I just want to make sure that I understand this Catholic doctrine correctly or not. > They immolated to demons and not to God, to gods whom they did not know, who were new and recent arrivals, whom their fathers did not worship. – Deuteronomy 32:17 > But the things that the Gentiles immolate, they immolate to demons, and not to God. And I do not want you to become partakers with demons. – 1 Corinthians 10:20 > Translation: (Catholic Public Domain Version)

Scripture clearly warns believers to avoid divisions and those who cause them. For example, Paul writes: >“Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them.” — Romans 16:17 (NKJV) Yet throughout history, we see Christians forming separate factions or denominations. A notable example is the Eastern Orthodox Church, which formally split from the Roman Catholic Church in the Great Schism of 1054 over issues including papal authority, doctrinal disputes, and cultural differences. Given this, how do Christians understand the tension between the biblical call for unity and the historical reality of denominational splits? What principles should guide believers today in maintaining unity without compromising essential doctrine?

In both the **Roman Catholic** and **Eastern Orthodox** traditions, the first seven Ecumenical Councils are regarded as being guided by the Holy Spirit, and their dogmatic definitions (the Creeds) are considered infallible. The Catholic catechism states: > *The **infallibility** promised to the Church **is also present in the body of bishops when**, together with Peter's successor, **they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council.** When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed," and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith." **This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself**.* The Eastern Orthodox view is the following: > *The Church venerates the **Holy Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils** because Christ has established them as “lights upon the earth,” guiding us to the true Faith. “Adorned with the robe of truth,” the doctrine of the Fathers, based upon the preaching of the Apostles, has established one faith for the Church. The Ecumenical Councils, are the highest authority in the Church. **Such Councils**, **guided by** the grace of **the Holy Spirit**, and accepted by the Church, **are infallible**.* However, a direct comparison between the original Creed of Nicaea (325 AD) and the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (381 AD) reveals what appears to be a reversal of technical terminology.

The Anathema of "hypostasis"

The original 325 Creed concluded with a series of anathemas. The final clause states: > *"But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not'... or that the > Son of God is of a different **hypostasis** (ὑποστάσεως) or substance > (οὐσίας)... the holy catholic and apostolic church anathematizes."* In 325, ***hypostasis*** was synonymous with ***ousia*** (essence). To claim the Son was a different hypostasis than the Father was a mark of Arianism. Yet, by the Council of 381, this anathema was removed, and "Orthodoxy" began to require the confession of three hypostases (the Cappadocian formula). ---------- If these Creeds are ***infallible*** and ***Spirit-led***, how do theologians address the following: - **The Problem of Reversal:** How can a document be "infallible" if a later council must remove an anathema and adopt the very terminology (***different hypostases***) that was previously condemned? - **The Problem of Anachronism:** If the definition of hypostasis was "refined" or changed in 381, then it seems anachronistic to read these later technical distinctions back into the 325 Council, or even into the Biblical text itself. Does this imply that "Orthodoxy" is a moving target of vocabulary rather than a static "deposit of faith"? I am looking for answers that cite reputable theologians regarding how the Church maintains the "immutability" of truth while essentially "correcting" or radically expanding its infallible formulas.

According to the Wikipedia article on [Territorial spirit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_spirit) : > **Territorial spirits** are national angels, or demons, who rule over certain geographical areas in the world, a concept accepted within the Charismatic movement, Pentecostal traditions, and Kingdom Now theology. This belief has been popularized by the novel, *This Present Darkness* by Frank Peretti, as well as by the ministry of Peter Wagner. The existence of territorial spirits is viewed as significant in spiritual warfare within these Christian groups. > Peter Wagner promotes **"Strategic-Level Spiritual Warfare"** (SLSW) which involves the practice of learning the names and assignments of demonic spirits as the first step to effective spiritual warfare. Opponents of this theological construct, and associated beliefs in "spiritual warfare", point out that while the Bible may describe some form of demonic control over geography, it does not prescribe many of the behaviors and teachings that proponents advocate in response. There is no mention in either the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament of believers banding together and praying a form of "spiritual warfare" against particular territorial demons. The battles occurring in the spiritual realms (as described in Daniel 10) have no Biblically identified link to the actions and prayers of God's people in the physical world. Are the belief in "territorial spirits" and the practice of "Strategic-Level Spiritual Warfare" innovations of the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement? Did they borrow these ideas from prior sources? Can we find evidence of similar beliefs being held in other periods of church history? _____ **Note**: an interesting book that reports the alleged application of these ideas in the context of the Argentine Pentecostal Revival is [*Listen to Me, Satan!*](https://www.amazon.com/Listen-Me-Satan-Carlos-Annacondia/dp/1599792346) by Carlos Annacondia (an interview is available at [Carlos Annacondia: The evangelist at the forefront of revival](https://www.premierchristianity.com/home/carlos-annacondia-the-evangelist-at-the-forefront-of-revival/2092.article) , and a YouTube documentary called [Carlos Annacondia - "Listen to Me Satan"](https://youtu.be/gaK67UFQ6kI)) .

Do you know of any other books (besides those by John Sailhamer) that advocate for Historical Creationism?

The book of Esther is included in both the Jewish canon and Christian canons of all denominations. However, it seems to have enjoyed a questionable status for much longer than any other of the now-accepted writings. For example, it is the only Old Testament book not to be found at Qumran, it is one of the few OT books not referenced by Sirach, it is omitted from Melito of Sardis's canon, and Athanasius also expressly categorized it with the Apocrypha as useful but not canonical. Jerome, whose opinion is often cited by Protestants in discussions of the canon, counted Esther as canonical but not the deuterocanonical books (although it seems he changed his opinion on the deuterocanonical books at some point in his career). I haven't read Jerome's comments myself but, usually his reason is explained to be that the canonical books were the ones where the Hebrew manuscripts still existed while the others were only preserved in Greek (or were composed in Greek). However, Jerome seems to have known of Hebrew manuscripts of 1st Maccabees, so there must be something else going on to distinguish it from Esther. Protestants usually cite as the main criterion for OT canonicity some prophetic authority guaranteeing the divine inspiration of a book. However, Esther has no association with the prophets, unlike any other book of the Protestant OT canon. However, Esther was included in the canon by the Council of Rome (382) and by all subsequent streams of Christian thought. Why? What reasoning lead the Church to set aside the doubts specifically about the book of Esther that apparently had existed for quite a while prior? **This is a historical question.** I am not asking why it is included in the canon by Protestants or Catholics today, but rather why it was included starting in the 4th century, i.e. **why the doubt which originally surrounded the book was cleared up.**

I live in a country where the dominant religion is not Christianity and where adherents of all other religions are brutally persecuted. No one in real life knows that I believe in the Lord because I cannot tell anyone due to risk to my safety. The Bible is a dense book with a lot of chapters so even though I am an adult, the first book I read was 365 tales from the Bible written for children. It contained stories in Biblical order from both the Old and New Testaments [possibly [this one](https://archive.org/details/childrensbiblein00batc/page/4/mode/2up) , ed.]. I really liked those stories. But here I can't discuss my faith with anyone and my ethnic group is already persecuted. I have already lost many educational and employment opportunities because of it. **Can you please suggest several non-fiction books written in English / French or several authors writing about the Bible, Christianity, history of Christianity, and Testimonies by believers?** I shall be grateful.

Demographics-wise, **has the number of global Christians in communion with the Bishop of Rome** (called "Catholics" for convenience in this Q) **been always the majority in *every* generation since the church in Rome was established**, compared to the number of Christians of all ["Great Church"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Church)-compatible denominations? **Criteria for the accepted answer**: - References to scholarly estimates / reputable statistics are needed in the answer. - If the answer is no, then the statistics need to include a historic trend line with a point showing the years when the number lost majority. - If the answer is no, then please consider answering a related question of whether the "Catholic" percentage has always been greater than the percentages of other 4 major groups: Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Churches of the East + Nestorian Asian churches. ### Method of calculation and the rationale "Majority" is defined as more than 50% share of all Christians who subscribe to the key doctrines of the Great Church. The purpose for this answer is to figure out whether in light of post-Nicene schisms, **the numbers of adherents that remained in communion with Rome** from the time of the [Great Church](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Church) until today ("Great Church" understood as the mainstream that survived various pre-Nicene heresies) **can be interpreted to indicate that the Holy Spirit ***also*** assisted the ecclesial leadership of the Bishop of Rome by numerical strength**. That is why the criteria below excludes Christian movements that are outright incompatible with the key doctrines of the Great Church. This question may not be as straightforward to answer because at one point in the history of global Christianity, the Nestorian Eastern churches were very active in evangelism, widespread, numerous, and consisted of hundreds of bishoprics that mostly have perished and forgotten (except in the academia). See a fascinating 2009 book by historian Philip Jenkins [The Lost History of Christianity: The Thousand-Year Golden Age of the Church in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia--and How It Died](https://www.amazon.com/dp/0061472816) . ### Criteria for group inclusion **For the sake of identifying who **ARE** "Catholics"** (the numerator of the ratio): 1. The only criteria is **the number of Christians in full communion with the [Bishop of Rome](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope)** throughout history. In the modern period, a good starting point would be all the churches listed in the [Pontifical year book](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annuario_Pontificio) . 2. Protestant congregations who started afresh OR who broke communion with Rome (such as the [Church of England](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_England)) should *NOT* be counted. 3. Eastern Orthodox adherents are counted before the [1054 Great schism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East%E2%80%93West_Schism) , but not afterwards. 4. [Oriental orthodox churches](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriental_Orthodox_Churches) churches (such as the [Armenian Church](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Apostolic_Church)) are counted before they broke off from the Great Church. 5. [Eastern *Catholic* churches](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Catholic_Churches#List_of_Eastern_Catholic_churches) in communion with Rome (both Eastern / Oriental Orthodox) such as the [Armenian Catholic Church](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Catholic_Church) SHOULD be counted **starting at the year of their recognition by Rome**, so should ex-Protestant churches who are recognized by Rome such as parishes wishing to be part of [Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of Saint Peter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Ordinariate_of_the_Chair_of_Saint_Peter) . 6. [Church of the East](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_East) are counted, but not *after* the [Nestorian schism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestorian_schism) . 7. [Ancient churches in Asia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_Asia#Early_spread_in_Asia) (some of them Nestorian) are counted, but not after losing contact with the Great Church since after the AD 325 Nicene council. 8. Historic Arian factions (before 8th century) SHOULD be counted because (as far as I know) the centuries-long dispute was resolved without schism (see [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism#Struggles_with_orthodoxy)) . Similarly, during the 4th-5th century [Donatist controversy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donatism) Donatist dioceses should *also* be counted because (as far as I know) Rome never break communion with them (but *they* were the ones who broke from Rome because of their stricter doctrine). 9. A [rough historical schema](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Christian_denomination_tree) of the major schisms and reconciliations is shown below. **Only the solid gray and red lines are counted**, plus those not in the picture such as the Personal Ordinariate. 10. Christians who were forced to belong to a non-"Catholic" denomination or externally belong out of political / social expediency, should be counted **according to their external membership** for feasibility of demographics study, even though this makes the study imperfect. For example: - High church Anglicans or British Catholic sympathizers who chose to remain in the Church of England out of fear of political persecution between the [Act of Supremacy (1534)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Supremacy) and the creation of the [Apostolic Vicariate of England (1623)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Vicariate_of_England) should *NOT* be counted. - But Christians who chose to belong to the Vicariate after 1623, especially after the [Catholic Emancipation Act (1829)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Relief_Act_1829) , and those who moved to one of the 12 official Roman Catholic dioceses created after the [Restoration of the Catholic Hierarchy in England (1850)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universalis_Ecclesiae) SHOULD of course be counted in the numerator. **For the sake of identifying who **ARE** "Christians":** (the denominator of the ratio): 1. All of the numerator (Christians in full communion with either the Great Church or the Bishop of Rome) 2. All Nicene and Chalcedonian Protestants 3. All Eastern Orthodox churches 4. Historic [Non-Chalcedonian Christians](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Chalcedonian_Christianity) (such as [Coptics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coptic_Orthodox_Church) , [Syriac](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syriac_Christianity) , other Oriental Orthodox churches, [Nestorians](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestorianism) , etc.) who trace their roots to *before* c. AD 500 **ARE** included because: - they were *organic* schisms of the Great Church: they affirmed the common heritage except certain aspects of Christology - they never denied the divine hypostasis of Christ but disagreed only on the relation between the divine nature and the human nature of Christ (see [Christological comparison chart](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestorianism#/media/File:Christological_spectrum-o2p.svg)) - they baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit 5. Non-Nicene or non-Chalcedonian [restorationist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorationism) movements that started *after* c. AD 500 such as LDS, Jehovah's Witnesses, Unitarians, Oneness Pentecostals, are **NOT** included because unlike Protestants (who also started after AD 500), they repudiated the core beliefs of the Great Church in one or more of the following ways: - deny the orthodoxy of the Great Church by labelling it the "Great Apostasy" which they dated to happen very early (1st to early 2nd century): [LDS reason](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/the-restoration/the-great-apostasy?lang=eng) , [JW reason](https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101993005) - deny the divine hypostasis of Jesus (see the [Unitarian narrative](https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2017/08/02/once-upon-a-time-there-was-a-unitarian-god/)) - baptize [only in the name of Jesus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism_in_the_name_of_Jesus) ([Oneness Pentecostal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oneness_Pentecostalism#Baptismal_formula)) 6. Proto-Protestants such as the [Lollards](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lollardy) and the [Hussites](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussites) **ARE** included as they would have been part of the orthodoxy of the Great Church. They should *NOT* be counted in the numerator (when feasible). 7. Those who as a group were forced to convert to Christianity (thus subjectively do not identify as Christian), such as the plight of Spanish Jews between 1391 (or earlier) and 1492, (see [article here](https://www.pbs.org/wnet/exploring-hate/2022/07/26/expelled-from-spain-july-31-1492/)) are **NOT** included (when feasible), because their free will have been violated. Although I think it is safe to assume that were they to be included in either the numerator and/or the denominator, it would not change the majority ratio. ### Criteria for individual inclusion Considering [this congregation involvement statistics](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/16/church-involvement-varies-widely-among-u-s-christians/) (thanks to @OneGodTheFather for the discussion), **why are non-practicing Catholics included while the high-involvement JW/LDS members do not even count in the denominator**? This is because the purpose of this Q is to measure whether the Latin Church (later known as the Roman Catholic Church) has always been the church **which most orthodox Christians choose to teach the most "correct" doctrines** about Christianity compared to other valid descendants of the Great Church. The numbers should approximate the number of those who would answer "Yes" to this survey question: > Regardless of your level of faith in Jesus, your participation in church, the church in which you were baptized, how certain you are of the correctness of your church's doctrines, or the church you are attending (eg. if you are attending the church for family reason, not out of conviction), **which denomination would you *choose* as the one that teaches the most correct Christianity**? - Most non-practicing Catholics and C & E Catholics don't go to church more often out of laziness, backsliding, or agnosticism. They don't outright deny the authority of the Catholic church to teach the right doctrines even though they may not agree 100%. That is why they are *included* in the numerator. - Most non-practicing Christians and most of the "Nones" also don't go to church for the same reason, but when asked "which denomination would you most trust to teach the right doctrines of Christianity should you be a practicing Christian again" would STILL be able to choose one of the denomination as the one they would most likely trust over the others, even though they could be in the process mulling over whether to go to another religion. *Until they decide* to practice a non-orthodox form of Christianity (by going LDS, for example) or to practice another religion, they are still *included* in the denominator.

Are there ancient writers that mentions halos/nimbus: from 1-8 century? 1. How was the halo adopted in the church? And what is its historicity? 2. I read from some sources that in the beginning it was reserved only for the Lord but in later time it was depicted on saints. 3. Did anyone wrote anything about it? Thanks in advance. ........................................................................... **UPDATE** I found only this - > “Marcus Servius Honoratus (Servius the Grammarian), a Roman grammarian of the late 4th century, > in his commentary on Virgil's works defines the Nimbus as a "divine > cloud" ("nimbo effulgens: nube divina, est enim fulgidum lumen quo > deorum capita cinguntur. Sic etiam pingi solet" - Servianorum in > Vergilii Carmina commentariorum / Ed. E. K. Rand. Lancaster, 1946. > Vol. 2. P. 471). The Latin theologian Isidore of Seville in his > Etymologies mentioned the Nimbus as a radiance around the heads of > angels (Isid. Hisp. Etymol. XIX 32. 2).” https://www.pravenc.ru/text/2577657.html **The Etymologies of Isidore of Seville (c. 560-636 AD?):** > **The light that is depicted as being around the heads of angels is > called a nimbus,** although a nimbus is also the dense part of a cloud > (nubis). 3.Ahood (capitulum) is commonly called a capitulare. This is > also called a cappa (i.e. another word for ‘hood,’ or perhaps > ‘kerchief’), because it has two tips like the letter kappa, or because > it is an ornament for the head (caput). >**(Isid. Hisp. Etymol. XIX 32. 2)** **(Page 404 in the pdf)** https://sfponline.org/Uploads/2002/st%20isidore%20in%20english.pdf ------------------------------- Are there maybe church fathers that talk about it or other persons besides from Marcus Servius Honoratus and Isidore of Seville? Additional information about the halo. https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/112600/do-the-catholic-orthodox-believe-that-the-halo-is-apostolic-unwritten-traditio

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.

At the beginning, the apostles gave the teachings of Jesus Christ to the people, and the communities continued their lives, occasionally meeting to talk about God and / or to perform the Eucharist. And then the next historical information is that there were churches, and priests structured hierarchically with ranks like in armies and so on. So, when was the transition done from "people changing their lives according to the teachings of Jesus Christ" to full fledged religion with temples (churches) and priests? As far as I know Jesus: - came to fulfill the (existing) law, not to cancel it or its prophets (Matthew 5:17) - sent the apostles to teach - did not send anyone to administrate / organize anything (food, widows...) - did not command anyone to build any temple (church) - did never show any love towards priests and other "spiritual" leaders.

I'm hoping someone can refer me to a graphic, flowchart or even a list of when various Christian denominations formed. For example, a biggie is the Lutheran church breaking off from the Catholic church. Or the Anglican church splitting off from the Catholic one. Will appreciate any help, thank you.

How can there be so many denominations of Christianity? Christianity is solely based on the Bible, so how can multiple faiths come from it?

One feature of the [Word of Faith](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_of_Faith) movement's teaching is that you can "call things into existence" by faith, by which proponents primarily apply to health and wealth, since they say that because - we are given promise (Mark 11:22-24), - we are given a share in Jesus's divinity as children of God, - God wants to give us good things (Matt 7:11), - we inherit Abrahamic blessings if we have faith that can move mountains (Matt 17:20) we can also speak restorations into existence **just like how Jesus *as man* was given the power by God and was able to**: - declare someone to be healed in the manner of Genesis 1 (see [this interpretation of Matt 9:24](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/102587/10672)) , - command the demons to leave a possessed person (Matt 8:28-34) or - calms the storm simply by speaking (Mark 4:35-41), noting that Jesus's disciples can do "greater things" (John 14:12) BY FAITH **following the example** of post-Pentecost healers like Paul & Peter, while noting that Jesus could not work many miracles in Nazareth because of unbelief (Matt 13:58). Of course [WoF movement is *not* Biblical](https://www.gotquestions.org/Word-Faith.html) , but my question is a HISTORICAL one, **whether a similar movement has happened in the past 20 centuries**, *even if* it was not as "full featured" as the 20th century charismatic-tinged Word of Faith movement. More specifically I'm asking whether the element of **calling restorations into existence by word of faith** has ever been taught before, **especially keeping in mind that Jesus, Paul and Peter were doing that as well**. Please note that the work of restoration itself **IS** orthodox because we Christians are also called into Jesus's ministry of restoration, although understood more along the lines of restoring injustice, human dignity, and most importantly peace with God through repentance, which then flows over into the restoration in our horizontal relationships, bringing healing to humanity's many facets of brokenness. The preaching of the gospel can be seen as a means to this end. For example, orthodox Christians *can* declare "your sins have been forgiven" to a repentant person, or declare "Jesus loves you" to them (thus removing shame and bringing psychological healing), which in a sense bringing something not previously there into reality. I wonder whether there has been any group that teaches this style of explicit declaration **as a standard practice by *all* members of the group**, apart from Catholic priests declaring "I absolve you from your sins" during the Catholic [Sacrament of Penance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrament_of_Penance) .

I am reading "The History of the Church". I have thus far read a supposed letter from Christ himself written to an official, and a declaration that Christ descended into Hades following his Crucifixion (an idea which I think is accepted by some denominations, and rejected by others). Are these writings considered generally credible? I find it hard to believe that an actual letter from Christ would not be more well-known and revered, should it be accepted as legit.

I know the story that they lacked our current biological knowledge. I know the story that they still considered abortion to be a grave evil. These two excuses seem inadequate to me. Regardless, they are still quoted to this very day by pro-abortion apologists. Aquinas was even quoted by name in *Roe vs. Wade* in support of historical theological confusion about abortion.*
*cf. *The Fake and Deceptive Science Behind Roe v. Wade: Settled Law v. Settled Science* by Thomas Hilgers, W., MD . Since they were so brilliant all they had to do was look at Psalm 51:5 “in sin did my mother conceive me” which clearly proves original sin is present at conception which necessitates a spiritual soul. The answer escapes me and causes me to question if they were they really so brilliant. If they were brilliant, then why the primitive thinking on ensoulment?

I have four closely related questions on this topic (if overall this is considered too broad, I'm happy to receive advice as to which questions—if any—would be better off in a separate post): 1. What is the earliest documented use of the term "Queen of Heaven" being applied to Mary, the mother of Jesus? (cf. Wikipedia on *the Virgin Mary as Queen of Heaven* - there seems to be a contradiction between the first and second paragraphs in this section ). 2. Given that the only Biblical references to this title are regarding a false goddess being worshipped in the nation of Judah during Jeremiah's time (cf. Wikipedia's *Queen of heaven (antiquity)* ), is there evidence of any discussion or dissent (over whether such a title was in any way appropriate) in evidence in the wider church when this title was being adopted and disseminated (prior to the Reformation)? 3. Are there any arguments from Church Fathers or other historical records of why such a title would have been adopted in the first place? 4. It seems on the surface (at least to some) that this might be an example of Syncretism , but perhaps there are convincing arguments that can exclude that possibility - if so what would be the outline of such arguments? Or otherwise, what additional evidence (ie not covered in 2. or 3.) would support the idea that this *is* an example of Syncretism? **Please note**: I'm looking for answers that are supported by quotes from Church fathers and Church historians, not doctrinal expositions from denominational perspectives. I'm only looking for a very brief outline of an argument (one way or the other) to question 4 (one or two paragraphs maximum) - if there are the seeds of a worthwhile further question to be developed from such responses, I will ask a separate question to elicit a more detailed answer."

[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?

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.

Is there any historical evidence that the early church believed in the divinity of Jesus? What about the **first century**? What about the **second century** (and so on)? Was the belief in the divinity of Jesus widespread? Was it the norm or the exception? Can we find reliable answers to these questions in the historical records? Answers to this question should provide clear unambiguous evidence of post-New Testament writings which teach the divinity of Jesus.