I fell down a rabbit hole regarding Origen, and Wikipedia notes this interesting event that caught my eye: > In 399, the Origenist crisis reached Egypt.[1] Theophilus of > Alexandria was sympathetic to the supporters of Origen[1] and the > church historian, Sozomen, records that he had openly preached the > Origenist teaching that God was incorporeal. In his Festal Letter > of 399, he denounced those who believed that God had a literal, > human-like body, calling them illiterate "simple ones". A > large mob of Alexandrian monks who regarded God as anthropomorphic > rioted in the streets. According to the church historian Socrates > Scholasticus, in order to prevent a riot, Theophilus made a sudden > about-face and began denouncing Origen. In the year 400, > Theophilus summoned a council in Alexandria, which condemned Origen > and all his followers as heretics for having taught that God was > incorporeal, **which they decreed contradicted the only true and > orthodox position, which was that God had a literal, physical body > resembling that of a human**.[a] Was "God is corporeal" the orthodox position in the early church, and if yes, how long? As far as I understand, modern day christians for the most part regard God as incorporeal, right?

Jesus' most important commandment is the following: >Jesus answered him, *“The first of all the commandments is: ‘Hear, O Israel, YHWH our Elohim, YHWH is 1. And you shall love YHWH your Elohim with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ This is the first commandment."* Those who reject the triune theory do so because we interpret the scriptures to show a clear distinction between the person of YHWH (the 1 God), and His only begotten, the Son of God. The most well known words of Jesus are recorded in John 3:16. This is only 1 simple example of Jesus making a distinction between himself and God. John 3:16 >For **God** so loved the world that **He** gave ***His** only begotten Son*, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life. Throughout scripture this theme holds very consistent and can be shown with countless verses. There are too many to list them all. ***What are the BEST scriptures to support the interpretation that Jesus is not the same person as God (YHWH), but rather the Son of God and a completely separate person?*** -- Note: In the context of this question, verses that make a distinction between YHWH and Jesus would be greater support than verses that make a distinction between the Father and Jesus (even though we know the Father is YHWH according to this perspective).

When you read Numbers 25 and then view the middle east through that lens….. the actions of the middle east don’t feel as extreme. I definitely do not agree with the extremes of the middle east culture, but I am also shocked and dismayed at the extremes of what are written in Numbers 25. Yet God said…. > 4 ……. “Take all the leaders of the people and execute[b] them in broad daylight before the LORD so that his burning anger may turn away > from Israel.” > > 7 …….Aaron the priest, saw this, he got up from the assembly, took a > spear in his hand, 8 followed the Israelite man into the tent,[c] and > drove it through both the Israelite man and the woman—through her > belly. > > 11 …….Aaron the priest, has turned back my wrath from the Israelites > because he was zealous among them with my zeal,[d] so that I did not > destroy the Israelites in my zeal.* > > 17 “Attack the Midianites and strike them dead. 18 For they attacked > you with the treachery that they used against you in the Peor > incident. How do I as a Christian, defend this to a nonbeliever (or someone who questions Christianity). “This” being the fact that the God I serve, directed this….condoned this….. and rewarded this.

I was reading *What is the Trinity* by R.C. Sproul, where he writes on page 18: > One of the most striking things that I encountered during my graduate work in the 1960s was the evidence that was emerging from the work of theological anthropologists and sociologists who were examining the religious views of various primitive tribes in the world. They were finding that while animism was outwardly prevalent in those cultures, the people frequently spoke about a god on the other side of the mountain or a god who was distantly removed from them. In other words, they had a concept of a high god who was not at the center of their daily religious practices. This god was like the unknown god of the Greeks, a god with whom they were not in contact but who nevertheless was there. This is extremely interesting. I am not very familiar with the study of anthropology. What examples of this are there around the world?

I came across a blog post by a platonist in which he critiqued the traditional Christian understanding of God and evil given God's omnibenevolence and omniscience, saying: > Augustine's claim that evil is not a substance but a privation of good > was designed to absolve God of direct responsibility for evil's > existence. However, this position does not escape the more profound > paradox that God created beings who could lapse into privation and did > so with full foreknowledge of the consequences. The free will defense > only complicates the issue: if God grants free will knowing it will be > misused, the divine act of creation becomes entangled with the > emergence of moral evil. Moreover, if the will can remain oriented > toward the good only through divine grace, then free will itself seems > limited or dependent in a way that undermines its explanatory value. > The paradox intensifies when considering the role of Satan, whose > rebellious agency destabilizes the coherence of monotheistic > sovereignty. If Satan undermines God's purposes, divine omnipotence is > weakened; if Satan acts only with God's permission, then divine > benevolence is compromised. Either interpretation raises problems that > the privation theory cannot reconcile. These tensions reveal a more > profound structural paradox at the heart of Christian theodicy. In a > cosmos created ex nihilo by an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God, > nothing can exist independently of divine will or permission. > Consequently, all conditions that make evil possible, creaturely > freedom, vulnerability, corruptibility, and the existence of tempters > are ultimately grounded in God's creative act. Christian theodicy thus > attempts to balance divine goodness with divine sovereignty, but the > metaphysical architecture of monotheism forces a contradiction: either > God is powerful enough to prevent evil but chooses not to, or God > wills a world in which evil inevitably emerges, making evil indirectly > a by-product of divine creative intention. Augustine's partial > incorporation of Neoplatonic ideas helps articulate evil as a > metaphysical deficiency. Yet, even this philosophical refinement > cannot compensate for a more fundamental issue: Christian theology's > consolidation of causality in a single omnipotent agent ensures that > God remains tied to every aspect of cosmic order and disorder alike. > The result is a system in which the existence of evil perpetually > threatens either the goodness or the sovereignty of the creator, and > the tradition's attempts to resolve this tension never entirely > eliminate its underlying contradictions. > > (Flavius Julianus Mithridaticus, *Evil as Shadow, Heroism as Form: An > Indo-European View of Theodicy*, The New Platonic Academy) To restate his critiques: - God created people with the ability to be evil and knew of the consequences because of his foreknowledge. He created people knowing they would use their free will for evil which makes evil a by-product of his creation. This seems to bring his omnibenevolence into question. If I created a simulation with the parameters allowing for characters in it to be evil then I'm responsible, at least partly, for evil existing in my simulation. - If Satan can thwart God's purposes [such as his desire for everyone to have faith in Him and live according to His moral law (my comment)], then it calls his omnipotence into question. And if Satan only acts with God's permission, then God's benevolence is compromised. If someone is stealing something or hurting someone and I allow it to happen when I have the ability to stop it, then I'm being evil. In Catholicism, being able to prevent or stop something evil and not doing it is the sin of omission. A more accurate allegory with regards to Satan's acts that are permitted by God: I'm standing in the way of an assailant and their victim and when the assailant asks if they can attack their victim, I nod and step aside, allowing the evil to take place. Maybe my allegory is off, but I'm having difficulty seeing his omnibenevolence given this. My allegory somewhat reminded me of the book of Job where Job, who is a holy man has his life and loved ones destroyed after God gives Satan permission and if I'm remembering correctly, God didn't give Job an explanation and instead told him about the world He created. - In a world created by God as understood by Christians, nothing exists apart from God's will or permission. Either God is powerful enough to prevent evil, but chooses not to or God willed a world where evil would inevitably exist, making evil a by-product of his creation. He presents a sound critique of the traditional Christian understanding of God and evil and it completely stumped me so if you have any thoughts, please share them because I don't know how to rebut him. Thank you in advance to anyone who tries to tackle this.

If we define perfection as ["complete beyond practical or theoretical improvement"](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/perfect) then the answer may that God is not yet perfect because humans have not always responded as God intended. There seems to be some scriptural basis for this. For example, 2 Peter 3:9 says: > The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is > patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come > to repentance. Logically, if God wishes all to come to repentance but all do not respond, then God's wish is unfulfilled. Proverbs 13:12 says "Hope deferred makes the heart sick, But desire fulfilled is a tree of life." If we apply this to the situation described in 2 Peter, then God's heart is sick, because His desire has not been fulfilled (that all come to repentance). We also get a sense of God's heart being broken elsewhere in scripture, as the prophets speak of Him as feeling like a husband whose wife has betrayed him, or as a father whose children have gone astray. The argument for God not being perfect boils down the idea that God desires a relationship with His children and that He suffers when we do not respond to His love. Is this idea heretical, or may Christians accept it without falling into serious error? (Note: the question does not seek arguments in favor of God's perfection/completeness, but is concerned primarily with the issue of whether or not belief in God's perfection is necessary to Christian faith.) ---------- Addendum: I hope readers will understand the question as I have defined it (the issue of God's "completeness" as opposed to the issue of His moral perfection). I've edited the title accordingly.

What does it mean to a Christian that Christ is the son of God? On the one hand, obviously, the normal biological meaning of _son_ does not apply. On the other hand, "we are all children of God", but Jesus seems to be more so . That God offered up His only son as a sacrifice for humanity's sins is often used as an argument to demonstrate God's love for humanity. This would imply that God loves Jesus more than His other children, that this sacrifice was particularly hard, indicating that Jesus has a filial relationship with God in a sense that we would understand. It implies that sending His son to his death was extremely painful to Him, more so than the deaths of His other children. Now, these arguments seem to me to be a clear anthropomorphisation of God, Christians seem to be attributing human characteristics such as the love of a father --not metaphorically as when referring to humanity as God's children, but in a very literal way-- to God. This seems to clash with another central tenet of Christianity which states that God is beyond our understanding, that we cannot fathom His plan. If so, then any attribution of human emotion to Him would be wrong. So, my question is how do Christians interpret Christ being the "Son of God"? What exactly does that mean? I realize the answer will depend on the particular denomination of Christianity whose views are being expressed. I am particularly interested in *an overview* of the more popular churches such as the Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox but welcome answers explaining the views of any group as long as the group in question is clearly stated. --- NOTES I have read the posts below, but though related, none of them addresses the same question: - If Christ is considered the 'Son of God' then how is He a part of a Trinity? - Does the Bible have any proof that Jesus Christ is the Only-begotten Son of God? This one was quite interesting, and the accepted answer states that <code class="inline-code ">His &quot;sonship&quot; is unique, one-of-a-kind, and distinct from all others</code>, which brings us straight back to my question, how is it distinct? - "Jesus Christ God's Only Son Our Lord" Again, very interesting, but it while it explains the contradiction inherent in Christ being the _only_ Son of God while we are all His children, it does not explain in what sense Christ is a son of God.

There is no doubt that angels (both the Holy and the Fallen) had a strong influence in the antediluvian world. Satan was the serpent of Eden. But, during Noah's Flood, where was he, what was he and his angels doing. Are the apostate angels trapped in Hell of 2 Peter 2:4-5 and Jude 1:6 the parents of the Nephilim of Genesis 6:1-4?

If Jesus was merely a man, then God would seem unjust for punishing the innocent Jesus in place of the guilty due to violating the following: 1. Man is to be put to death for his own sin and not for the sin of another (Ez 18:20; Dt 24:16) 2. No man can ransom another or give to God the price of his life (Ps 49:7-9) Moreover, God seems unjust for WANTING to crush the innocent man that is Jesus (Is 53:10; Lk 22:42), regardless of Jesus' willingness to follow the Father's will and lay His life down as a sacrifice. That God could desire and plan to punish/sacrifice an innocent man, His Son no less, for the sins of others would go against His character. The only way I see God being just would be that Jesus is God. Thus, God's plan would not be the unjust sacrifice of an innocent third party but rather the just, noble sacrifice of the self. But if you can show that God is just in sacrificing Jesus even if Jesus isn't God, then please leave an answer down below.

What are the Biblical arguments used by those who teach that God does not know every detail of the future? A complete justification for a contested statement includes not only support for one's point of view but also the arguments for other points of view, explaining away those arguments, arguments against your support and explaining away those arguments. I've seen three answers as to whether God knows every detail of the future. Therefore I have provided three answers to the original question - 1. "God knows every detail of the future that He wants to know, including things that He hasn't planned". Answer 1 provides the Bible passages used to support this position. It also explains why this position is unlikely to be correct. 2. "God knows every detail of the future because He plans every detail of the future". Answer 2 provides the Bible passages used to support this position. It also explains why this position is unlikely to be correct. 3. "While God could control every detail of the future, He does not, and sometimes things happen that He does not expect to happen". Answer 3 provides the Bible passages used to support this position. It also provides counterarguments to this position and shortcomings of those counterarguments. Answer 3 also contains an index of Bible passages referenced in any of the three answers. >Stack Exchange has always explicitly encouraged users to answer their own questions. If you have a question that you already know the answer to, and you would like to document that knowledge in public so that others (including yourself) can find it later, it's perfectly okay to ask and answer your own question on a Stack Exchange site. - The Christianity.SE Help Center.

One aspect of Christian theology that has long puzzled me concerns the internal logic of those sects and denominations – Catholic, Protestant and Eastern Orthodox alike – that affirm belief in a literal Lucifer. In discussions with adherents from various denominations, I have encountered a range of explanations for Satan’s motivations. However, these explanations tend to converge on a common theme: that Satan, consumed by envy and hatred toward both God and humanity, seeks to inflict as much destruction and suffering as possible. Yet this account raises certain difficulties. The portrayal of Satan as an embodiment of unrestrained malice seems to mirror the archetypal villains of literature and popular culture. Figures whose motivations are often exaggerated or simplistic, such as the spiteful fairy or the vengeful antagonist whose actions are driven by little more than resentment or jealousy. The evil, but just misunderstood and socially outcast, witch. The evil antihero in Pocahontas that just wants to annihilate the native tribe for no good reason, only based on incredibly superficial, shallow and hateful grounds. To me, it appears somewhat incongruous that a being described as possessing superhuman intelligence and insight would act with such emotional impulsivity and self-destructiveness. From a logical standpoint one might expect such a being to recognize the futility of opposing an omnipotent deity and to comprehend that rebellion against ultimate goodness is contrary to its own self-interest. The paradox, then, lies in the idea that Satan, though vastly more intelligent than any human being, acts with less rational foresight than the average person. If Satan is fully aware that his defiance will culminate in his own ruin, his continued opposition to God appears irrational, even absurd. Is Satan like those cartoon characters? Maybe *that is* the answer. Maybe Satan is just so blinded with hatred, for no apparent good reason, that he just cannot stop hating human beings and God’s creation. Maybe Satan is like one of those evil caricature in children’s movies, that just wants to destroy everything no matter the cost. Maybe he just cannot reason about his own self-interests. Maybe Satan is a *theological* caricature, a personification of evil in its most absolute and irrational form. Maybe Satan is a caricature of those characters. Or maybe both are a caricature of what we humans identify as the corrupt, destructive, hateful, malevolent and vicious forces of the world – they both take the evils to their respective extremes. To provide some personal context, I approach this question as an atheist and former believer. I lost my faith at the age of sixteen, and since then I have sought to understand Christianity as an intellectual and cultural system rather than as a lived faith. One aspect I found particularly burdensome within my former belief was the tendency of some Christians to use an interpretive framework that cast all events and moral choices as elements within a vast cosmic, constantly raging, struggle between good and evil. While this worldview can offer moral clarity and a sense of taking moral stances, seeing oneself as a “soldier of God” in a colossal war, it can also be profoundly exhausting. It is a mode of understanding existence that definitively do not miss.

What is the Biblical justification that God controls every detail of the future (as accepted by Reformed Theology)? I'm sure that this has been asked, but I can't find it. Tim Keller cites two verses from Proverbs 16. >The plans of the heart belong to man, but the answer of the tongue is from the Lord. - Proverbs 16:1 >The heart of man plans his way, but the Lord establishes his steps. - Proverbs 16:9. I think I have found both a better exposition of my question and the answer here - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/4098/102058 My thanks to Mike Borden for giving me the word, "sovereignty", which led me to this question and answers.

There is a song I like from a source that I trust, called ‘God of Wow ’ that has as its very first line ‘You have no birthday’ and that stops me from sharing or using it. My objection is that although it is true that God is eternal and birthday-less, but it seems to me that the external God did take on having a birthday because of the incarnation where Jesus was conceived and birthed. I understand what the song means, but is this a legitimate phrase? I am asking from a Nicene-Christian perspective.

In passages like John 14–16 and the baptism of Jesus, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit appear to act in distinct ways, - The Son is baptized - The Spirit descends “like a dove” - The Father speaks from heaven yet Trinitarian theology teaches that God is one in essence. How do theologians explain the distinction of actions and roles among the Trinity while maintaining perfect unity of will? Are there differences in interpretation between major Trinitarian traditions (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant)?

It appears from this question and answer that the Jehovah's Witnesses hold a slightly different understanding of God's omniscience than the typical Orthodox view wherein God always and at all times knows absolutely everything past, present, and future. From what I understand, the JW position is that God **can** know anything He wishes to know but, when it comes to foreknowledge, He does not choose to exercise the ability universally. In other words, God chooses what things He will and, by extension, will not foreknow. Various branches of Open Theism attempt to describe how the future can be epistemically open to God and the two main branches hold the future to be either alethically settled or open. This related question outlines the 4 main branches of Open Theism and, of the four, I believe JW thought lines up most closely with Voluntary Nescience (although I am not sure if JW believe that the future is alethically settled): > Voluntary Nescience: The future is alethically settled but nevertheless epistemically open for God because he has voluntarily chosen not to know truths about future contingents ... Even if Vulontary Nescience is not an accurate summation of JW belief regarding God's omniscience, still they do assert that God chooses what He will and will not foreknow. Searching through the Scriptures it seems that there are a great many things which it was critical for God to have foreknown and which, indeed, He did foreknow. Most notably, all prophesy spoken by or through God consists of foreknown future events. I say foreknown because God is not guessing: He is telling beforehand what **will** come to pass. Some of those are things that He brings to pass and one might say that He foreknows what He Himself will do. Others are things that hinge upon human decisions (often a multiplicity). My question is, according to Jehovah's Witnesses, How does God foreknow which things He must foreknow and which things He can safely leave unforeseen without resorting to the equivalent of guessing? Another way of phrasing this is, If God chooses to foreknow certain things from the set of all of the possible things that there are to foreknow how can He identify the critical items and choose to foreknow them without knowing what all of the non-critical items actually are?

Every time I revisit questions about God's nature on Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange I can't help but come out with more doubts than convictions. For example, take a look at the following questions: - [Is Paul suggesting in Eph. 4:6 that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not God?](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/70188/38524) - [Is 2 Corinthians 13:11-14 an assertion that God is three equal Persons?](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/55344/38524) - [“Very truly, I tell you, before Abraham was, I am.” - why did the Jews want to throw stones at Jesus for saying this?](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/55803/38524) - [What does it mean to be "equal with God" in John 5:18?](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/60302/38524) - [What does "equality with God" mean, and how can it be "exploited"? Philippians 2:6](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/55612/38524) - [What can we learn about the relationship between "God" and "the Spirit of God" ontologically from 1 Corinthians 2:6-16?](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/55640/38524) - [Is the Son second in authority under God the Father? 1 Corinthians 15:24-28](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/55872/38524) When questions about Christology, Pneumatology and the nature of God in general can cause so much debate and doctrinal division among Christians, with arguments both for and against each conceivable position, it is very hard for me to accept the idea that one has to embrace a particular doctrinal position about God's nature **as an essential condition for salvation**, as opposed to simply withholding judgement. Personally, I see no other way to hold a strong conviction about the nature of God than God Himself revealing these details about Himself in a crystal clear manner to the individual, through a special revelation. **Question**: Are there any Christian groups or denominations that do not see having a definite doctrinal position on God's nature as essential for salvation, even if they, personally, have one? Or in more colloquial terms, are there any Christian groups or denominations that either lack a definite doctrinal position on God's nature OR believe in one but say *"we believe that God's nature is best described by X, but if you are not sure or have doubts about X, that's okay, you can still be saved"* ? ___ Related: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/86199/50422

What is a good analogy for God being outside of time but not completely controlling it? We have heard the analogy of God being on the bank of the river of time. Revelation Lad wrote about God looking down on the solar system and seeing us experience day and night without His experiencing them (https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/111175/102058) . I have a different analogy. I read that if one wants comments on a write-up, they should post it as the answer to a question, making up an appropriate question, if necessary. When I ask a question, the system says, "Answer your own question – share your knowledge, Q&A-style". So, please comment on my answer. **Conclusion** Rather than my analogy, I prefer Mimi's analogy that God can travel back and forth through time. Thus God can - 1. Know the future without controlling it. 2. Change the future in response to our prayers. 3. Change the past (although I am not aware of His having done this). **Comments** 1. This does not represent my personal beliefs, only a simple way of understanding one set of beliefs. 2. This does not appear to be a salvation issue. Those of us with a proper relationship with Jesus should end up in the New Jerusalem, regardless of whether we believe that a. God doesn't completely know the future, b. God completely knows the future but doesn't completely control it, or c. God completely knows the future because He completely controls it. 3. Googling a definition of absolute sovereignty got me the following: >absolutism political system Also known as: absolute monarchy, autocracy Written and fact-checked by The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica Last Updated: Oct. 11, 2025 •Article History Britannica AI Icon Britannica AI Ask Anything >absolutism, the political doctrine and practice of unlimited centralized authority and **absolute sovereignty**, as vested especially in a monarch or dictator. The essence of an absolutist system is that the ruling power is not subject to regularized challenge or check by any other agency, be it judicial, legislative, religious, economic, or electoral. King Louis XIV (1643–1715) of France furnished the most familiar assertion of absolutism when he said, “L’état, c’est moi” (“I am the state”). Absolutism has existed in various forms in all parts of the world, including in Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler and in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin. Please notice that the definition requires only that the rule be unchecked. It says nothing about how much control the ruler chooses to apply. Each of the three groups listed in comment 2 tends to agree that God has absolute sovereignty, that He can do and have done whatever He chooses, and no one can interfere. Using "absolute sovereignty" such that it applies to only one of the three groups in comment 2 is unfair and misleading.

I asked, "What is the Boethian solution?" One answer was - >The Boethian solution refers to a philosophical argument, most famously detailed in Boethius's *The Consolation of Philosophy*, that resolves the problem of divine foreknowledge and human free will. Boethius argues that God is eternal, existing outside of time, and thus perceives all of time—past, present, and future—at once, much like a person outside of a train can see the entire track at once. For God, there is no "fore"-knowledge but an "eternal present" where all events are simply "present" to Him, not predetermined by His knowledge. Therefore, an event happening does not occur because God foresaw it, but rather God simply sees it happening in His eternal present, a fact that does not remove human freedom. The answer added - >This theory contradicts the scriptural concepts which Paul expresses, namely ; foreknowledge, predestination and election. How does God's being outside of time contradict foreknowledge, predestination and election?

In John 1:18, it seems no one has seen God's face: >No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known. And in Exodus 33:20, it is also mentioned that you cannot see God's face as you will die if you see his face. > "But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live." Now we know that it is impossible to see God's face as you won't live after it, but somehow Moses saw his face and lived. Exodus 33:11: >The Lord would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend. Then Moses would return to the camp, but his young aide Joshua son of Nun did not leave the tent. So did Aaron, Nadab, Abihu and the seventy elders of Israel. Exodus 24:9-11: >Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went up 10 and saw the God of Israel. Under his feet was something like a pavement made of lapis lazuli, as bright blue as the sky. 11 But God did not raise his hand against these leaders of the Israelites; they saw God, and they ate and drank. Oh, and Abram too. Genesis 12:7: >Then the Lord appeared to Abram and said, “To your descendants I will give this land.” And there he built an altar to the Lord, who had appeared to him. According to the Catholic Church, how did these people see God's face and live even though he clearly says no one can see his face and live?

What is "Boethius's solution"? I saw it referenced in a comment, but when I tried to Google it, I didn't get a good answer. It has to do with the relationship between God's omniscience and man's free will.