> 1In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God. 2he was in the beginning with God. 3All things came into being through him, and without him not even one thing came into being that has come into being. John 1:1-3 BLB We are told in v14 that 'the logos became flesh'. This refers to Jesus and his subsequent conception and birth through Mary. This question seeks to determine if it can be shown biblically that the logos referred to in John 1:1-3 is *not yet*, Jesus. IOW, Jesus, born through Mary and the HS, is *not* being referred to in John 1:1-3.

As a Roman Rite Catholic, January 1 is a Holy Day of Obligation. It is not so in the Ukrainian Catholic Church. If I attend Divine Liturgy at the Ukrainian Catholic Church on January 1, will that fulfill my obligation as a Roman Rite Catholic?

What is the definition of "Jewish origin" according to the [Association of Hebrew Catholics](https://www.hebrewcatholic.net/) ? - Would children of a Jewish father and a non-Jewish mother be considered to have "Jewish origin" by the Association of Hebrew Catholics? What about children of a Jewish mother? - When a Catholic has only one Jewish ancestor (say in cases where it is matrilineal or patrilineal) and *was a convert to Judaism*, conversions to which movement of Rabbinic Judaism (Orthodox, Conservative or Reform) or non-Rabbinic (Messianic, Haymanot or Karaite) would constitute "Jewish origin" in the case of this Catholic?

If the *traditional* “Church Fathers' are from about 160-380 AD, why are *they* called the Church Fathers? The Church was started by Jesus and ministered by the apostles from the very beginning - teaching, baptising and sorting out problems and misunderstandings which are written about throughout the NT. Why aren't the Apostles called the Church Fathers? Who decided which figures would be “Church Fathers”, ignoring the Apostles unquestioned esteem, experience and de facto appointment for that title and role?

Based on the below statement, which passages (if any) *teach the trinity* without resorting to conjecture, inference, speculation or imagination? > The **Apostles** are not called **Church Fathers** because they don't teach the Trinity. That's utterly false. – eques https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/80602/why-arent-the-apostles-called-the-church-fathers **By my logic, eques means that the Apostles *do* teach the Trinity.** Should any passages/verses be provided, they should not form contradictions with other scripture - based on the belief that God does not contradict Himself. For example, 1 Cor 8:6, John 17:3 where God and or Jesus are defined as God or not God. Of course there are innumerably more like these but that is not the focus here. The conundrum being: Do the Church Fathers use any biblical references to support their theories that are literally taught by the Apostles?

On the note of soon to pass Good Friday, Good Friday is the time of the year where we remember the death of Jesus, and Easter is where we remember the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Correct me if I am wrong. However, people seem to associate Easter with egg hunting and bunnies and chocolates. I wouldn't mind a little celebration considering that it is the day Jesus rose from the dead, however I would like to know what in the world eggs and bunnies have to do with it.

I have seen life at either extreme, first as a Hindu, with a sort of blind faith in general religiosity, and later as an atheist, with a blind faith in knowledge obtained through the senses alone. I have now been a Christian for 2 years, and I find that it resonates with my life experiences, and I am wiser and more balanced in living my life. Christianity seems to be the most rational of all worldviews I have experienced, if we define rationality not solely at an intellectual level, but at a level which takes into account the human experience. In fact, since we are embodied beings, and not merely thinking agents (or philosophers), I would suggest that the very definition of rationality of a worldview needs to take this "experiential" reality into account. To try and put things another way, Christianity seems rational at a holistic and integrative level -- one involving faith, reason, emotion, intellect and experience -- a level that transcends pure reason alone. I would like to know if any Christian philosophers or apologists have made a case for Christianity from this sort of definition of what it means to be rational. ---------------- I would like to add the excerpt below, taken from *Wikipedia*, as a guide to the notion of rationality that I refer to. > **In philosophy, rationality is the characteristic of any action, belief, or desire, that makes their choice optimal under a set of constraints.**

Are there any publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals lending credence to any Christian miracle? For example, a peer-reviewed publication validating some "unexplainable" healing after intercessory prayer, or a peer-reviewed publication validating some "unexplainable" creative miracle, etc.

John 1:14 is generally used to say that "God" became "flesh" based on the understanding that "the Word" addressed in John 1:1 refers to God. However, other texts of Scripture appear at variance with this interpretation. The texts which help clarify the basis of this question are shown below. I seek a non-Trinitarian explanations for how these texts might be shown to agree with each other and not be found in contradiction. | Text (KJV) | Typical Assumption | Opposed by? | |---|---|---| | In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1) | "the Word" = God | And the Word was made flesh . . . and we beheld his glory . . . . (vs. 14) **VERSUS** No man hath seen God at any time . . . . (vs. 18) | | And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (John 1:14) | God became a man (Jesus) | God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: . . . . (Numbers 23:19; cf. 1 Samuel 15:29) **AND** For I am the LORD, I change not;. . . . (Malachi 3:6)| How do various Christian faith traditions (Unitarians, Jehovahs Witnesses, etc.) that believe in Jesus, reverence sacred scriptures, but don't believe the in Trinity as understood by the various Ecumenical Councils refute the syllogism: - If the Word is God and the Word became Flesh (in Jesus), why is the Jesus not God? using scripture?

**Does the Russian Orthodox Church actively support Putin and his war in Ukraine?** I have heard that the Russian Orthodox Church under the Patriarch Krill is actually supporting Putin and his war on Ukraine. Is there any evidence to support this? Yes or no, how is the patriarchy handling this issue? See these YouTube videos: - Ukrainian priests of Moscow Patriarchate call to ban Russian religious doctrine - How Putin uses the Orthodox Church to boost his power

A fun refutation of gay marriage supporters who say on Facebook: > Not too long ago cross-racial marriages were not allowed, supposedly by God. would be to say, well that's not my church so what do I care, they should have been Catholic to begin with. However, before I bite off more than is worth chewing and get my apologetic handed back to me in the form of an L on my forehead. Has it ever been the position of the Universal Church, (not just the Honorable Rev. Bigotus) that people from different races should not marry or that racial purity in humans is an end worth pursuing?

Gal 6:16 NASB95 >And those who will walk by this rule, peace and mercy [be] upon them, and upon the Israel of God.

We all know what it says, many can recite the first 3 verse of John without hesitation. >In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being. NASB Most reputable/literal translations have *very* similar renderings. Regardless of the various ways to render the Greek into English, none of them venture to say, 'In the beginning was Jesus'. Only one, from ~44 translations on Biblehub, the Amplified, ventures slightly from the norm with a bracketed inclusion. > In the beginning [before all time] was the Word (Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God Himself. Do any Trinitarian denominations teach, or state in documentation, from John 1 with, 'In the beginning was Jesus'? This question is raised because most Trinitarian Christians refer to this verse as proof of Jesus being God so they must get this understanding from somewhere!

Throughout history, people have faced suffering, sometimes even choosing to endure pain or death for a cause they believe is greater than themselves. Soldiers in war, for instance, may face the possibility of dying because they believe their sacrifice will protect others or bring about some greater good. If I had the certainty that my death would save others or fulfill some noble purpose, I could understand willingly sacrificing myself. Jesus, had that knowledge about His own sacrifice. He knew His suffering would bring redemption. However, as an individual, I lack that certainty. I don’t have the divine knowledge Jesus had about the greater meaning behind His suffering, and yet I am still expected to endure pain, hardship, and loss. Why is it that humans are required to endure so much suffering without the kind of clarity that Jesus had? Why do we go through physical and emotional pain that often seems endless and without purpose? How can we find the strength to keep going in the absence of clear knowledge of the purpose of our suffering? Does this kind of endurance even have meaning, or is it simply part of the human experience that we must accept? How do we endure the feelings of helplessness and despair when we don't know why we are going through it all?

Jude 6 (ESV) says: > "And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day" Is this saying that demons are all in jail, and we're free from them currently? I thought the consensus is that the devil and his demons are running rampant on earth doing evil things, as it says in 1 Peter 5:8 (ESV): > Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. Which is it? Are the devil and demons currently chained in hell or are they roaming around on earth? Thanks all.

For those that believe in transubstantiation, that the bread and wine of the Eucharist literally become the flesh and blood of Christ, why were there no schisms concerning this within the Early Church IF this is what they believed and taught? The Noahide Covenant and the Mosaic Law not only both expressly forbid the consumption of blood - with the penalty of being cut off from Israel - but it is one of the few commands deemed essential for Gentile converts to follow as well, despite not being under the Mosaic Law. It is thus not simply a matter of ceremonial cleanliness at stake; but an ex-communicable offense. The early church itself was composed of Jewish converts who carried with them their previous beliefs. This led to controversies like demanding that Gentiles get circumcised and to those who claimed within the church that there was no resurrection (like the Sadducees) as well as to controversies over what food they were permitted to eat amongst Gentiles. Such concerns are clearly reflective of Jewish religious life back when. Now, if the disciples and apostles had gone around preaching that the Eucharist literally was flesh and BLOOD - do you not think that this would have caused not a little controversy amongst the Jewish Christians? Would not Paul have to defend why he was not cut off from Israel - let alone how Gentiles are grafted onto Israel - if they routinely committed an excommunicatable offense? And even if fellow Christians could be convinced of the matter - it surely would have been a point of objection from those Jewish authorities that sought to persecute the Church; like Paul prior to his conversion. Yet the biblical testimony is absolutely silent on such a controversy. Nor, again, do the Church Fathers record such a controversy; even in their lengthy volumes recording actual or fictional conversations with Jews. The closest we get are apologies against those who assert that Christians were cannibals - a valid claim IF the Eucharist is literal flesh and blood.

[Revelation 1:1 (NIV)](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+1&version=NIV) reads: > The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John. So this is the image I get: Sometime before an angel sent by Jesus gave John the revelation, Jesus was given the revelation from God. I first wonder when Jesus was given the revelation: before his birth (assuming the validity of the Trinity doctrine), during his life, after his death but before his resurrection, after his resurrection but before his ascension, after his ascension. Then I obviously wonder how Jesus, being God fully, would not know the nature of the things spelled out in Revelation. So, how do classic Trinitarians answer this question? Why does it appear that Jesus at some time did not know what God knew concerning the little details of the last days?

*Above: Arian Unity, Tritheist Trinity, & Modalist Trinity* 1 John 5:7-8 ESV > **[]** > For there are three that testify **[]**: the Spirit and the water and the > blood; and these three agree. 1 John 5:7-8 NKJV > **[For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, > and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.]** And there are three that > bear witness **[on earth]**: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these > three agree as one. The Johannine Comma or Johannine Gloss, the inserted portion of 1 John 5:7, only appears in published Bibles after the year 1520—thanks to the efforts of the Roman Catholic translator Erasmus. Does the Johannine Comma found in 1 John 5:7 teach the Trinitarian doctrine of Modalism or Tritheism?

I realize the gravity of what I'm asking. But, is God grateful? Does God have a thankful attitude toward his creation? God is gracious, but is he filled with a sense of gratitude in this graciousness? Is the Biblical idea of grace found in this idea of gratitude and gratefulness and thanksgiving? I'll provide a few verses that seem to be in context and show God has a hint of gratitude to humans: - Isaiah 66:2: God the Son was thankful to God the Father: > For all those things My hand has made, And all those things exist,” Says the LORD. “But to this one will I look: On him who is poor and of a contrite spirit, And who trembles at My word. - Luke 1:48a: > For He has regarded the lowly state of His maidservant; - Luke 10:21: > At that time he rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said, “I openly acknowledge you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and revealed them to infants. Yes, Father, because this was your good pleasure. - Psalm 138:6: > Though the Lord is on high, Yet He regards the lowly; But the proud He knows from a distance. - Hebrews 11:6: > Now without faith it is impossible to please God, since the one who draws near to him must believe that he exists and that he **rewards** those who seek him. - Proverbs 3:34: > He mocks those who mock but shows favor to the humble. - Genesis 6:8: > But, Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus is God's only direct creation, and that it was Jesus who created all other things: > Since all created things had a beginning, there was a time when God was alone. Countless ages ago, however, God became a Creator. Who was his first creation? The last book of the Bible identifies Jesus as “the beginning of the creation by God.” (Revelation 3:14) Jesus is “the firstborn of all creation.” That is so “because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible.” (Colossians 1:15, 16) **Yes, Jesus was the only one directly created by God himself.** ([Who Is Jesus Christ? on wol.jw.org](https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2005681)) We see this most clearly in the Jehovah's Witnesses translation of Colossians 1:15-16: > Colossians 1:15-16 (NWT) He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. **All other things have been created through him and for him.** But Isaiah 44:24 says that it was Jehovah who created all things by himself: note the last line of Isaiah 44:24 which says that no one else was with Jehovah, probably speaking primarily about humans, but also angels and other spiritual beings, which would seem to preclude God co-creating with Jesus. > Isaiah 44:24 (NWT): This is what Jehovah says, your Repurchaser, Who formed you since you were in the womb: “**I am Jehovah, who made everything.** I stretched out the heavens **by myself**, And I spread out the earth. **Who was with me?** How do the Jehovah's Witnesses reconcile Isaiah 44:24 with their belief that Jesus is the only direct creation of God and it was Jesus who created all other things? Question based on various revisions of [this now deleted question by Mr. Bond](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/75286/6071) .