Virtually all resources published these days make Biblical citations in the same way: "John 3:16" with the chapter and verse numbers in Arabic numerals, separated by a colon and with no other punctuation. However, when I read books printed a long time ago (maybe from 100 years ago or so), I find many other ways of referencing Biblical passages. As some examples: > "John iii. 16" - used in this 1885 translation of 1st Clement and throughout that collection of the Ante-Nicene fathers. > > "John 3. 16" - used in the 1917 printing of the Scofield Reference Bible . > > "John, iii, 16" - used in the 1912 printing of the Catholic Encyclopedia . When and why did the modern convention become standard?

I have been encountering more and more often news about charismatic churches, which I understand are part of the Pentecostal movement, and their connection with the supernatural and modern politics. Is there a good book about the history of these churches and the alleged miracles? On Amazon, for instance, there are several books, but they appear to have been self-published by these churches; thus, I won't rely on them for an objective evaluation of their work. Thank you

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

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

I wonder if this practice was uniquely part of the 'Jesus movement' at the time or if it was just standard?

I have not been able to find an actual pivot point, or event which may be considered the official beginning of the Roman Catholic Church. Some have connected it with Peter, which I believe is totally without evidence, while some connect it with the Advent of the first Leo who was Pope, but what would be the best criteria to decide when Roman Catholicism became an actual doctrinal body?

Matthew 16:3 (KJV), which says, "And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowering. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?" Can this be the world today in 2025?

I will give proper citation. Thanks!

In c. A.D. 189, St. Irenaeus wrote: > Since, however, it would be very tedious . . . to reckon up the successions of all the churches, we put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vanity, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings, by indicating that Tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and **universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul**; also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every church agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, because the apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere [*Against Heresies* 3:3:2] Why did St. Irenaeus say the Church was founded and organized in Rome by Peter and Paul? I'd understand if he was speaking of the lowercase 'c' church in Rome, but he spoke of "the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church," so—correct me if I'm wrong—he was speaking of the entire Church rather than the singular church in Rome. So what does he mean exactly?

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

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?

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

I was curious about all of your thoughts on the idea of "Believer's Baptism" found in the Early Church. For those who don't know, "Believer's Baptism" is the view that people who have put their faith in Christ are allowed to be baptized I was curious if anyone on this platform can show me Early Church evidence to support this claim. I am aware of Tertullian had his own take on this belief, but not at the exact match as the main purpose of this idea. So, I was wondering if anyone can show Early Church proof of "Beliver's Baptism."

In the now defunct Sarum Rite (Usage) of the Roman Rite one can find the title of this **Feast of the Triumph of Christ over the Devil** as celebrated on February 15th. This “historical” feast was extremely ancient and is only found in some of the more ancient Sarum Liturgical Calendars. It is now completely obsolete. Sadly enough, I can not find sources of this feast online. It existed on a few of the more ancient documents and Sarum Liturgical Calendars. I am guessing that with regards to the Sarum Liturgical Calendar some online sources state that the inclusion in liturgy calendars of several *"historical dates"* was quite common in the Middle Ages, such as the listing of the [Resurrection of Our Lord on March 27th](https://archive.org/details/cu31924092460033/page/n31/mode/2up?view=theater) . Given the fact, that historical Liturgical sources would be very difficult to non-existant about what this feast of the ***Triumph of Christ over the Devil*** actually celebrated like or what Gospel events it entailed, would anyone have any input or information on what the Sarum meant by he Triumph of Christ over the Devil. If no such information can be found, would anyone possibly have the liturgical inclination as to what the inspiration and meaning would be and why it would be placed on February 15th. As a side note, this question may be of help or interest to some: [Did the Annunciation and Good Friday coincide?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/47170/did-the-annunciation-and-good-friday-coincide) I would prefer a Canon or traditional type of answer. However, if no one can provide a response that is factually supported, one that is based liturgical principles and/or tradition Catholic logic will be acceptable.

Jesus does not have a brother in the catholic tradition, his mother Mary is a perpetual virgin, which can hardly be compatible with having several children. Yet in his epistle to the Galatians (1, 19) , Paul calls James "the brother of the Lord". In the first letter to the Corinthians (9: 4-5) , he mentions other brothers of the Lord who have the right to take their wives during their apostolic mission. It is clear in Paul's formulation that compares his rights with "other apostles and the Lord’s brothers, and the apostle Peter" that he does not attribute the qualifier of brother of the Lord only to a few specific individuals. It does not stand as synonym of disciple. From this, several historians hold the position that either Joseph or Mary had children together or from previous relationships for Joseph like P-A. Bernheim(https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2584331-james-brother-of-jesus) , or F. Blanchetière[2] (https://brill.com/view/title/15554) , who point out that, Paul never qualifies Peter or John as brother of the Lord, or Fr John P. Meier who denies[3] (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/838138.A_Marginal_Jew) the theory of cousins that never appears in the Greek version of the Old Testament in which the term *adelphos* marks exclusively the fraternal bond of blood or right. However the Catholic church and many Catholic exegetes believe that Mary didn't had other children, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church , following the traditional reading based on the later belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary, following Jerome [4] (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm), the first Father of the Church to argue against the siblings theory for the benefit of the cousins one at the end of the fourth century. They also recuse the half-brothers and sisters theory presented in an apocryphal gospel from James, around 180, born of a first marriage of Joseph from previous relationships. Why these "Brothers of the Lord" have been embarrassing for the Catholic Church which make them gradually forgotten and lose their quality of brothers? Why at the same time as the cult of chastity develops, whose mother of Jesus becomes the symbol and which will find its apogee in the doctrine of its perpetual virginity? Note : Other like Assyrian and part of protestants hold this doctrine as well but I narrow my question to the Catholic Church as far as the different schisms had not yet been pronounced when the doctrine was created.

Wanted to ask if there are any historical record (Besides the Bible) that shows that pouring baptism was a common church teaching and/or practice?

The Encyclopaedia Brittanica says > The claims that the church of Rome was founded by Peter or that he served as its first bishop are in dispute and rest on evidence that is not earlier than the middle or late 2nd century. Where in the Bible does it say that Peter was a Bishop? Also, are there any non-biblical 1st-century historical accounts that mention his being the Bishop of Rome?

In answering a question on Bible Hermeneutics.SE, Carly Perkins asked, "Why can [Protestants] believe the men who decided which books were in the canon (around 400 A.D.) but not believe what they lived and believed?" I realize that my question is somewhat different from Carly's. What did the people who set the Protestant canon of the Bible believe were the requirements for salvation?

According to the theory of the originally anonymous gospels, the titles of the most ancient surviving manuscripts were added later on. I would like to know: **For each gospel, how many different, distinct, "assigners" were there? When did they do the assignment and where were they?** I am not asking about the authorship of the gospels, but supposing there were no titles, **who** assigned them. For example: **The gospel according to Matthew was assigned by:** 1) X1 person or group, in the Y century in the Z region. 2) X2 person or group, ..."" If much of this is not possible at least list the number of the different assigners and whether they may have assigned these texts independently of one another. **The gospel according to Luke... ""** Please give sources, thank you!

I know that Martin Luther and Philip Melanchthon tried to oppose the school system introduced by the Catholic Church (according to Luther, Oxford and Cambridge model was influenced by the Paris universities, which in their turn by the Catholic Church). This happened at the beginning of the 16th century, when they founded some of the so-called Reformed Schools (based on the Protestant beliefs) like the University of Wittenberg. As far as I know, a little later, some bigger universities like the University of Halle and University of Göttingen were created on the same model. The latter was indeed a very prestigious institution during the whole 18th and 19th century together with Univ. of Berlin and some other German schools. It looks that at a certain moment, the whole movement ceased to be active. Does anyone know more about this reforming of the schools' movement and what exactly happened with it? Which of the currently prestigious universities in North America have been founded according to the Luther and Melanchthon's ideas?