During Ancient Biblical times, it was common for 1st cousins to get married. > Genesis 24:15 > > New American Standard Bible 1995 > > Rebekah Is Chosen > > 15 Before he had finished speaking, behold, Rebekah who was born to > Bethuel the son of Milcah, the wife of Abraham’s brother Nahor, came > out with her jar on her shoulder. > Genesis 24:67 > > New American Standard Bible 1995 > > 67 Then Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah’s tent, and he took > Rebekah, and she became his wife, and he loved her; thus Isaac was > comforted after his mother’s death. > Genesis 28:2 > > New American Standard Bible 1995 > > So Isaac called Jacob > and blessed him and charged him, and said to him, “You shall not take > a wife from the daughters of Canaan. 2 Arise, go to Paddan-aram, to > the house of Bethuel your mother’s father; and from there take to > yourself **a wife from the daughters of Laban your mother’s brother.** > Genesis 29:21-30 > > New American Standard Bible 1995 > > Laban’s Treachery > > 21 Then Jacob said to Laban, “Give me my wife, for my [a]time is > completed, that I may go in to her.” 22 Laban gathered all the men of > the place and made a feast. 23 Now in the evening he took his daughter > Leah, and brought her to him; and Jacob went in to her. 24 Laban also > gave his maid Zilpah to his daughter Leah as a maid. **25 So it came > about in the morning that, behold, it was Leah! And he said to Laban, > “What is this you have done to me? Was it not for Rachel that I served > with you? Why then have you deceived me?” 26 But Laban said, “It is > not [b]the practice in our place to [c]marry off the younger before > the firstborn. 27 Complete the week of this one, and we will give you > the other also for the service which you shall serve with me for > another seven years.” 28 Jacob did so and completed her week, and he > gave him his daughter Rachel as his wife.** 29 Laban also gave his maid > Bilhah to his daughter Rachel as her maid. 30 So Jacob went in to > Rachel also, and indeed he loved Rachel more than Leah, and he served > with Laban for another seven years. However, if one reads about European Royal families then one will notice that there were inbreeding health problems amongst offspring because cousins married each other. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Excerpt from Credit Reference url: [Royal Inbreeding and the Hapsburg Jaw](https://www.utmb.edu/mdnews/podcast/episode/royal-inbreeding-and-the-hapsburg-jaw) > The Hapsburg dynasty ended with King Carlos the Second of Spain whose > tongue was so large he couldn't chew or talk well and drooled. He was > intellectually disabled and died just short of his thirty-ninth > birthday. > > To confirm that marriage with relatives closer than second cousins > caused the Hapsburg jaw, ten maxillofacial surgeons viewed sixty-six > portraits of fifteen members of the Hapsburg dynasty. They looked for > eleven features of the disorder and found them in at least seven > family members. Researchers also studied a family tree that included > six thousand people over twenty generations and established a link > between inbreeding and the disorder. Excerpt from Credit Reference url: [Royal Inbreeding and the Hapsburg Jaw](https://www.utmb.edu/mdnews/podcast/episode/royal-inbreeding-and-the-hapsburg-jaw) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why weren't there any reports of health problems amongst offspring caused by inbreeding when closely related relatives got married to each other, and produced offspring during the Ancient Biblical days?

In the “centuries-old account of the Council of Nicaea: … The whole power of the mysterious dogma is at once established by the one word homoousios … with one pronouncement the Church identified a term (homoousios) that secured its … beliefs against heresy. ... Such older accounts are deeply mistaken ” (LA, 11) “What is conventionally regarded as the key-word in the Creed homoousion, falls completely out of the controversy very shortly after the Council of Nicaea and is not heard of for over twenty years.” (Hanson Lecture ) “For nearly twenty years after Nicaea nobody mentions homoousios, not even Athanasius. This may be because it was much less significant than either later historians of the ancient Church or modern scholars thought that it was.” (RH, 170) “During the years 326–50 the term homoousios is rarely if ever mentioned.” (LA, 431) “After Nicaea homoousios is not mentioned again in truly contemporary sources for two decades. … It was not seen as that useful or important.” (LA, 96) “During the years 325–42 neither Arius nor the particular technical terminology used at Nicaea were at the heart of theological controversy.” (LA, 100) The word homoousios appears only once in Athanasius’ the Orations. This is understood as “evidence of Athanasius’ lack of commitment to Nicaea's terminology at this stage of his career.” (LA, 115) “Athanasius' decision to make Nicaea and homoousios central to his theology has its origins in the shifting climate of the 350s and the structure of emerging Homoian theology.” (LA, 144) > LA = Lewis Ayres Nicaea and its legacy, 2004 Ayres is a Professor of > Catholic and Historical Theology at Durham University in the United > Kingdom. > > RH = Bishop R.P.C. Hanson The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God > – The Arian Controversy 318-381, 1987 Question: Why was the term homoousios not part of the controversy during the 25 years from 325-350 and when and why did this change, so that it is today regarded as the key term in the Nicene Creed?

This question may seem strange, but I believe it is valid. It is commonly understood that God cannot create logical contradictions, such as a square circle, or make 1+1=3. However, it seems that the trinity itself is a logical contradiction being three distinct persons but still only one God. Why can God not create logical contradictions when his own nature is a logical contradiction? I am a trinitarian, but I am unsure of how to answer this question.

I previously posted the question: > I understand the word theos may be translated as "God" or as "god." > Bible writers added words (the, true, only, or one) to indicate the > Almighty. For example, in prayer, Jesus described the Father as **the > only true theos** (John 17:3). The Nicene Creed describes the Father > as "one theos" and the Son as "true theos from true theos." Is there > anything in the Greek of this phrase to indicate whether this should > read "God" or "god?" But the moderator closed the question and indicated: > Add details and clarify the problem you’re solving. So, let me try to explain why I ask such a question: The ancient Greek word theos is the standard word used by the Greeks for their gods, the pantheon. The modern English word “God” has a very different meaning, for it is used only for one Being, namely the Ultimate Reality; the Almighty. Since no other word was available, the New Testament writers used the same word theos for the God of the Bible. When the context indicates that it refers to the Ultimate Reality, it is translated as “God.” But the New Testament also uses theos for other beings, such as Satan and even certain humans. In such instances, it is translated as “god.” (e.g., 1 Cor 8:5-6) The Nicene Creed refers to Jesus as theos in the phrase “theos from theos.” On the assumption of the Trinity doctrine, in which the Son is God Almighty, this is translated as “God from God.” However, **the authors of the 325 Nicene Creed did not think of the Son as God Almighty**. This is indicated by the following: 1. The Creed itself makes a distinction between the “one God, the Father almighty” and “one Lord, Jesus Christ.” 2. Most of the delegates to the council were followers of Origen Frend WHC (The Rise of Christianity) (<a href="/redirect?url=https%3A%2F%2Frevelationbyjesuschrist.com%2Ferickson%2F" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">Millard J. Erickson <i class="fas fa-external-link-alt fa-xs"></i></a>), and Origen, like all pre-Nicene Fathers, regarded the Son as subordinate to the Father (<a href="/redirect?url=https%3A%2F%2Frevelationbyjesuschrist.com%2Fhanson%2F%23origen" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">Hanson <i class="fas fa-external-link-alt fa-xs"></i></a>). They did refer to Jesus as theos because they <a href="/redirect?url=https%3A%2F%2Frevelationbyjesuschrist.com%2Fhanson%2F%23divine" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">did regard Him as divine <i class="fas fa-external-link-alt fa-xs"></i></a> but, in their theology, there were <a href="/redirect?url=https%3A%2F%2Frevelationbyjesuschrist.com%2Fhanson%2F%23theos" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">many different types and grades of deity <i class="fas fa-external-link-alt fa-xs"></i></a>. 3. The concept or phrase “theos from theos” was used by pre-Nicene fathers (Irenaeus - Proof of the Apostolic Preaching 47, Tertullian <a href="/redirect?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ccel.org%2Fccel%2Fschaff%2Fanf03.v.ix.xiii.html" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">Against Praxeas 13 <i class="fas fa-external-link-alt fa-xs"></i></a>), but they regarded the Son as subordinate to the Father. 4. Later Arian Creeds also referred to Christ as theos from theos. For example, the Creed of Sirmium , in the year 358, refers to the Son as “God from God, light from light.” However, that creed presents the Son as subordinate to the Father. As a defense against the indications in the Bible that the Son is subordinate to the Father, the Council of Chalcedon stated that the Son, during His incarnation, had two natures: a divine and a human nature. Therefore, that council argues, when He said that He is subordinate to the Father, He was speaking from His human nature. However, the 'two natures' proposal only deals with indications of subordination while the Son was on earth in the form of a man. There are also many indications that the Son is subordinate to the Father BEFORE His incarnation and AFTER His resurrection and ascension. To defend against such indications of subordination, Trinitarians argue that the three ontologically equal Persons have a voluntary arrangement amongst themselves – a division of duties, so to speak - in which the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father. However, an eternal voluntary arrangement between three ontologically equal Persons, in which the Son is subordinated to the Father, remains real subordination. (Kevin Giles ) Conclusion and Question -------- Therefore, when Irenaeus said that “the Father is God and the Son is God” (Proof of the Apostolic Preaching 47), I understand that Irenaeus simply meant that both the Father and the Son are immortal beings with supernatural powers. And, therefore, when Irenaeus added that “that which is begotten of God is God,” he simply meant that, since the Father is an immortal being with supernatural powers, and since Jesus Christ is the only begotten of God, He is also an immortal being with supernatural powers. So, the question remains, on the basis of the conclusion that the Nicene Council regarded the Son as subordinate to the Father, how should "theos from theos" in the Nicene Creed be translated? This may be compared to the following quote from Irenaeus: > There is none other called God by the Scriptures except the Father of > all, and the Son, and those who possess the adoption. (IV, Preface). This quote classifies the Father, the Son, and believers under the category theos, showing the general meaning of the word theos. How should theos in this quote be translated?

I understand that Jehovah's Witnesses believe their organisation to be the only one on Earth that is recognized by God as His Kingdom and do not, for example, recognize a baptism performed by another denomination. In my experience, most groups that have such a belief claim some unique source of authority. For example, Catholics claim Apostolic succession from Peter, and LDS claim to have a line of succession that was restored by divine intervention. Is there an equivalent idea in Witness theology, or is it purely a matter of nobody else having a compatible understanding of scripture? I am not necessarily looking for a line of succession, but something the Witnesses can point to to say "this is why you should join us and not Church X". The Witnesses I've spoken to tended to focus on having the correct (in their view) understanding, and I get the same impression in their literature. If understanding is the only criterion, then it should be possible for a separate group to study the Bible, draw the same conclusions and have their theology and practices recognised by the Witnesses as correct. I'm not inviting comment on whether that would be likely or desirable but I would like to know, in light of my main question above, whether it would be considered possible.

I was wondering about this part of Genesis: The tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. (Genesis 2:9). Is the tree of knowledge between good and evil how people gain knowledge? Like is all knowledge based on distinguishing the difference between good and evil, or is it more nuanced than that? Does moral discernment form the foundation of all knowledge shown in this passage?

I'd say a successful band is one that sticks together for 10 years or so and has one of those TLA or first-name awards or a top-40 hit or is actually played on the radio. I'm not into the music scene, but I noticed a discrepancy when checking out Pandora for Christmas tunes and finding an LDS station, but no specifically Catholic tunes. Has there ever been a successful Catholic group or artist singing music you'd hear on your local Christian rock station? Not just an artist in any genre who happens to be Catholic or an artist who was successful, converted to Catholicism and started appealing to a niche crowd (i.e. John Michael Talbot), but an artist or group like the Newsboys or Toby Mac. --- I think this is an objectively answerable question, there's a wiki page for [Roman Catholic Musicians](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_Catholic_Church_musicians) but it is lacking both John Michael Talbot and The Singing Nun. I edited the question to say, since the Singing Nun since [Sister Smile](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Singing_Nun) would be an example of a "success" in the music business at least, but I've already got her record and I don't need another.

I'm currently reading Eusebius' History of the church and stumbled upon this passage: > These earnest disciples of great men built on the foundation of the > churches everywhere laid by the apostles, spreading the message still > further and sowing the saving seed of the Kingdom of Heaven far and > wide through the entire world. Very many disciples of the time, their > hearts smitten by the word of God with an ardent passion for true > philosophy, first fulfilled the Saviour's command by distributing > their possessions among the needy; then, leaving their homes behind, > they carried out the work of the evangelists, ambitious to preach to > those who had never yet heard the message of the faith and to give > them the inspired gospels in writing. Staying only to lay the > foundations of the faith in one foreign place or another, appoint > others as pastors, and entrust to the the tending of those newly > brought in, they set off again for other lands and peoples with the > grace and cooperation of God, **for even at that late date many > miraculous powers of the divine Spirit worked through them**, so that at > the first hearing while crowds in a body embraced with a whole-hearted > eagerness the worship of the universal Creator. To me, this seems to imply that readers at Eusebius' time would not expect performing miracles to be a gift that one could possess. Is this line of thing correct? To further clarify, I'm using the same definition of cessationism found on Got Questions > Most cessationists believe that, while God can and still does perform > miracles today, the Holy Spirit no longer uses individuals to perform > miraculous signs.

I have read in Christianity.SE where some say that "YHWH" refers only to Jesus. Are there groups with this belief or only individuals? Which Christian groups believe that "YHWH" refers only to the Father and never to the Word?

St. Bonaventure recalls St. Francis's conversion and falling away from his earthly father Pietro di Bernardone, in *Life of St. Francis* ch. 2: >And now his father according to the flesh, having despoiled him of his money, brought this son (no longer his, but the child of divine grace) before the Bishop of Assisi, to compel him to renounce in his hands all his inheritance, and whatsoever he had received from him, which this true lover of poverty was most ready and willing to do. As soon, therefore, as he came into the Bishop’s presence, without a moment’s delay, neither waiting for his father’s demand nor uttering a word himself, he laid aside all his clothes, and gave them back to his father. Then it was seen, that under his fair and costly garments the holy man wore a hard and rough hair-shirt. With marvellous fervor he then turned to his father, and spoke thus to him in the presence of all: “Until this hour I have called thee my father on earth; from henceforth, I may say confidently, *my Father Who art in Heaven*, in Whose hands I have laid up all my treasures, all my trust, and all my hope.” A Capuchin told me that later in St. Francis's life, his father Pietro di Bernardone tried to approach St. Francis while he was begging, but one of St. Francis's Franciscan confreres spoke to Pietro di Bernardone, guarding St. Francis. Who was that brother, and is there any basis to this story?

Some might question it that this kind of colossal story would be able to pass on accurately via oral tradition: for example older men telling this story to others among his own tribe Beside the fire. My original intent was to ask that how is it possible that exodus story could be passed on to the next generation so accurately? Some might say that exodus story is a myth, because no-one can pass on this story so accurately as it is written in the Bible.

I read Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Now I am presently in Acts and Jesus isn't being quoted. Are there books outside of the King James Bible that have the word of Jesus? Because I love Jesus, I wanted to know if I could read more of his words.

In Exodus 14:23: > The Egyptians pursued them, and all Pharaoh's horses and chariots and > horsemen followed them into the sea. My Question: Why would the skillful, tactical, Pharaoh's army rush into the water? Why would an experienced cavalry commander, upon reaching the seashore, order a charge? My findings: Exo 14 by Lee I listened to Lee's sermon about this, and he talked about how a Rabbi would explain this. Song of Songs 1:9, the groom's first words of praise for his bride are: "I have compared you, O my love, to a company of horses in Pharaoh's chariots" The original word for "horse" is "female horse." A war horse must be a male horse, not a female horse. This beloved is a female. The metaphor is, "I gave you to Pharaoh as a horse harnessed to his chariots." It is a female horse that suddenly appeared in the midst of Pharaoh's chariots. So why did a female horse appear? The lover's words to his beloved are not like horses harnessed to his chariots. Rather, they are like a female horse that suddenly appeared in the midst of Pharaoh's chariots. The rabbi asked, "Why does the Song of Songs record this? When will the beloved (Israel, God's bride) appear before Pharaoh's cavalry?" That is, at the Red Sea. God's miracle was to make Pharaoh's cavalry think Israel was a female horse, and no matter how he commanded, they could not stop. Human commands could not cause an army to charge into the sea. But the horses rushed at that moment. Is this explanation valid? I am new here please notify if this lacks clarity

From George Barna Research the following statistics were submitted. Only 16% of those professing Trinity belief held valid views. This graph is drawn from two Christian surveys. The data from 2014-2022 is from thestateoftheology.com, and the 2025 survey is from George Barna at the Cultural Research Center. All surveys had a minimum of 2,100 participants. What is causing this dramatic decline? Source below. - [Most Americans—Including Most Christian Churchgoers— Reject the Trinity](https://georgebarna.com/2025/04/most-americans-including-most-christian-churchgoers/)

Context: I am a Christian student studying "studies of religion", and I was reading the Quran, where I came across a verse in Surah 9:30. "The Jews say, “Ezra is the son of Allah,” while the Christians say, “The Messiah is the son of Allah.” Such are their baseless assertions, only parroting the words of earlier disbelievers. May Allah condemn them! How can they be deluded ˹from the truth˺?" Of course I understand why Christians would say the Messiah is the son of God, but why would Jews belelieve Ezra as the son of God?

>Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them - Hebrews 7:25 (KJV) How do Trinitarians who believe that the distinct persons of the Trinity share one will, explain how Jesus is making intercession with God? (A previous answer here on Christianity.SE stated that some Trinitarians believe that the Trinity share a single will, while others believe each has a separate but identical will.) I apologize. I thank you all for your answers. But my question wasn't clear enough, so your answers didn't provide the information I am seeking. So I am re-asking my question .

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

I'm curious about the relationship between those who adhere to young-earth creationism, and those who adhere to Rapture theology (as expressed in the *Left Behind* series, for example, and similar related belief systems most commonly associated with fundamentalism and dispensationalism). Are these, generally, the same people? Or is there a large divergence between these two groups? I know a good many Christians who believe in both. I know a few who reject both. I don't know specifically of anyone who accepts one view, but rejects the other, although they may exist and I just don't know because the discussion topic hasn't come up. And at least superficially, they both appear to have their roots in fundamentalism. But I wonder how substantial this similarity is. To be a bit more specific, 1. Are there any theological foundations on which both views are built? Or does one view depend in any way on the other? (Does Rapture theology depend on an literal Adam, for instance.) 2. What is the cultural relationship between the two theologies? If we were to, for example, draw a Venn diagram of these two theologies, what would it look like? Have any polls or studies been done on this topic?

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

Greek and Latin are sacred liturgical languages, but has Hebrew ever been used in a Christian liturgy? By liturgy, I mean the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. By Hebrew, I mean ancient Hebrew, the (non-vernacular) liturgical language used in Jesus's time.