Internet Encyclopedia (IE) article on Philo claims that Philo “laid the foundations for the development of Christianity … as we know it today.” It says, “Philo’s primary importance is in the development of the … foundations of Christianity.” > More specifically, it claims that the Logos theology , that became the > standard explanation of Jesus after the church became Gentile > dominated in the second century, was inspired by Philo, namely, that > Philo, by synthesizing Judaism and Greek philosophy, developed > concepts which formed the basis for the Christian interpretation of > Jesus Christ. IE mentions “Clement of Alexandria, Christian Apologists > like Athenagoras, Theophilus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and by > Origen” as Christian theologists who used Philo’s concepts to explain > the Biblical Son of God. > > Furthermore, and much more important, IE claims that Philo influenced the Bible itself. (Philo > lived and wrote a few decades before the writers of the New > Testament.) IE says, Philo “may have influenced Paul, his > contemporary, and perhaps the authors of the Gospel of John … and the > Epistle to the Hebrews.” To justify these statements, IE points to the following similarities between Philo and the New Testament: Same Titles ----------- In Philo, the Logos exists before everything else and, therefore, is called the “first-born” (IE), “the ‘first-born’ of God” (Blogos ), and the first-begotten Son of the Uncreated Father (IE). Consequently, both Philo's Logos and Jesus Christ are called: - Logos (the Word - John 1:1), - The first-born (Col 1:15; Heb 1:6), and - Son of God. Eternal ------- In both Philo and the NT, the Logos is eternal: > In the NT, the Son > "was" in “the beginning” (John 1:1-2) and is “the First and the Last” > (Rev 1:17). “His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of > eternity” (Micah 5:2). The Arians liked to add, “From everlasting I > was established” (Prov 8:23). > > Similarly, in Philo, the Logos was begotten from eternity (IE). The > Logos has an origin, but as God’s thought, it also has eternal > generation (IE). God begat the Logos eternally because it is a > manifestation of God’s thinking-acting (IE). Created and Maintains All Things -------------------------------- In both Philo and the NT, the Logos created and still maintains all things: > In Philo, the Logos is “the organizing principle of matter” (Blogos), > the power by which God made and ordered all things (IE), and the bond > holding together all the parts of the world (IE). > > In John, God created all things through the Logos (John 1:1-3; cf. Col > 1:16; Heb 1:2; 1 Cor 8:6) and also maintains all things through His > Son (Heb 1:3; Col 1:17). Entrusted Power --------------- In both Philo and the NT, the Logos receives His power from God: > In Philo, the Logos has no autonomous power, only an entrusted one > (Wikipedia ). > > Similarly, in the New Testament, the miracles which Jesus performed were > performed by God “through Him” (Acts 2:22). God “seated Him at His > right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority > and power and dominion” (Eph 1:17-21). The Angel of the Lord --------------------- In both Philo and the NT, the Logos is the Old Testament Angel of the Lord: Many Christians identify the Old Testament Angel of the LORD as the pre-existent Christ. Similarly, Philo describes the Logos as the revealer of God symbolized in the Scripture by an angel of the Lord (IE). Reveals God ----------- In both Philo and the NT, the Logos reveals the invisible and incomprehensible God to the created things: > In Philo, “God is revealed to His creation through the Logos” > (Blogos). > > Similarly, in the New Testament, God “alone possesses immortality and > dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see” but > the Son is “the exact representation” of God’s nature (Heb 1:3); “the > (visible) image of the invisible God” (Col 1:15). Therefore, Jesus > said, “He who has seen Me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). Light ----- In both Philo and the NT, the Logos illuminates the soul: > In Philo, the Logos illuminates the human soul and nourishes it with a > higher spiritual food (Wikipedia ). In the mind of a wise man > thoroughly purified, it allows preservation of virtues in an > unimpaired condition. (IE) > > Similarly, Jesus said, “I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me > will not walk in the darkness” (John 8:12). And John wrote: “In Him > was life, and the life was the Light of men.” “There was the true > Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man” (John 1:4, > 9). Begotten -------- In both Philo and the NT, the Logos is neither uncreated as God nor created as men: > In Philo, "the ontology of the Logos would most closely resemble an > emanation from the divine essence” (Blogos), and “an extension of a > divine being” (IE). The Logos is more than a quality, power, or > characteristic of God; it is an entity eternally generated as an > extension (IE). Therefore, the Logos … is neither uncreated as God nor > created as men (IE). > > Similarly, in the NT, the Son is the only being ever “begotten” by the > Father. If we interpret this fairly literally, it seems to indicate > that He came out of the being of God. The Nicene Creed interprets > “begotten” as that He was not created but came from the substance of > the Father. The anti-Nicenes warn that humans do not understand what > “begotten” of God means and that we should not introduce non-Biblical > words or thoughts. Mediator between God and man ---------------------------- In both Philo and the NT, the Logos is the mediator between God and man: > In Philo, the Father is the Supreme Being and the Logos, as his chief > messenger, stands between Creator and creature (IE). The Logos is a > perfect being, procuring forgiveness of sins and blessings (IE); the > mediator between God and men (IE). “The Philonic Logos is the bridge > between the infinite God and finite creation” (Blogos). > > Similarly, in the New Testament, “there is one God, and ***one mediator*** > also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim 2:5; cf. Heb > 8:6; 9:15). Everything that the creation receives from God, including > existence, sustenance, knowledge, and salvation, flows through His > Son. Also, through Christ, we draw near to God and worship Him. Question -------- It is fairly common knowledge that the pre-Nicene Fathers (the Apologists ) explained the Son of God in terms of Greek philosophy. My main question is whether Philo influenced the formulation and contents of the New Testament. Perhaps I can frame the question like this: Jesus and Philo lived at the same time. Jesus said that all power and all judgment have been given Him but He never said that He is the Logos or that God created all things through Him. However, Philo, at that same time, taught that the High God created all things through His Logos. So, did John, Paul, and Hebrews get the idea that Jesus is the Logos and that God created all things through Him from Philo?

## Introduction From early church fathers such as 2nd Century Justin Martyr (*Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, ch 73*) to the 16th Century Reformer John Calvin (*Commentary on the Book of Psalms, 1:373*), accusations that Jewish scribes "tampered" with the Masoretic Text (the authoritative Hebrew Bible text) to obscure messianic prophecies have circulated for centuries. ## Question Is this belief still held by Christians? Do Christians who believe this provide evidence for this belief? What evidence is there for this accusation?

Some Christian media projects (like [*Superbook* on the Christian Broadcasting Network](https://us-en.superbook.cbn.com/videos)) retell Bible stories but add science fiction elements such as time travel, futuristic gadgets, or fictional characters who interact with biblical events. From a biblical and theological standpoint, is it acceptable to use such storytelling methods to teach the Bible? Does this risk distorting Scripture by mixing truth with fiction?

Christian theology generally teaches that only God is omnipresent, while Satan is a created being with limited power and presence. Yet, believers around the world often experience temptations or trials that they attribute to Satan’s influence. How do Christian theologians explain Satan’s ability to seemingly affect or test many people in different locations at once, if he cannot be everywhere? - Does Scripture suggest he works through a network of demons? I’m asking specifically from a biblical and theological standpoint, not from personal opinion.

I wonder if this practice was uniquely part of the 'Jesus movement' at the time or if it was just standard?

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'?

Billy Graham is often quoted as saying that the Bible is “God’s love letter to us.” What did he mean by this? Is there a biblical basis for calling the Bible a “love letter,” or is it more of a pastoral metaphor?

According to their own words, Ephrem and Aphrahat annotated *The Gospel*, not a text called *Diatessaron*. How is it possible that these theologians had never heard of this work, let alone of its supposed author while their contemporary Eusebius had all this information at his fingertips? Did our blasphemous heretic covertly remove his name and replace the title with «The Gospel» before spreading his mischievous text among the unsuspecting Syrians? Is that what we are to believe?

I'm going to give an example. If my parents only met because of Hitler, would I not exist if not for the actions of Hitler. Or does God give the same souls life regardless of our parents? There are different verses in which some would say we have existed before birth (Jeremiah 1:5), and others claiming that we are created from nothing (Genesis 2:7).

I've heard that the Bible's division into verses was made later than the division into chapters. So, whose translation firstly came up with this system of chapter divisions that we have today?

Regarding the passage Mt 2:13-18. Joseph flees to Egypt with Jesus and Mary after being warned by an angel that Jesus’ life is in danger. Herod then kills all the male children less than 2 years old in and around Bethlehem (8 miles *south* of Jerusalem). Matthew calls this tragic event the fulfillment of Je 31:15: > A cry is heard in Ramah… Rachel weeps for her children… for her children are gone. However, OT verses and sources from bibleatlas.org point to Ramah being 8+ miles *north* of Jerusalem. How can the verses in Matthew and Jeremiah refer to the same place if they are 16+ miles apart? What am I missing?

The Orthodox Study Bible's OT translation (produced by the St. Athanasius Academy) is based on the Septuagint, instead of being primarily based on the Masoretic text like most English translations of the Bible. The text of 1 Samuel 17:4 in the Septuagint lists Goliath's height as "four cubits and a span" (roughly 6'9''), contrasting with "six cubits and a span" (roughly 9'9'') in the Masoretic text. The OSB follows the Septuagint in its translation, but the footnote says: > Goliath is over nine feet tall. This is accurate regarding the Masoretic text, but not the Septuagint. Is it a mistake? Or are they following St. Augustine's interpretation of differences between the Septuagint and the Hebrew text? I.e. that the Hebrew text is historically accurate, but that the Greek is also divinely inspired and contains symbolical significance (*City of God* Book 18, chapter 43-44 ). There could also be another explanation I've not thought of.

Virtually all resources published these days make Biblical citations in the same way: "John 3:16" with the chapter and verse numbers in Arabic numerals, separated by a colon and with no other punctuation. However, when I read books printed a long time ago (maybe from 100 years ago or so), I find many other ways of referencing Biblical passages. As some examples: > "John iii. 16" - used in this 1885 translation of 1st Clement and throughout that collection of the Ante-Nicene fathers. > > "John 3. 16" - used in the 1917 printing of the Scofield Reference Bible . > > "John, iii, 16" - used in the 1912 printing of the Catholic Encyclopedia . When and why did the modern convention become standard?

The International Committee on Biblical Inerrancy has set out two magisterial documents related to an understanding of inerrancy: the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978) and the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics (1981). Earlier (1959), the Christian Reformed Church of North America settled on a definition and understanding of Biblical infallibility . According to one member of the Council on Infallibility: > The committee discussed at some length the usefulness of the word *inerrant* to describe the Bible. We concluded that it is not the most felicitous term to express the unique character of the Scriptures. We agreed that *infallible* and *trustworthy* fit the nature of the Bible more appropriately. The rest of his article speaks in general terms on why they rejected the term, but I'm looking for more than that. I'd like to understand specifically what about the reliability and authority of the Bible the ICBI affirms and denies that the CRCNA would not affirm and deny, and vice-versa.

It is my impression that across denominations that [compatibilism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism) is the dominant position and answer to the question of divine sovereignty and human free will. The main alternative is [libertarian free will](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_(metaphysics)) , which states that humans have totally free wills with no control (or maybe even no influence) by God. (The other alternative to compatibilism is total determinism, but that is not generally considered compatible with Christianity.) When it comes to the Bible, Christians have historically believed that God [inspired the writing of the scriptures](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inspiration) , but in a way that left the human author utilising their full creative capabilities. This has been called the "dual authorship" of the scriptures: when we ask who wrote the Bible, we can truly say both its human authors and God. This doctrine fits perfectly with compatibilism; it can be seen as just one particular application of how divine and human wills coexist. So how do those who reject compatibilism explain the inspiration of scripture? Can they also uphold the dual authorship of scripture? Can they uphold the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy/infallibility, or do they say that only when the Biblical authors wrote down a direct divine revelation (such as Habakkuk 2) is the text without flaw?

If someone quotes e.g. Leviticus 6:7, will this be the correct position no matter the language or translation?

One version I have says "The Gospel According to St. John." Another says "The Gospel of John." Is there not a history of the earliest titles given?

Jesus said in Matthew 7:16, "You will know them by their fruits." This verse is often cited to identify genuine believers based on their actions and character. However, a recent incident in Minnesota where a self-professed evangelical Christian—who had even received an appointment—was involved in the shooting of a congresswoman raises questions. How should this verse be understood in light of such events? Can we truly and reliably know a believer by their fruits, especially when someone outwardly identified with Christianity ends up acting in a way that seems so contrary to Christ’s teachings? How do different theological traditions interpret this principle when actions contradict profession of faith?

Wikipedia says the following: > The patriarchs and matriarchs were either real individuals or believable composites of people who **lived in the "patriarchal age", the 2nd millennium BCE**. But, in the 1970s, new arguments concerning Israel's past and the biblical texts **challenged these views;** What is the most current favoured date?

"3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him." (Ephesians 1:3-4) In the above verse the Apostle Paul writing to the believers at the church in Ephesus is declaring that God the Father chose 'us' i.e. the believers, before the foundation of the world. If that were the case all the believers whoever was and is and will be believing in Jesus and thus become believers only those people were chosen to become believers much before their creation. That's basically predestination of certain individuals to become believers. However, that effectively leaves out all those who are not chosen by God to go to hell. In other words, it is God who creates certain individuals meant to go to heaven and others to hell. If the above statements were to be true, then, God will be unjust and unloving. Furthermore, it will be unfair for God to command his people to preach the gospel to all creation. In the light of the above conundrum how to understand "God chose us before the foundation of the world?"