Here, I would like to conjure an excercise, as I am well schooled in history and theology of Judeo-Christianity as a side-kick to my Graeco-Roman theological studies and other comparative systems of thought, religion, and philosophy. How would you convince a Heathen to your religion, if: His faith is completely reasonable, not faith-based, namely: claiming hypothesis, building arguments upon arguments of pillar-like soundness that are rock-solid as Parthenon, that reach a conclusion that Polytheism is a natural outcome of the intelligent, and the Monadic "One" is an abstract formula of Pythagorean progressions and theology of arithmetic and geometry. It is therefore a reason-based theology that moves Gods closer, and the remote "En To Pan" is unreachable by the human intellect, reason, anyone claiming to impersonate "objective truth" is a charlatan-guru and realizations of Divinities are approached by establishing ratio and intervals of understanding that correspond with Plotinian "notions" of the metaphysical worlds. Moreover, the aformentioned claims that all religions are man-made, but that does not refute the existence of spiritual worlds, they may be approximated in the eye of the beholder - to a limited extent; there was no reveleation as such, the Gods may or may not reveal themselves, metaphysics and the transcendent realms can do without human belief-systems, a mortal is merely "measuring Heavens and metaphysical realities" with himself, herself, but "heavens and stars are not brought for the sake of a mortal animal" (Iamblichus of Chalcis). His theology relies solely on antique studies, vast literature that is oft ignored by Christians, apart from living experience bestowed by the Providential Gods, starting from Parmenidian doxology, throughout careful understanding of Egypto-Hellenic theologies, into multiple mystery and initiatory cults, psychopompic, psychagogic and otherwise transformative both aretorolically, up to Plotinian Enneads and into Mithraism. He may and understand the cults and their purpose well, which was an effective deification, heroization and epitomization of the soul. Moreover, he is a practicioner of the methods and schools and receives "Theion Ergon", or work of the Divinities upon him, subverting any form of reliance on the Essene Gnostic Jesus and his ecclesiastikoi (the Church). His angelology and bestiaries of spirits are related strictly to Republican and Imperial cults of the Graeco-Romans, avoiding the ideas contained in Dionysos Aeropagite of later "hierarchizations" that was strictly Judeo-Christian. His aretology is based on twenty private and public virtues of Rome and paideic standards of the Hellenes. He doesn't believe in sin or baptism, as an "inventio" of Judaism in face of the dream to be liberated from the Romans, therefore his hamartiology is based not on a "fatal flaw" of birth into nature, but gigantomachia, the battle and overcoming of nature and responsible life, the only transgression is that not to take sculpting in the nature, ethos as a rewarding, heroic enterprise that results in deification posthumously. On top of that, he may be a blatant, openly effective Heathen theurgist and practicing necromancer, an excorcist etc. avoiding all the Judeo-Christian methods of act, belief, and submission. He believes morality is relative, humaneness is difficult to define, and it is by the virtue of his daimon that he becomes noble, bearing, strong and righteous, moreover that human nature - following Plato - is neither good nor evil - every beastiality and idyll may be found amongst nature and the problem of "evil" is that of conflicting natures, war of the elements and inclinations, to be solved first and foremost within by a noble, strong conduct, overcoming suffering not being conquered by it. Is there any argument to convert such a person, or merely "believe because so" is the answer provided to a reasoned, educated Heathen that does not accept the Abrahamic god, nor an Essene gnostic "Jesus" as a figure of any relevance, apart from the creed that professes suhc a belief?

Eastern Orthodoxy teaches [the essence–energies distinction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essence%E2%80%93energies_distinction) of God. Wikipedia quotes catholic-church.org's explanation: > The Ultimate Reality and Meaning of the Palamite theology consists of the distinction between God’s Essence and Energy. This is a way of expressing the idea that the transcendent God remains eternally hidden in His Essence, but at the same time that God also seeks to communicate and The Distinction between God’s Essence and Energy unite Himself with us personally through His Energy. This sounds very similar to how theologians since Athanasius have spoken of the difference between the ontological (or immanent) and the economic views of the Trinity. [R. C. Sproul explains](https://www.ligonier.org/blog/whats-difference-between-ontological-and-economic-trinity/) : > Ontology is the study of being. When we talk about the ontological Trinity, or as some theologians term it, the “immanent Trinity,” we are referring to the Trinity in itself, without regard to God’s works of creation and redemption. In the Trinity, there are three persons —the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—who together are one being. The ontological structure of the Trinity is a unity (Deut. 6:4). When we speak of the economic Trinity, on the other hand, we are dealing with the activity of God and the roles of the three persons with regard to creation and redemption. But while Catholics and Protestants generally accept the ontological/economic views of God, they regard the essence–energies distinction as problematic or even heretical. So what is the difference between these views, and why would many Western theologians consider the essence–energies distinction to be heresy?

It's said that most influential medieval work on angelic order was written by Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite. How much authority do his works still hold and what's the metaphysical foundation and necessity for the existence of Angels?

In Western Christian worship, there is a part where the faithful say "One is Holy, One is Lord, Jesus Christ, (together) with the Holy Spirit, to the glory of God the Father. Amen." In Eastern Christianity they say "One is Holy, One is Lord, Jesus Christ, to the glory of God the Father. Amen." Since the quote is partly scriptural (Phillipians 2:11), I can see where the Eastern version comes from (though this may not be the rigorous explanation of how it came to be in the Liturgy), but I have not yet been able to track down where/when/how/why the phrase 'with the Holy Spirit' was inserted in the Western rite. Some thoughts/possibilities: - It was inserted to make the prayer 'more' Trinitarian. (Counterpoint: Why then would the Eastern Orthodox not include it?) - It was inserted as a consequence of the Filioque clause in the Latin creed. I.e. if the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son as well as from the Father, one might want to make mention of that in a sentence extolling Christ. (Counterpoint: Why would the Eastern Orthodox not include it? Well--they reject the filioque clause. In that case, what is the reason for Paul or the early Church Fathers to omit the Holy Ghost in such a sentiment, either in Scripture or in the Liturgy?) Overall, I must ask: Is the addition of 'with the Holy Spirit' (in the above prayer) primarily of theological or cultural/traditional origin? A more advanced answer would lay out the history of such an insertion. But I'm also happy with references I can read on my own. Thank you.

At Exodus 3:2-5 (NRSVCE) we read: > There the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire out of a bush; he looked, and the bush was blazing, yet it was not consumed. Then Moses said, “I must turn aside and look at this great sight, and see why the bush is not burned up.” When the Lord saw that he had turned aside to see, God called to him out of the bush, “Moses, Moses!” And he said, “Here I am.” Then he said, “Come no closer! Remove the sandals from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground. I have seen many churches in India in which the faithful are not allowed to wear sandals while they attend service. I wish to know if such a tradition exists in churches of any denomination in the West.

Since the Gospels, Paul's epistles, and the other books of the New Testament were written mostly in Greek, as well as much writing of early Church fathers, it stands to reason that much – if not most – of the early Christian scholarly writings were in the Greek language. In addition, the languages that were spoken by those Christians are Syriac and Greek. By the early middle ages, however, it is clear that nearly all scholarly writing in the West was done in Latin. When did Christian scholars in the West begin writing and publishing works primarily in the Latin language, instead of the Greek language? Why?

In Eastern theology, the idea of a dispassionate God is common. It is often said that wrath is an energy of God but is not part of his essence. I have even heard Western theologians say that wrath is not an eternal attribute of God (it did not exist in the absence of sin, it only exists in response to unholiness). Does he really get mad or is this just for our benefit, since "God is love?" Or is this an influx from Plato into Christian thought? I am interested in a Western explanation (which often speaks of eternal vs. temporal "attributes" of God rather than the Eastern model of essence vs. energies).