context [the official doctrine of the {Catholic} Church].” > (Rahner) > > “There exists in God only one power, one will, only one self-presence. > … Hence self-awareness is not a moment which distinguishes the divine > "persons" one from the other.” (Rahner) > > “Each Person shares the Divine will … that come from a mind. … Each > Person's self-awareness and consciousness is not inherent to that > Person (by nature of that Person being that Person) but comes from the > shared essence.” (Rahner) > > “We must, of course, say that Father, Son, and Spirit possess > self-consciousness and that each one is aware of the other two > ‘persons’. But precisely this self-consciousness … comes from the > divine essence, is common as one to the divine persons.” (Rahner). Lewis Ayres stated similarly that the Persons do not “possess different natures, wills, or activities.” > “We can now try to summarize how pro-Nicenes conceive of a divine > person in the abstract. … We cannot … assume that they possess > different natures, wills, or activities within the one Godhead.” > (Ayres, p. 295) [Lewis Ayres, Nicaea and its legacy, An Approach to > Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology, 2004] Consequently, leading Trinitarian scholars confirm that it is misleading to describe the Father, Son, and Spirit as “Persons.” > “The champions of the Nicene faith … developed a doctrine of God as a > Trinity, as one substance or ousia who existed as three hypostases, > three distinct realities or entities (I refrain from using the > **misleading** word' Person'), three ways of being or modes of existing as > God.” (Hanson Lecture ) > > “By the conventions of the late fourth century, first formulated in > Greek by the ‘Cappadocian Fathers’, these three constituent members of > what God is came to be referred to as hypostases (‘concrete > individuals’) or, more **misleadingly** for us moderns, as prosōpa > (‘persons’).” (Anatolios, xiii) [Khaled Anatolios, Retrieving Nicaea, > 2011] The orthodox Trinity doctrine is sometimes explained, using Greek terms from the fourth century, as one ousia (substance) and three hypostases. But the term hypostasis is also not appropriate because, while the Father, Son, and Spirit in the Trinity doctrine are a single Being with one mind, the Greek term hypostasis means something that exists distinctly from other things: > An "individual existence” (Hanson, p. 193); "Distinct individuality" > (Hanson, p. 53) "Distinct reality" (Hanson, p. 190); “Something that > really exists, and exists in itself, as distinguished from an accident > or a quality;” (Lienhard) "Distinct personalities," "distinct > existences," and "to be existent." (Litfin) “Concrete individuals” > (Anatolios, xiii) In the Trinity doctrine, the distinction between the Father, Son, and Spirit is invisible to the created universe. The creation only sees one Being: > “By the last quarter of the fourth century, halting Christian attempts > … had led … to what later generations generally think of as ‘the > doctrine of the Holy Trinity’: the formulated idea that the God … is > Father and Son and Holy Spirit, as one reality or substance, > **operating outward in creation always as a unit**y, yet always internally differentiated by the relationships of origin that Father > and Son and Holy Spirit have with one another.” (Anatolios, xiii) > > “The distinctions between them are real: but we do not know what it is > to exist distinctly in this state.” (Ayres, p. 295) So, if the terms 'Persons' and 'hypostases' are misleading and the distinction between them is invisible, how should the 'Persons' in the Trinity doctrine be described? Hanson refers to the Father, Son, and Spirit as “three ways of being or modes of existing as God:” > “The champions of the Nicene faith … developed a doctrine of God as a > Trinity, as one substance or ousia who existed as three hypostases, > three distinct realities or entities (I refrain from using the > misleading word' Person'), **three ways of being or modes of existing as > God**.” (Hanson Lecture ) One might respond and say, yes, that may be the orthodox Trinity doctrine, but I believe in a Trinity of three Persons with three distinct minds. That would be consistent with the Bible, but if the three Persons are equal, there would be three Gods (Tritheism). As soon as one speaks of three Minds, two of the Minds must be subordinate to the other; otherwise, one has three Gods. But to admit that the Son and Spirit are subordinate to the Father would be 'Arianism.' To avoid both Tritheism and Arianism, the orthodox Trinity doctrine has to say that the Father, Son, and Spirit are a single Being with a single mind. 

I was researching and studying reproduction in the New Heaven & New Earth. Edit: I'm personally a pantheist and I believe the King James Bible. I have not read all of it and my opinion changes according to that. Psalms 139 is the reason I'm a pantheist. Matthew 22:30 KJV >For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. Mark 12:25 KJV >For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven. Luke 20:35, 36 KJV >**35** But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: **36** Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection. Which kinda solves it right? But what about Isaiah 65 & 66 or even Isaiah 54, Isaiah 65:20 KJV >There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed. So, as I told all of you, extreme difficulty in understanding this. I have read other versions of the Bible like the NIV, but the meaning is still not changed... Isaiah 61:1-11 >**1** The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; **2** To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn; **3** To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the LORD, that he might be glorified. **4** And they shall build the old wastes, they shall raise up the former desolations, and they shall repair the waste cities, the desolations of many generations. **5** And strangers shall stand and feed your flocks, and the sons of the alien shall be your plowmen and your vinedressers. **6** But ye shall be named the **Priests of the LORD: men shall call you the Ministers of our God**: ye shall eat the riches of the Gentiles, and in their glory shall ye boast yourselves. **7** For your shame ye shall have double; and for confusion they shall rejoice in their portion: therefore in their land they shall possess the double: everlasting joy shall be unto them. **8** For I the LORD love judgment, I hate robbery for burnt offering; and I will direct their work in truth, and I will make an everlasting covenant with them. **9** And their seed shall be known among the Gentiles, and their offspring among the people: all that see them shall acknowledge them, that they are the seed which the LORD hath blessed. **10** I will greatly rejoice in the LORD, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decketh himself with ornaments, and as a bride adorneth herself with her jewels. **11** For as the earth bringeth forth her bud, and as the garden causeth the things that are sown in it to spring forth; so the Lord GOD will cause righteousness and praise to spring forth before all the nations. Revelation 20:1-6 >**1** And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. **2** And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, **3** And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season. **4** And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. **5** But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. **6** Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be **priests of God and of Christ**, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

Jesus entered Jerusalem riding on a colt! The Passover was preparation day for the Feast of Unleavened Bread. A 2nd Sabbath day was then on the 7th day, Saturday! If Jesus fulfilled the Passover and the Unleavened Bread by being crucified on the 14th and in the tomb on the 15th, another preparation day would be the 16th, the Sabbath the 17th and the Resurrection would be on the 18th. Therefore, the Triumphal Entry would have been on the preceding Sabbath: the 10th!

**The argument** 1. If X saves, X must be God. 2. Jesus saves. 3. Therefore, Jesus must be God. **Question** According to Biblical Unitarians, what's wrong with this argument? _____ **Related questions** - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/91343/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/91318/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/83087/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/81155/50422

St. Thomas writes in the *Summa Theologiæ* II-II q. 72 a. 2 *sed contra*: >Now railing or reviling (*convicium vel contumelia*) deserves the punishment of hell, according to Matt. 5:22, "Whosoever shall say to his brother… Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." Therefore railing or reviling is a mortal sin. I am having trouble understanding what these words mean. I take it they would include what we would call bullying or verbal abuse, but would disclosure of another's faults in the presence of them and others be contumely, or would that just be detraction, or would that be detraction for the disclosure and contumely because it was in their presence? I am also having trouble distinguishing railing and reviling. *Summa Theologiæ* II-II q. 72 a. 1 ad 3: >Railing and taunts (*convicium et improperium*) consist in words, even as reviling, because by all of them a man’s faults are exposed to the detriment of his honor. Such faults are of three kinds. First, there is the fault of guilt, which is exposed by reviling words. Second, there is the fault of both guilt and punishment, which is exposed by taunts (*convicium*), because vice is commonly spoken of in connection with not only the soul but also the body. Hence if one man says spitefully to another that he is blind, he taunts (*convicium dicit*) but does not revile him: whereas if one man calls another a thief, he not only taunts but also reviles him If reviling (*contumelia*) exposes the fault of guilt and railing (*convicium*) exposes the fault of guilt and punishment then it would follow that all railing is reviling, but then he says that spitefully calling a blind man blind is railing (*convicium*) but not reviling which has left me confused. I also don't understand what mocking a blind person has to do with guilt or punishment.

Did arabic Christians and Jews use the word Allah to refer to god before Islam came about? Are there any texts predating Islam that prove this

Within Christian theology, particularly in the doctrine of the Trinity, are the three persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—understood to possess distinct and independent faculties of freewill, or are their volitional acts considered to be unified, expressing a single divine will? Or is perhaps one a reflection of the other? Additionally, do various Christian denominations or theological traditions differ in how they address this question?

> Matthew 17:3 Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, > talking with Jesus. > > 4 Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good for us to be here. If you > wish, I will put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one > for Elijah.” I am wondering how Peter recognized that the men were Elijah and Moses? Photographs and portraits didn't exist back in those days. If they did, Peter being a fisherman wouldn't have been to school to see them. And I doubt Moses and Elijah began their conversation by saying - "Hello Jesus, I am Elijah and this is my buddy Moses." So how would Peter know it was Elijah standing there?

Are there any deductive arguments in favor of Christianity against Judaism?, that is, an argument whose conclusion given the premises is necessary rather than likely. In other words, are there any arguments that would compel a rational follower of Judaism to believe in Christianity?

How did it come about that Jesus was portrayed as White in the media?

My question comes in two parts, the second being a direct result of the first. **Is the Bible infallible?** I have often heard that it is, but the most conclusive proof that I have heard essentially states that, since it is inerrant, it must be infallible. This makes no sense as it is inerrancy is necessary due to infallibility, not the other way around. When bringing into question the infallibility of The Bible. I am not asking about The Canon, or the books selected, but rather the actual content of scripture. **If The Bible is not infallible, then on what grounds do we say it is inerrant?** Assuming that The Bible cannot be proven infallible, can we at least say it is inerrant? The Bible certainly is proven legitimate with historical evidence and its teachings are proven true in practice. This points to the conclusion that it is inerrant, but does it conclusively and certainly prove its inerrancy? Is there any way to show that, without a doubt, The Bible is inerrant? **EDIT:** To clarify what I’m asking further, I am defining - **Infallible**: Without ability to err - **Inerrant**: Without error - **The Bible**: The actual, original content of widely accepted Scripture and its meaning My first question can also be examined as a question of Divine Inspiration. Is every word a product of God’s Will?

I recently heard a pastor building his sermon around the 'fact' that Obed-Edom was a Gentile (a precursor to Acts 15:16 - the full inclusion of Gentiles), who became a Levite after the 'possession' of the ark. On the other hand, most commentators claim that he was a Levite from the beginning, though a Gittite obviously being a Philistine, the same camp that Goliath the enemy of David came from. Has anyone studied this in-depth and come to a balanced conclusion? 2 Sam 6:10 >So David would not remove unto him the ark of Yahweh, unto the city of David, - but David took it aside to the house of Obed-edom, the **Gittite**. Barnes: >Obed-edom was a Levite of the family of Merari, being 1Ch_15:18-24; 1Ch_16:38 a son of Jeduthun [*Barnes does not mention the preceding verse 1Chr 13:13 where Obed-Edom was still called a Gittite while he received the ark*], who was a Merarite. [...] He is called a Gittite perhaps from Gath-Rimmon, in Manasseh, which belonged to the Kohathites Jos_21:25. Marriage with a Kohathite, or some other cause, would account for his dwelling in a Kohathite city. Geneva Bible: >Who was a Levite, and had dwelt in Gittaim, (1Ch_15:21). Gill: >... this man was a Levite, as **appears** from his being afterwards appointed to be doorkeeper for the ark, and to sing praise before it, and so a proper person to commit the care of it to, 1 Chronicles 15:18; he is called a Gittite, either because he had sojourned in Gath some time, or rather because he was of Gathrimmon, a city of the Levites, Joshua 21:24. KingComments: >Later we see that Obed-edom gets a special service as gatekeeper at the temple (1Ch_26:4-8). He is a Levite, but born in a city of the Philistines. **His name means ‘servant of Edom’**, that is to say servant of the flesh, the sinful nature, someone who does the will of the flesh (Eph_2:3). But in him we also see what G-d can do in such a person and what His grace can make of him. Matthew Henry: >He lodged the ark in a good house, the house of Obed-edom a Levite, which happened to be near the place where this disaster happened, and there, (1.) It was kindly entertained and welcomed, and continued there three months, 2Sa_6:10, 2Sa_6:11. Obed-edom knew what slaughter the ark had made among the Philistines that imprisoned it and the Bethshemites that looked into it.

My question is posed to the Protestant churches that teach that man is saved by faith alone. If a person is saved by faith alone, what happens to children who die before they are able to conceive of the meaning of Christ's death and their own need for him and therefore cannot have a saving faith in his work? I heard the John Calvin taught that unbaptized infants were saved by their parents' faith. I've also heard that some Calvinist pastors will say that there is no way of knowing, because God has chosen which will go to heaven and hell apart from human action. Some Roman Catholic teachers taught that there was a place in Hell (or between Heaven and Hell) called limbo for unbaptized infants, but I see that Pope Francis has stated that unbaptized infants do have hope of salvation (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1549439/The-Pope-ends-state-of-limbo-after-800-years.html) . But I'm looking for an overview of the positions that are taught as doctrine in the Protestant churches, or are at least in writing from their leaders.

> Matthew 22:24 (KJV) Saying, "Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother." In general do Christians believe it is OK to marry the wife of a deceased brother? How about if she has already children from the first marriage?

Both high and low Calvinists from this Wiki say that God authorized the Fall, by which all deserve to be condemned. Me: If there is no predestination at all, both Cain and Abel will end up in hell. From this link Calvinists teach that Ephesians 2:8 declares that *faith is given to the elect only.* Now, Hebrews 11:4 says: > By *faith* Abel brought God a better offering than Cain did. ([NIV](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+11%3A4&version=NIV) , italics added) Me: because there is predestination, Abel will end up in heaven while Cain will still end up in hell. But [Genesis 4:7](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis+4%3A7&version=NIV) says: > If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not > do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have > you, but you must rule over it. (NIV) My question: If God alone before the creation had already decreed that Cain would end up in hell, and that's why He will never give Cain faith, why did God say what He did to Cain in Genesis 4:7?

It is well known that the word behind Christ-'**mas**' (shortened form of 'Christ's Mass ) is '**mæsse**', which comes from the Latin '**missa**', the same word used for the Roman Catholic **'Mass'** / Holy Eucharist. Are there historical accounts which show that the Christian use of the term 'missa' is (hopefully) coincidental and that we are not accidentally celebrating a feast that initiated with, and is closely connected to the Roman Catholic mass, which is **obligatory** on both Dec24 & 25th?

The *Deuterocanonical books* were included in the Septuagint, but not the Hebrew Bible. They are mostly included in the Catholic Old Testament, but not in the Protestant one. I understand the choice was made by Luther, who called the deuterocanonical books > Apocrypha, that are books which are not considered equal to the Holy Scriptures, but are useful and good to read Why weren't the deuterocanonical books considered equal to the Holy Scriptures?

> John 20:17 Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’” > Eph 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ... > Rev 1:1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him... > Rev 3:12 The one who conquers, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God... > Rev 22:1 Rev 22:1 the throne of God and of the Lamb... These samples from scripture express that Jesus *has a God* (who is the Father alone John 17:3), and is the same God all other humans have. Clearly, nothing seems to have changed from being in the flesh, and being exalted to the heavens to be *with* God and by the side of God. Typical explanations are that Jesus has a God *while he is a man* (while still being God apparently) so that seems to lack some credibility. Does Jesus ever not have a God according to Protestants?

There is much in scripture concerning the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple and of the city walls, and carrying more Jews into captivity. (e.g. 2 Kings 25:1-19; 2 Chron 36:18-19; Jeremiah 39, 52:7-25; Ezekiel 24:1-2, 26:1-2, 30:20-21, 33:21, 40:1). A previous question was not interested in whether it was 586 or 587 but merely sought to compare either 586 or 587 BC with the Watchtower date of 607 BC for the destruction of the Temple. This question asks: Was Jerusalem captured and the Temple destroyed in 586 BC or in 587 BC?

I have heard somewhere that the apostles thought that John betrayed Jesus. I might have heard this from Father Perry during Bible study. Remember Jesus didn't spell out Judas as the traitor. They thought Judas left to get food for the poor or something like that.