If He was revealed, why did He wait so long to reveal Himself? Humans have been around for 100,000+ years.

In John 18:37–38, Jesus says He came into the world *“to testify to the truth,”* and Pilate responds, *“What is truth?”* In Christian theology, “truth” is often associated with God’s nature, His Word, and the person of Jesus Christ (John 14:6). Jesus also says in John 16:13 that the Holy Spirit “will guide you into all truth.” However, does this theological concept of truth also encompass factual truths about the created world (e.g., the shape of the earth, historical facts, scientific realities), or is it limited to spiritual and moral truths revealed by God? How have Christian theologians understood the scope of “truth” in Scripture?

A similar question has been asked here , but no details have been asked other than how Trinitarians interpret this verse. The top answer of the linked question talks about the Son being "eternally begotten" by the Father, and the Son *proceeding from the Father* (something I have not found in any of the Chalcedonian Creeds). My question is less about the Son's origin, but about the Father and the Son **sharing the same divine essence**. Thus, here is a more detailed question for this bible passage. Let me quote it first in its immediate context: > 24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and > believeth on him that sent me, hath **everlasting life**, and shall not > come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. > > 25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, > when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that > hear shall **live**. > > 26 *For* as **the Father hath life in himself**; so hath he ***given*** to the Son > to have life in himself; > > **John 5:24-26** (*KJV - emphasis mine*) **How is it that in light of John 5:26, the Father has "*everlasting life*" in Himself that has to be GIVEN (greek: edoken - other translations also say GRANTED) to the Son, so that the Son has that life in himself?** The type of life being talked about in John 5:26 is "everlasting life" (verse 24). So God the Father has this eternal life in Himself **inherently**, because he has no beginning and thus must have it inherently in Himself, otherwise He would not have been able to live for eternity past. Nobody gave the Father this life - he inherently has it in Himself! The Athanasian Creed says: > "The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. And > yet they are not three eternals; but **one eternal**. So likewise the > Father is Almighty; the Son Almighty; and the Holy Ghost Almighty... > The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is > of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten. The Holy > Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor > begotten; but proceeding... > And in this Trinity **none is before, or after another**; none is > greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are > **coeternal**, and **coequal**." It is hence clear that, according to the Chalcedonian Creeds, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit share the same essence of being, the same nature. In order to be an eternal living being (past, present and future), as God Almighty is, you have to have life in yourself, **always**. If you have to be GIVEN or GRANTED that life, it means you didn't have it. Life itself (being alive) is an inherent part of the nature of a living being! According to Philipp Schaff who analyzed the works of St. Augustin , John 5:26 is explained as follows in the light of the Trinity: > For it is not, as with the creature so with the Son of God before the > incarnation and before He took upon Him our flesh, the Only-begotten > by whom all things were made; that He is one thing, and has another: > but He is in such way as to be what He has. And this is said more > plainly, if any one is fit to receive it, in that place where He says: > “For as the Father hath life in Himself, so hath He given to the Son > to have life in Himself.”[John 5:26] For He did not give to Him, > already existing and not having life, that He should have life in > Himself; inasmuch as, in that He is, He is life. Therefore “He gave to > the Son to have life in Himself” means, He begat the Son to be > unchangeable life, which is life eternal" Put in simpler terms: God the Father gave the Son life in Himself, which is life eternal. It means that the Son is eternal life, because what he has been given is what he became - it has become part of his essence! God the Father is the cause and the source of life. All Christian denominations I know of, that believe in the creation by God agree to this. **How can it be maintained that Jesus shares the same divine essence with the Father, but had to be GIVEN "everlasting life" that was never given to the Father, who apparently inherently had it in Himself, whereas it had to be GRANTED/GIVEN to Jesus (the Son)?** The act of the Father having granted and/or given (greek: ἔδωκεν ) Jesus eternal life in Himself, is an act that has temporal implications - *in the 68 occurrences of this form of the verb "edoken" in the Aorist Indicative Active , which expresses the simple occurrence of an action in past time, none appear atemporal/eternal* - which means that there was a point in time where Jesus did NOT have this type of life in Himself, which would mean that he does not share exactly the same essence with God. **How do Trinitarians explain this apparent contradiction?**

St. Thomas Aquinas presents a good logical proof on how a being called god exists: He is what I assumed he said [this is in my own words]: > Everything in the universe has a cause, without a cause nothing will take place [like Newton's first law]. If we try to question the existence of anything present on the earth, the causes of the causes will lead us to the very creation of earth. Reasoning more, will lead to the formation of the universe. Now the universe, needs a cause for its production, which is, God. Now how do I prove that God is good, or God "is active," or "interferes in human activity"? With this I mean that God [son of God, who is in fact God but a different manifestation] comes onto earth, does miracles, and punishes and blesses, and tells everybody that they are subject to a future judgement. How do I prove that God is not a Deist God, which means that God is merely transcendent in relation to the universe, who doesn't interfere in its working? Some people may reason that since God is the creator, he has a fundamental power to morph things in the universe, but some may ask why. In my atheist friend's language—"Why does god check on the actions of people? why doesn't he chill?" This is all part of some kind of thought experiment to prove logically that God is as He is portrayed in the Bible. Since St. Thomas Aquinas started this "logical thinking" and was a Christian, I decided to ask it in the Christianity Stack Exchange. I myself am not a Christian, but I love studying Christianity and pondering over it.

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?

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.

Trinitarians assert that Jesus was fully God and fully human. That the two "persons" were separate and not intermixed (one could die, get hungry, feel physical pain and the other wouldn't). Which of these two was sent by "the father"? Which of these two received authority as spoken in Matthew 28:18-19?

The word/term "trinity" is never used in the Bible. However, *most* Christians believe that God exists as three persons in one God-head. This question has two parts: 1. What is the Biblical basis for the doctrine of the Trinity? 2. Are there any passages that directly show all three persons of God together - and what are they?

According to Protestantism, why did God create humanity? I have been looking around this website for some Biblical verses, etc for some clues, but couldn't find any.

How can Jehovah's Witnesses, who view the Holy Spirit as an impersonal force of God, like electricity, explain the following Bible passages that distinguish the Holy Spirit from the power of God? Bible and theology professor Wayne Grudem, in a polemic with those who hold that the Spirit is simply the power of God, notes: > If we consider the Holy Spirit simply as the power of God and not as a separate person, then many texts simply lose their meaning, since they mention both the Holy Spirit Himself and His power or the power of God. For example, Luke 4:14: “And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee” would then mean: “And Jesus returned in the power of the power of God into Galilee.” And Acts 10:38: “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power” would mean: God with the power of God and with power anointed Jesus of Nazareth.” > > — Systematic Theology: Introduction to Biblical Teaching. St. Petersburg: Mirth, 2004. P. 248).

Traditional Christianity teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons, coequal, coeternal, of the same substance, and all fully divine. The Holy Spirit is the same being referred to in the New Testament as the God's Spirit (e.g., 1 Corinthians 2:11, Ephesians 4:30) and as Christ's Spirit (e.g., Galatians 4:6, Philippians 1:19, 1 Peter 1:11), and in one place with both titles (Romans 8:9). My understanding of the Jehovah's Witnesses is that they believe God the Father to be fully divine and eternal, but Jesus Christ is his first creation, gifted with semi-divinity. What do they teach about the Holy Spirit? A good answer will address, directly or by clear implication, whether or not the Holy Spirit is: - eternal - eternally/ontologically distinct from God the Father - ontologically divine - a person - one and the same as the Spirit of Christ A good answer will address anything else that a standard JW articulation of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit would address and will use Watchtower sources.

I've come across several instances of the Trinitarian explanation that God's one nature (or essence) defines **what** God is, while the three persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—define **who** God is. For [example](https://relevantradio.com/2022/10/explaining-the-trinity-nature-and-person/) : > ... To wrap our heads around the Trinity, we have to distinguish the word “nature” from the word “person”. Our nature would be what suggests to us that there is a person, but the person is what possesses the nature. A person could not exist without his or her nature but ultimately, the person possesses their nature. > > Patrick applied this to Frank, his caller. Frank’s person tells us *who* he is. He is Frank and that is his person. Frank’s nature tells us *what* he is. He is a human being with a soul, intellect, and free will. Therefore, he has a human nature. When Jesus became incarnate, He had two natures, one human and one divine. He never ceased being God the Son. I’d like to understand more precisely how this distinction is made within Trinitarian theology. I’m particularly interested in how this is supported by both scripture and the historical teachings of the Church. For example, the **Fourth Lateran Council (1215)** declared: >"For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit: but the Godhead of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one, their glory equal, their majesty coeternal." This seems to affirm the distinction between person (who) and essence (what), but I’d like help unpacking it more fully. How do Trinitarian theologians interpret this distinction, and how does it help preserve both monotheism and the full divinity of each person? I’m looking for answers from a classical Trinitarian perspective, whether Western (Catholic/Protestant) or Eastern Orthodox, and would appreciate scriptural, conciliar, or patristic sources that explore this topic.

I'm interested in answers particularly from Evangelicals who might disagree with this idea, as well as those who agree with it. I'm especially interested in theological considerations — i.e. does this misunderstand the Trinity. Essentially the thought came to me, **if the Son is fully God, do those who have *never heard*** the Jewish name of the Messiah (Joshua, meaning the Lord saves) or the exact details of his virgin birth, death, and resurrection, **nevertheless believe in him** (for salvation) **when they trust in 'God' to forgive/save them?** This excludes those who reject Christ explicitly (ie. orthodox Islam). This would not be a universalist position, but a form of inclusivism. More like a psychological/conceptual faith in the Messiah/Christ/Savior. I'm looking for arguments for/against, as well as relevant verses/examples/doctrines. A similar question was asked here , but this gives it a trinitarian/soteriological bent. For a practical consideration, Don Richardson (*Eternity in their Hearts*) notes a number of peoples geographically and intellectually isolated from Christianity/Judaism for centuries that had an underlying monotheism, and belief that this 'creator' was going to set things right if they only waited for special messengers bringing a special 'book'. Would their 'waiting for salvation' be comparable to some in Israel during the intertestamental period, waiting for the Messiah?

One of the key points in the theology of Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772) is that the traditional understanding of the Trinity - three persons in one God - is mistaken. Instead, God is seen as having three "essential components." Lee Woofenden does a good job of explaining what this means in this article on his blog. However, there are some passages in the Bible where Jesus prays to the Father, says he has incomplete knowledge, and so on, which would seem to suggest that he is a distinct person, at least at that time. This apparent personhood, distinct from the Father, is especially poignant in a passage such as Luke 22:42: > "Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done." Here Jesus seems to have his own personality, knowledge, desires, and so on. My question is, how are these sorts of passages explained within Swedenborgian thought?

The question is: According to The Anglican Church, does God have a soul? Understandably, the answer will have to incorporate the Anglican definition of 'soul' and, if yes, whether it differs from the 'human soul'. I apologize for the phrasing of the 'title'. The original was being wrongly resisted as a duplicate by the bot. Related: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103593/47250 , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103592/47250 , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103581/47250 , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103595/47250 , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103596/47250 , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103598/47250 , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103600/47250

I will try to ask this unique question again. How can we answer here without defining simple words used to define God? **Premise** From Wikipedia: >***Ontology*** addresses questions of how entities are grouped into categories and which of these entities exist on the most fundamental level. Ontologists often try to determine what the categories or highest kinds are and how they form a system of categories that encompasses classification of all entities. **person** pûr′sən noun >An individual of specified character. The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; the self. **personhood** pûr′sən-hoo͝d″ noun >The state or condition of being a person, especially having those qualities that confer distinct individuality. Grammerly.com >A **personal pronoun** is a short word we use as a simple substitute for the proper name of a **person**. The 1 God, YHWH, uses the **singular** masculine **personal pronoun** to describe **Himself**. So do the 3 **persons** of the trinity. The 1 true God, is described as having a ***personality***. Zephaniah 3:17 >YHWH your God in your midst, **The Mighty One**, will save; He will rejoice over you with gladness, He will quiet you with His love, He will rejoice over you with singing.” Isaiah 42:8 >"I am YHWH, ***that is My name***; And My glory I will not give to another, Nor My praise to carved images." *Note here: YHWH doesn't share His unique glory. His uniquely supreme nature is only His.* John 17:3 (*Jesus speaking directly to God Almighty*) >And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the **only true God**, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. **QUESTION** -- ***According to the triune concept, there exist 3 eternal persons. How can 3 eternal persons with 3 distinct presences, be the 1 God of Israel?*** >“Hear, O Israel: YHWH our God, **YHWH is one**” (Deuteronomy 6:4). **God is one **what**? What is of one in the Trinity doctrine?** Please solve this equation: >***1person+1person+1person=1_____*** - a.) 1 person - b.) 1 being - c.) 1 essence - d.) 1 [other defined noun] Please define these words so that we can better understand. - If YHWH is **1 singular person**, how can 3 persons be 1 person and how many personalities? - If YHWH is **1 being**, how is a being different than a person? And how many personalities does this being have? - If YHWH is **1 non personified essence/nature**, please address how He addresses Himself with singular personal pronouns and His personality? __________________________________________________ Before flagging this question please read: **Stated rules for duplicates defined from this SE's META:** *"1.Having one 'perfect' form of a question that contains every possible answer to every slight variation of that question is a myth at best and actively harmful at worst.* *"2.Having dozens and dozens of variations of the same question is clearly bad.* *"3.What we want is on the order of 4 or 5 similar-but-not-quite-the-same duplicates to cover all possible search terms and common permutations of the question. It is also OK for these duplicates to have their own answers so people who find them don’t have to click yet again to get to a good answer."*

I am not so sharp on Theology, but I want to present to you something that I have been thinking about. God clearly says when something is bad and we shouldn’t do it. But God also said He hates divorce, meaning its some kind of evil, because God hates evil. Now, if God hates evil, why would He approve of doing it? Not just “allow” it in the sense that He gave us free will, because in that, it makes sense. In that point, God doesn’t allow x but because of free will, He lets it happen. But in the case of divorce or polygamy, God hated these because they are evil in His sight. The thing is, He didn’t say “its wrong and you shouldn’t do it, but since you have a free will, you can choose to or not to do it. But regardless, its still wrong” He didn't say that in polygamy or divorce. He allowed a form of it (regulated) even if He hates it and sees it as evil. So when we do it, its like “it's okay, as long as you are following the regulations”. So that goes against Him that He can’t view evil, yet He allows it (meaning He doesn’t count it as a sin). However, I’ve seen some answers like: “God doesn’t approve of divorce nor of polygamy, but because it still persists, its better to regulate it to minimize harm” By that logic, why can’t we just allow sins altogether because we continually sin, yet God bans it outright? And if God doesn’t approve of it morally, yet continues to do it anyway (by actually stating that we can do it and there is no sin in us if we do), then is He immoral because He goes against what He deems evil?

In [*Evangelii Nuntiandi*](https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_p-vi_exh_19751208_evangelii-nuntiandi.html) we read: >31. Between evangelization and human advancement- development and liberation- there are in fact profound links. These include links of an anthropological order, because the man who is to be evangelized is not an abstract being but is subject to social and economic questions. They also include links in the theological order, since one cannot dissociate the plan of creation from the plan of Redemption. The latter plan touches the very concrete situations of injustice to be combated and of justice to be restored. They include links of the eminently evangelical order, which is that of charity: how in fact can one proclaim the new commandment without promoting in justice and in peace the true, authentic advancement of man? We ourself have taken care to point this out, by recalling that it is impossible to accept "that in evangelization one could or should ignore the importance of the problems so much discussed today, concerning justice, liberation, development and peace in the world. This would be to forget the lesson which comes to us from the Gospel concerning love of our neighbor who is suffering and in need." It uses very tricky and difficult terminology. This is a document for people who have studied lots of philosophy, it seems. What did the pope mean when he used the terms anthropological order and theological order?

Some rabbinic texts make the rather blasphemous (and bizarre) claim that God lied to Abraham in Gn. 18:13/4. >"In one case we even find **God twisting the truth** in order to preserve amicable relations between Abraham and Sarah and to prevent Abraham’s feelings from being hurt. Upon overhearing the prediction that she was about to become pregnant, Sarah laughs, “Now that I am withered, am I to have enjoyment—with my husband so old?” (Gen. 18:12); God, however, quotes her in Abraham’s hearing as having said, “Shall I in truth bear a child, old as I am?” (Gen. 18:13), making no reference to Abraham’s inadequacy. This episode was used by the Sages of the Talmud as a proof-text showing that it is permitted to deviate from the strict line of truth in order to establish peace (BT Yeb. 65b; BT B.M. 87a)." - **Yael Shemesh**, Lies by Prophets and Other Lies in the Hebrew Bible, 2. Lies in the Bible (paper|Bar-Ilan University), p. 4. >"I BEING OLD — Scripture [euphemism for God] in relating her words to her husband alters them for the sake of peace, for she had said (v. 12) 'my lord is old'" (Rashi on Gn. 18:13). >"Bar Kappara said: Peace [between spouses] is a great thing, as even Scripture [euphemism for God] spoke untruths [baddāʾîṯ] in order to establish peace between Abraham and Sarah" (Bereshit Rabbah 48:18). The Bible doesn't seem to say God can't lie in a way that is completely immune to textual abuse. So, my question is, can it be proven through unaided reason (that is, natural theology) that God can't lie? I would like a detailed explanation that goes beyond "God is truth."

Is the Scotistic conception of the divine infinity compatible with the Thomistic conception of the divine esse (existence)? I ask because Dom Garrigou Lagrange says the following: >According to Scotus, the divine essence is formally constituted by radical infinity, and he considers that this means the exigency of all possible perfections… > >The Thomists reject this opinion, because radical infinity or the exigency of all perfections cannot be thought of, so they say, except in a subject whose essence includes precisely this idea of exigency. This latter does not constitute the divine essence, but presupposes it and is founded upon it. In fact, we shall see that infinity is deduced from the fact that God is the self-subsisting Being (Ia, q. 7, a. 1). Besides, infinity is a mode of each of the divine attributes and not the principle from which they are derived… > >Most theologians consider self-subsisting Being (aseity, ens a se) as formally constituting the divine nature, that is, ultimately distinguishing it from everything created, and as the principle from which are deduced all the divine perfections, intellection included. First of all, according to this view, God is “He who is,” as revealed to Moses (Exod., ch. iii). This is what Aristotle means when he says that God is Actus purus. Among the Thomists holding this opinion, we have Capreolus, Bannez, Gotti, Contenson, Ledesma, Del Prado, and others. Molina, Vasquez, Torres, and others not of the school of St. Thomas side with these Thomists… Yet I don’t think Lagrange was being charitable to Scotus. For if we held Scotus’s view that insofar as being is a logical concept, it can be predicated univocally of God and of creatures, then what distinguishes the Divine Nature from other beings in the logical sense would be the divine infinity.