Rules behind resolving alleged Biblical discrepancies One of the charges that is consistently leveled against Biblical reliability is that the Bible is "full of contradictions".  This is certainly not a new charge, and the field of Apologetics, with its disciplined approach to defending God's word surely has a defined, commonly accepted approach to dealing with alleged discrepancies.

What is that approach?  In other words, what are the common "rules" (or less stringently, "guidelines") that are taught and followed in classic apologetics?

To be very clear, I am not asking "is the Bible reliable?".  I'm not asking "are the rules used true, correct, or sound"?  I am well aware that skeptics, atheists, and Christians that believe the Bible could contain contradictions will likely disagree with the rules and techniques applied by apologetics.  I'm not asking if the rules are true, I'm simply asking what they are, so that we have a record of the techniques used on the site.

My hope is that these rules can be referenced later, for questions about such contradictions, to provide a framework for addressing the apparent contradiction questions using the classic apologetic approach.

The basic rules and assumptions are as follows:

That we are defending the notion that the Bible is, indeed, inspired, and therefore inerrant and infallible.  It cannot contain errors, and if a true contradiction is found, it is, by definition, an error.  Either one is correct and the other is wrong, or they are both wrong.  Either way, the Bible is no longer infallible and inerrant.
That God does not change His word. It is Eternal.  (Deuteronomy 4:1-2; Isaiah 8:20; Matthew 5:17-18; 24:35; and Revelation 22:18-20.)
The default position is that the Bible is inerrant.  We are answering the claim of someone that is challenging that position.  Therefore, the burden of proof is upon that person, not on the person defending the claim of inerrancy.
If a reasonable, plausible explanation can be given for the discrepancy, then the person challenging the inerrancy of Scripture has failed to provide proof.  This does not mean that the plausible answer is necessarily truth, but it means that the "discrepancy" does have a plausible, logical resolution, so the skeptic has not proved that a contradiction, in fact, exists.
The definition of Biblical Inerrancy is important.  As described in the link in the first bullet point, inerrancy does not apply to the current translations of Scripture to the point that copyist errors count as "errors".  Inerrancy applies to the original manuscripts, and we completely accept that copyist errors can and likely do exist in today's manuscripts.

Using those five basic rules, the vast majority of "contradictions" can be attributed to one of two possible causes.

Copyist errors
A misunderstanding of the context.  (Historical context, cultural context, taking a verse out of context with related passages of Scripture, different meanings for words used at the time a translation was written compared to the meaning of the words today, etc.)

Some examples:

  2 Samuel 24:9 gives the round figure Of 500,000 fighting men in Judah, which was 30,000 more than the corresponding item in 1
  Chronicles 21:5. (Category: misunderstood the historical context)

  Observe that 1 Chronicles 21:6 clearly states that Joab did not
  complete the numbering, as he had not yet taken a census of the tribe
  of Benjamin, nor that of Levi's either, due to the fact that David
  came under conviction about completing the census at all. Thus the
  different numbers indicate the inclusion or exclusion of particular
  unspecified groups in the nation. We find another reference to this in
  1 Chronicles 27:23-24 where it states that David did not include those
  twenty years old and younger, and that since Joab did not finish the
  census the number was not recorded in King David's Chronicle.

  The procedure for conducting the census had been to start with the
  trans-Jordanian tribes (2 Samuel 24:5) and then shift to the northern
  most tribe of Dan and work southward towards Jerusalem (verse 7). The
  numbering of Benjamin, therefore, would have come last. Hence Benjamin
  would not be included with the total for Israel or of that for Judah,
  either. In the case of 2 Samuel 24, the figure for Judah included the
  already known figure of 30,000 troops mustered by Benjamin. Hence the
  total of 500,000 included the Benjamite contingent.

  Observe that after the division of the United Kingdom into the North
  and the South following the death of Solomon in 930 BC, most of the
  Benjamites remained loyal to the dynasty of David and constituted
  (along with Simeon to the south) the kingdom of Judah. Hence it was
  reasonable to include Benjamin with Judah and Simeon in the sub-total
  figure of 500,000, even though Joab may not have itemized it in the
  first report he gave to David (1 Chronicles 21:5). Therefore the
  completed grand total of fighting forces available to David for
  military service was 1,600,000 (1,100,000 of Israel, 470,000 of
  Judah-Simeon, and 30,000 of Benjamin).

  (Archer 1982:188-189 and Light of Life II 1992:189)

  Does God incite David to conduct the census of his people (2 Samuel 4:1), or does Satan (1 Chronicles 21:1)?

  (Category: misunderstood how God works in history)

  This seems an apparent discrepancy unless of course both statements
  are true. It was towards the end of David's reign, and David was
  looking back over his brilliant conquests, which had brought the
  Canaanite, Syrian, and Phoenician kingdoms into a state of vassalage
  and dependency on Israel. He had an attitude of pride and
  self-admiration for his achievements, and was thinking more in terms
  of armaments and troops than in terms of the mercies of God.

  The Lord therefore decided that it was time that David be brought to
  his knees, where he would once again be cast back onto the mercy of
  God. So he let him go ahead with his census, in order to find out just
  how much good it would do him, as the only thing this census would
  accomplish would be to inflate the national ego (intimated in Joab's
  warning against carrying out the census in 1 Chronicles 21:3). As soon
  as the numbering was completed, God intended to chasten the nation
  with a disastrous plague which would bring about an enormous loss of
  life (in fact the lives of 70,000 Israelites according to 2 Samuel
  24:15).

  What about Satan? Why would he get himself involved in this affair
  (according to 1 Chronicles 21:1) if God had already prompted David to
  commit the folly he had in mind? It seems his reasons were entirely
  malicious, knowing that a census would displease the Lord (1
  Chronicles 21:7-8), and so he also incited David to carry it through.

  Yet this is nothing new, for there are a number of other occurrences
  in the Bible where both the Lord and Satan were involved in
  soul-searching testings and trials:

  In the book of Job, chapters one and two we find a challenge to Satan from God allowing Satan to bring upon Job his calamities. God's
  purpose was to purify Job's faith, and to strengthen his character by
  means of discipline through adversity, whereas Satan's purpose was
  purely malicious, wishing Job as much harm as possible so that he
  would recant his faith in his God.
  Similarly both God and Satan are involved in the sufferings of persecuted Christians according to 1 Peter 4:19 and 5:8. God's purpose
  is to strengthen their faith and to enable them to share in the
  sufferings of Christ in this life, that they may rejoice with Him in
  the glories of heaven to come (1 Peter 4:13-14), whereas Satan's
  purpose is to 'devour' them (1 Peter 5:8), or rather to draw them into
  self-pity and bitterness, and down to his level.
  Both God and Satan allowed Jesus the three temptations during his ministry on earth. God's purpose for these temptations was for him to
  triumph completely over the very tempter who had lured the first Adam
  to his fall, whereas Satan's purpose was to deflect the saviour from
  his messianic mission.
  In the case of Peter's three denials of Jesus in the court of the high priest, it was Jesus himself who points out the purposes of both
  parties involvement when he says in Luke 22:31-32, "Simon, Simon,
  Satan has asked to sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for you Simon,
  that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back,
  strengthen your brothers."
  And finally the crucifixion itself bears out yet another example where both God and Satan are involved. Satan exposed his purpose when
  he had the heart of Judas filled with treachery and hate (John 13:27),
  causing him to betray Jesus. The Lord's reasoning behind the
  crucifixion, however, was that Jesus, the Lamb slain from the
  foundation of the world should give his life as a ransom for many, so
  that once again sinful man could relish in the relationship lost at
  the very beginning, in the garden of Eden, and thereby enter into a
  relationship which is now eternal.

  Thus we have five other examples where both the Lord and Satan were involved together though with entirely different motives. Satan's
  motive in all these examples, including the census by David was driven
  by malicious intent, while the Lord in all these cases showed an
  entirely different motive. His was a benevolent motive with a view to
  eventual victory, while simultaneously increasing the usefulness of
  the person tested. In every case Satan's success was limited and
  transient; while in the end God's purpose was well served furthering
  His cause substantially.

  (Archer 1982:186-188)

Rules taken from various sources, including:

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm
http://www.ovrlnd.com/Apologetics/101contradictions.html
http://www.booksofthebible.com/p4992.html
http://carm.org/introduction-bible-difficulties-and-bible-contradictions
Finally, an amazing resource for finding the resolution to a vast array of  the alleged discrepancies, see http://www.apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx


How did Luther view pilgrimages? From what I understand there are many people from various denominations who imagine certain places on the earth are 'holier' than other places and that it is good to travel long distances to visit those places.  During the times of the reformation sometimes the travel might be difficult and that this might also be a means in part to show 'penance' for one's sins, not to mention opportunity of purchasing indulgences for the same purpose.

Pilgrimages seems quite contrary to the notions of the reformation. I wonder what the leaders of the reformation, specifically Martin Luther, thought about the idea of going on a pilgrimage.

Martin Luther did not condemn pilgrimages as much as several other practices but his loathing of pilgrimages is quite clear in his writings. As with many things in the reformation, Luther's earlier writings moderately condemn the practice and then his comments tend to become more severe as the reformation matured.

Early in the reformation, Luther attributed pilgrimages to primarily an indicator of 'boredom' and 'lack of responsibility' to one's own church and family:

  Those who make pilgrimages do so for many reasons, very seldom for legitimate ones. The first reason for making pilgrimages is the most common of all, namely, the curiosity to see and hear strange and unknown things. This levity proceeds from a loathing for and boredom with the worship services, which have been neglected in the pilgrims’ own church. Otherwise one would find incomparably better indulgences at home than in all the other places put together. Furthermore, he would be closer to Christ and the saints if he were not so foolish as to prefer sticks and stones to the poor and his neighbors whom he should serve out of love. And he would be closer to Christ also if he were to provide for his own family. (Luther's Works Volume 31.198)

Later, Luther thought the desire to go on pilgrimages might indicate which kingdom you belonged to, God's or the Devil's. Luther thought those who had real faith would give themselves up to God, However there were some great errors in evaluating yourself to determine if you have given your life to God and the first error implicates the idea of a 'pilgrimage':

  The first is committed by those who run hither and yon for the purpose of becoming righteous, of entering God’s kingdom, and of being saved. The one runs to Rome, the other to St. James; one builds a chapel, another donates this, still another one that. However, they refuse to face the true issue, that is, they will not give their inmost self to God and thus become his kingdom. They perform many outward works which glitter very nicely, but inwardly they remain full of malice, anger, hatred, pride, impatience, unchastity, etc.
  It is against them that Christ spoke when he was asked when the kingdom of God was coming, “The kingdom of God does not come with outward signs or appearances; for behold, the kingdom of God is within you” [Luke 17:20–21]. Christ also says in Matthew 24 [:23–24], “If anyone says to you, ‘Lo, here it is!’ or ‘There it is!’ do not believe it.

  Those whom God has commanded a man to keep in body and soul he leaves behind, and wants to serve God in some place or another, something that was never commanded. No bishop forbids and no preacher rebukes such a perverse practice. In fact, in the interests of their own covetousness the clergy endorse such practices. Every day they think up more and more pilgrimages, canonizations of saints, and indulgence fairs. May God have mercy on such blindness!  (Luther's Works Volume 44.86, 1520)

As is usual with Luther, as the reformation progressed we find his blasts against the practice more severe.  He personally ties in pilgrimages together with the practice of those travelers visiting prostitutes, meeting up for 'sex'. It is not clear if the 'getting together' for 'sex' in reference to the Pope is also bound together Luther's claim of practiced sodomy among clergy, or not: (See this post for Sodomy references).

  “Every false religion is contaminated by libidinous desires. Just keep an eye on sex. What were pilgrimages [under the papacy] but opportunities to get together? What does the pope do now but besmirch himself unceasingly with lust? In order that they might satisfy lust the more, well-situated places, beautiful fountains, trees, hills, and rivers were sought out for pilgrimages.
  “The heathen held marriage in more honor than the pope and the Turk. The pope hates it; the Turk despises it. It is the devil’s custom to hate the works of the Lord. He’s hostile to whatever God holds dear—the church, marriage, government. He’d like to have whoredom and uncleanness, for if he does, he knows very well that people will no longer trouble themselves about God.”  (Luther's Works Volume 54.422, 1542)


How did the early church respond to the accusation that Christianity forbid ‘all uses of images’ even if only ‘representing the Divine Being’? Origen, in Contra Celsus, Book VII, responds to an attack from Celsus: that Christians are just like Jews in rejecting all forms of images without exception.

In this rebuttal by Origen, we clearly see that Greek philosophers, specifically Celsus, did not think of idols as 'actual Gods' made of wood, for stone, but as just representations of them only, dedicated to them, in order to facilitate worship. The Greek worship of the gods did not terminate on the physical object or icon, but through them passed into the actual god never resting on the mere medium or icon.

The Greek view of images as facilitating higher worship is ridiculed by Origen:

  For what reasonable man can refrain from smiling when he sees that one who has learned from philosophy such profound and noble sentiments about God or the gods, turns straightway to images and offers to them his prayers, or imagines that by gazing upon these material things he can ascend from the visible symbol to that which is spiritual and immaterial.

Celsus in turn ridicules Christians because they “despise without exception all images” and so do not even have any form of God to facilitate their worship. He further argues that this is contradictory the Christian claim that man was made in the mage of God, therefore God can be represented by physical images and Christians have no excuse not to have images.

The question is how did Origen respond to this claim that Christian despised all images without exception just like Jews? Did origin admit such was the case and argue why, or did he think there were actually some images used in the Church to facilitate worship, like Mary or the Cross and that Celsus was simply unaware of them?

Celsus believed in the logos that transcended images and idols, so he admits that worshipping mere idols, without understanding the spiritual nature of what an image represented was meaningless. His problem with Christians is that they have no kind of image in their own religion so they are like the Persians who worship ‘no god’ because to Celsus an invisible god is nothing, for the gods must have some physical form, as represented by the images of them:

Let us now see what follows. "Let us pass on," says he, "to another point. They cannot tolerate temples, altars, or images. In this they are like the Scythians, the nomadic tribes of Libya, the Seres who worship no god, and some other of the most barbarous and impious nations in the world. That the Persians hold the same notions is shown by Herodotus in these words: 'I know that among the Persians it is considered unlawful to erect images, altars, or temples; but they charge those with folly who do so, because, as I conjecture, they do not, like the Greeks, suppose the gods to be of the nature of men.' (Origen quoting Celsus)

Celus also admits that philosophers do not confuse the mere ‘wood, brass, or gold’ with the actual god but are merely ‘representing the Divine Being.’  It is this refusal to allow physical objects as something to represent the Divine being that most infuriates Cesus against the Christians. Furthermore, not only so but Christians in their rejection of worshiping the one and true invisible God with images actually believe that the Greeks who use images actually only facilitate a worship of demons through them.

Heraclitus also says in one place: 'Persons who address prayers to these images act like those who speak to the walls, without knowing who the gods or the heroes are.' And what wiser lesson have they to teach us than Heraclitus? He certainly plainly enough implies that it is a foolish thing for a man to offer prayers to images, whilst he knows not who the gods and heroes are. This is the opinion of Heraclitus; but as for them, they go further, and despise without exception all images. If they merely mean that the stone, wood, brass, or gold which has been wrought by this or that workman cannot be a god, they are ridiculous with their wisdom. For who, unless he be utterly childish in his simplicity, can take these for gods, and not for offerings consecrated to the service of the gods, or images representing them? But if we are not to regard these as representing the Divine Being, seeing that God has a different form, as the Persians concur with them in saying, then let them take care that they do not contradict themselves; for they say that God made man His own image, and that He gave him a form like to Himself. However, they will admit that these images, whether they are like or not, are made and dedicated to the honour of certain beings. But they will hold that the beings to whom they are dedicated are not gods, but demons, and that a worshipper of God ought not to worship demons." (Origen quoting Celsus)

Although later church history would show otherwise concerning the use of images in worship, Origen admitted that Christians were ‘exactly like Jews’ in this rejection of all graven images:

But Christians and Jews have regard to this command, "Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve Him alone;" and this other, "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me: thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them;" and again, "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve." It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God. (Origen)

The reason why Origen thinks an image has no place in the worship of God is that he says God is invisible and so we must shut our physical eyes to worship him in spirit and truth. He calls this using the yes of the soul:

But a Christian, even of the common people, is assured that every place forms part of the universe, and that the whole universe is God's temple. In whatever part of the world he is, he prays; but he rises above the universe, "shutting the eyes of sense, and raising upwards the eyes of the soul." And he stops not at the vault of heaven; but passing in thought beyond the heavens, under the guidance of the Spirit of God, and having thus as it were gone beyond the visible universe, he offers prayers to God. (Origen)
All true Christians therefore have the eye of the mind sharpened, and the eye of sense closed; so that each one, according to the degree in which his better eye is quickened, and the eye of sense darkened, sees and knows the Supreme God, and His Son, who is the Word, Wisdom, and so forth. (Origen)

Conclusion: Therefore being that God is invisible Origen defends Christianity for not using images by saying we really need to shut our eyes, not use physical things to help our thoughts, but deny such use of icons and images in the pure worship of God. In this way we can see with the eyes of the mind and soul.


What is the status of the New Testament in the LDS teachings? According to the LDS, are the New Testament scriptures- as they existed and were available at the commencement of that denomination- themselves incomplete or the result of apostasy, or was it the interpretation and application of those works among the Church that needed to be restored through a latter-day revelation?

The New Testament, though not viewed as the cornerstone of the LDS Doctrine or church, is the foremost authoritative document on the mortal life and ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ as well as the ministry of the Apostles in teaching the young church how to live the new or "Higher" law as taught by Jesus Christ. Speaking of the New Testament, the late Elder L. Tom Perry of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles said this:

  "This sacred volume is the centerpiece of scriptural history, just as the Savior Himself should be the centerpiece of our lives. We must commit ourselves to study it and treasure it!" (The Sabbath and the Sacrament, May 2011 Ensign, 6)

ShemSeger is correct in that the translation is, at times, called into question and the Joseph Smith Translation was created to clarify the mistranslations, but that, by itself, is not the status of the New Testament in LDS Doctrine. The Joseph Smith Translation only serves as a study tool and does not replace the New Testament.

As you look at the teachings of the leaders of the church in General Conference, modern revelation and their own published doctrinal books, you'll see that they are all consistent with this status.

As Examples of published doctrinal books, Jesus the Christ By James E. Talmadge and Bruce R. McConkie's Messiah Series (consisting of The Promised Messiah, four volumes of The Mortal Messiah, and The Millennial Messiah)

It is the when the other books of scripture are read through the lens of the New Testament that we begin to understand the fullness of the Nature and Divinity of Jesus Christ. The Old Testament's main role is prophesying that Christ will come and atone for the sins of the world (Luke 24:44; John 5:39) and the Book of Mormon's main purpose is to act as a second witness and testament of Christ's divinity and mission and testifying to the validity of the Bible, both Old and New Testament (Mormon 7:9). When the prophecies and doctrines pertaining to Christ in these two other books of scripture are viewed through this lens of the New Testament, it helps us understand more of Christ's mission and ministry, but they, standing alone, are not enough and are not able to fulfill their mission without the New Testament's existence.

The coordination of these was mentioned by Elder M. Russell Ballard of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in April of 2007:

  "The Book of Mormon does not dilute nor diminish nor de-emphasize the Bible. On the contrary, it expands, extends, and exalts it. The Book of Mormon testifies of the Bible, and both testify of Christ.
  The first testament of Christ is the Bible’s Old Testament, which predicted and prophesied of the coming of the Savior, His transcendent life, and His liberating Atonement.
  The second Bible testament of Christ is the New Testament, which records His birth, His life, His ministry, His gospel, His Church, His Atonement, and His Resurrection, as well as the testimonies of His Apostles.
  The third testament of Christ is the Book of Mormon, which also foretells Christ’s coming, confirms the Bible’s account of His saving Atonement, and then reveals the resurrected Lord’s visit to the earth’s other hemisphere. The subtitle of the Book of Mormon, the clarifying purpose statement printed on the cover of every copy, is “Another Testament of Jesus Christ.”
  Each of these three testaments is a part of the great, indivisible whole of the Lord’s revealed word to His children. They contain the words of Christ, which we have been admonished to feast upon as a means of qualifying for eternal life (see 2 Nephi 31:20)." ("The Miracle of the Bible", Ensign, May 2007)


What is the relation between the First Baptist Church and the Baptist Church? In my neighborhood there has been a Baptist Church for a while. I'm moderately aware of the history of Baptist Church in general.

Very recently a temple of The First Baptist Church has been built. I´m wondering about two things: first, what is the history of the First Baptist Church? Second, what are the main differences between the First Baptist Church and the Baptist Church?

Some baptists have the tradition of naming the first Baptist church in a city or other area "First Baptist Church".  Sometimes this numbering even continues; for example, in my area there is a "Fourth Baptist Church".  I do not think there is a denomination or association called "First Baptist", as it is merely a naming tradition.

You should also be aware that there are perhaps over a thousand Baptist denominations and associations. In the United States, two of the larger ones are the Southern Baptist Convention and the American Baptist Conference.  They have somewhat different beliefs and practices.


Do any Christian traditions permit suicide to avoid being dishonored (raped)? Do any Christian traditions allow suicide for women at the point of being dishonored  (raped) by rampaging armies or thugs during war or persecutions against Christians? This tough subject includes the case of a father and his family who kill themselves to avoid seeing the mother/wife and the daughters/sisters raped and dishonored before their eyes.

Let Case 1 = the suicide for women at the point of being raped and Case 2  = the suicide of a father and his family to avoid seeing the mother/wife and the daughters/sisters raped and dishonored before their eyes
The two situations are not the same. In case 1, the woman has an extra case of conscience of commiting fornication and cooperating to the sin of the rapist. To what Saint Thomas Aquinas clearly replies (Summa Theologiae, II-II, Question 64, art.5) :

Again it is unlawful for a woman to kill herself lest she be violated, because she ought not to commit on herself the very great sin of suicide, to avoid the lesser sin of another. For she commits no sin in being violated by force, provided she does not consent, since "without consent of the mind there is no stain on the body," as the Blessed Lucy declared. Now it is evident that fornication and adultery are less grievous sins than taking a man's, especially one's own, life: since the latter is most grievous, because one injures oneself, to whom one owes the greatest love. Moreover it is most dangerous since no time is left wherein to expiate it by repentance. Again it is not lawful for anyone to take his own life for fear he should consent to sin, because "evil must not be done that good may come" (Romans 3:8) or that evil may be avoided especially if the evil be of small account and an uncertain event, for it is uncertain whether one will at some future time consent to a sin, since God is able to deliver man from sin under any temptation whatever.
Reply to Objection 4. As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei i, 21), "not even Samson is to be excused that he crushed himself together with his enemies under the ruins of the house, except the Holy Ghost, Who had wrought many wonders through him, had secretly commanded him to do this." He assigns the same reason in the case of certain holy women, who at the time of persecution took their own lives, and who are commemorated by the Church.

A fortiori, case 2 is sinful. Christians must be aware that they may be persecuted, and there is not only one way of being persecuted. Suicide is never the solution : "You shall not kill" (Ex 20:13; Cf. Deut 5:17). The Catechism of the Catholic Church mentions what follows:

2258 "Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being"

... including himself.
Note : this is a rather a long comment that explains the point of view of the Catholic Church, as long as you will be looking for a denomination which allow suicide in both cases.


What problems, if any, do Jehovah's Witnesses have with the Apostles' Creed? I'm listening to an audio series in which the Apostles' Creed is used as the framework for "Christian theology," implying that those who believe the Apostles' Creed are orthodox.

However, it's pretty clear from other portions of the series that its creators do not consider non-trinitarians to be orthodox.  Which made me wonder about how various non-trinitarian groups view the Apostles' Creed – do they actually accept it as written, or not?

In this question, I'll focus on one particular such group.  Do Jehovah's Witnesses disagree with or "reinterpret" any phrases in the Apostles' Creed?

By "reinterpret," I mean divergence from a typical understanding of the text held by trinitarians.  I realize of course that some trinitarians "reinterpret" some phrases too, like "he descended into hell," so it can be a gray area.  But hopefully answers can cite JW publications or scholars to show to what extent they adopt the creed as their own.

Related: Same question for Christadelphians, Mormons, Oneness Pentecostals, and Swedenborgians.

Jehovah’s Witnesses beliefs kind of line up with the text of the Apostle’s Creed, but their interpretation of it largely diverges from common trinitarian interpretations.

Here is the ELLC translation of the Apostles’ Creed, phrase by phrase:

I believe in God, the Father almighty,

Watchtower teaches that God is omnipotent and omniscient, but not omnipresent. g05 3/8 p. 21

creator of heaven and earth.

Watchtower teaches that the days of creation lasted, “many thousands of years.” Creation, Awake!, January 2014

I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord,

Watchtower teaches that Jesus is a created being, the Archangel Michael. w10 4/1 p. 19
They would disagree with any use of the word, “Lord” as the divine name. w08 8/1 p. 18-19

who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,

This is accepted. w02 12/15 p. 3-4

born of the Virgin Mary,

This is accepted. They take issue with revering her. Reasoning p. 254-255

suffered under Pontius Pilate,

This is accepted. w05 9/15 p. 11-12

was crucified, died, and was buried;

This is accepted. Jesus—The Way, the Truth, the Life, ch 131-133
Witnesses teach that Jesus was executed on a stake, not a cross.

he descended to the dead.

Witnesses teach that death is a state of non-existence and that there is no Hell.
Bible Teach, ch 6.5
Myth 2: The Wicked Suffer in Hell, The Watchtower, November 2009
If not rejected, I suspect this phrase would be reinterpreted as simply meaning that Jesus died.

On the third day he rose again;

Watchtower teaches that Jesus’ body was not raised from the dead, but his spirit. - After Jesus’ Resurrection, Was His Body Flesh or Spirit?

he ascended into heaven,

Watchtower teaches that Jesus began his ascent to heaven in a physical form, then switched to a spiritual form when the disciples lost sight of him. Insight, Volume 1 p. 187

he is seated at the right hand of the Father,

Watchtower teaches that Jesus has not been sitting at the right hand of the Father since World War I. Jesus—The Way, the Truth, the Life, Ch 138

and he will come to judge the living and the dead.

Watchtower teaches that judgement day will be a thousand year period during which everyone will be resurrected. Sin prior to death is forgiven. During this period, all will given an opportunity to learn and conform to God’s laws, and those who continue to sin will be destroyed.
Bible Teach p. 214-215

I believe in the Holy Spirit,

Watchtower teaches that the Holy Spirit is “God’s active force,” not a person. Insight, Volume 2 p. 1019

the holy catholic Church,

Watchtower teaches that there is not a universal body of believers that spans churches or denominations; Jehovah’s Witnesses is the only true church. One True Christian Faith—A Reality

the communion of saints,

This phrase is directly related to the previous one; it refers to a spiritual union of believers that spans life on earth, purgatory, and heaven.
Witnesses rarely use this phrase; I can't find anything. I think it would be rejected or reinterpreted because they teach that believers who have died are in a state of non-existence (see “he descended to the dead” above).

the forgiveness of sins,

Watchtower teaches that God’s forgiveness is a free gift, but that steps such as baptism and preaching are necessary for salvation. The Wikipedia article Jehovah’s Witnesses and salvation has a number of citations for this, copied below:

  The Watchtower 6/1/00 p. 11 par. 6 Keep Your “Hope of Salvation” Bright!
  The Watchtower, March 15, 1989, p. 31 Call on Jehovah’s Name and Get Away Safe! “The Way of Salvation”
  "James Urges Clean and Active Worship,", The Watchtower 3/1/83 p. 13, "Faith that does not 4. prompt us to do good works is not genuine and will not result in our salvation."
  "Meetings to Help Us Make Disciples", Our Kingdom Ministry, January 1979, p. 2.
  The Watchtower, May 15, 2006 pp. 28-29 par. 12
  "Young Ones—Are You Ready to Get Baptized". The Watchtower: 4. March 2016. It is a great privilege to get baptized as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Moreover, baptism is a requirement for Christians, and it is a vital step toward gaining salvation.
  The Watchtower 2/15/83 p. 12 You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth—But How?

the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.

Watchtower teaches that there are two different resurrections; a heavenly resurrection for a limited number (144,000) of the most devoted followers, and resurrection on a restored earth for both the rest of the Witnesses and those deemed worthy of being given a choice to serve Jehovah. Bible Teach, ch 7


Why is there so little written on the greatness of the happiness in Heaven? Jonathan Edwards said that terms such as 'ecstacy' and 'joy' were too meager to describe Heaven but were 'low shadows' of the reality.
This (if so) is obviously hugely exciting and, for me, (as a Christian) it is very inspiring. However, one thing puzzles me. If this is the truth (or most likely truth) how come so little is written on the matter? I have done endless research and few other great theologists seem to have hazarded such a guess. Even CS Lewis (my favourite and, indeed, perhaps the most inspirational speaker of recent years to speak on Heaven and joy) never (or, at least, extreemly rarely) seem to venture a guess as to exactly HOW great Heaven's happiness is.
I take it that it is a 'better place'...but does that mean the great happiness of Earth minus the sorrow...or also a greater form of happiness than can be concieved of here?
Seeing God obviously provides a joy as yet unknown and longed for. I assume this joy is above even the greatness of romantic love here? Or is there no higher quantity of happiness than that but, rather, it is unknown because it is qualitively different?

Hope this is clear (and ok). I seem to have a habit of writing the sort of questions this site objects to as I'm not much of a seasoned pro when it comes to scholarship. Maybe I'll get there in the end.

I would think so little is written on the happiness of heaven due to the fact that once you get there you don't come back to explain the 'Happiness". Christ spoke on Heaven, and to be in His presence...going to be awesome!!

If as Christians we are not in a constant state of communication with our Lord, then we will lose our connection to "Joy". We should be striving to be like Christ and in that we should find Happiness. The very fact that we have "hope" in Him is Happiness. Our flesh does not always support this, and as we mature, we should begin to understand that the Spirit of Christ in us is what pushes us forward until we enter heaven either through death or by His return and our exchange of flesh and blood to our new body.

1 Corinthians 15
50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption. 51 Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed— 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.”[g]

55 “O Death, where is your sting?[h]
O Hades, where is your victory?”[i]
56 The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
58 Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your labor is not in vain in the Lord.

Hope this helped somewhat. (copied from Biblegateway.com)


What does "predestination" mean? What is the concept of predestination?  Are there different denominations that believe in predestination but have differences in what they believe about it?  If so, what are the differences?

Single Predestination or Double Predestination?
Now before you start thinking "Aw, man!  There are two of them?!?"  Let me explain the difference:

Single Predestination:
God chooses us, solely by his grace, to go to Heaven.  God does not choose people for Hell.  If we go to Hell it is because of our own sinfullness.
Double Predestination:
God has chosen some people to go to Heaven, and some people to go to Hell.

Now that we know what they are, what does the Bible teach?
John 5:21 (ESV)

21 For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will.

John 10:28 (ESV)

28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.

Romans 8:29-30 (ESV)

29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

Ok, that seems to indicate that we are Predestined to Heaven, now what about Hell?
Ezekial 33:11 (ESV)

11 Say to them, As I live, declares the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways, for why will you die, O house of Israel?

Matthew 18:14 (ESV)

14 So it is not the will of my Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.

1 Timothy 2:3-4 (ESV)

3 This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

The Verdict:
Based off these verses, it seems clear to me that the Bible teaches Single Predestination and not Double Predestination.


Are other religions treated differently by any major branch of Christianity? In Judaism, some religions are considered to be Avodah Zarah, and others are not. So, for example, if Christianity or certain of its denominations is Avodah Zarah, that has implications for Jews' interactions with those religions and with their places of worship.

Islam also distinguishes between religions which are Ahl-ul Kitab and ones which are not.

Does any major Christian tradition make similar distinctions, or does Christianity generally merely treat all non-Christian religions as non-Christian?

General orthodox Christianity believes that there is an exclusivity with Christians.  This is because their interpretation of:

John 14:6 NIV

  Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes
  to the Father except through me.

However because of:

Mark 12:30-31 NIV

  Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and
  with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is
  this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment
  greater than these.”

They are to have compassion for all people regardless of their belief system.  While other religions are generally considered "Pagan" or worshiping a "false" god(s).  This sometimes gets confusing when some Christians claim that another religion's main god is really Satan in disguise - which is mentioned as an enemy of God in the bible.

Judaism has a different type of the relationship with Christianity.  However its definition is not universally agreed upon.  So, is the relationship special, "yes".  Can I define it?  "No, unless you want to read a book."


According to Catholicism, will those who are alive on the Day of Judgement die physically? At  1 Thessalonians 4:15–17 (NRSVCE) we read:

  For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will by no means precede those who have died.  For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call and with the sound of God’s trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first.   Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air; and so we will be with the Lord forever.

Do the words of St. Paul imply that those who are alive on the Day of Judgement will not face physical death, but will directly enter Judgement?  What do the Catholic Church's teachings say about such a prospect?

Short Answer
Yes, the people alive on the last judgment will go, body and soul, into their final destination, and thus not experience a separation of the body and the soul, i.e. death.
Long Answer
What is death?
Death is understood in the Catholic faith as a separation of the soul and the body. As Father John Echert writes:

At the moment of death, the soul is separated from the body and no
longer sustains order within the natural body

What happens upon death?
When someone dies, they undergo particular judgment defined by the Catholic Encyclopedia as:

The Catholic doctrine of the particular judgment is this: that
immediately after death the eternal destiny of each separated soul is
decided by the just judgment of God. Although there has been no formal
definition on this point, the dogma is clearly implied in the Union
Decree of Eugene IV (1439), which declares that souls leaving their
bodies in a state of grace, but in need of purification are cleansed
in Purgatory, whereas souls that are perfectly pure are at once
admitted to the beatific vision of the Godhead (ipsum Deum unum et
trinum) and those who depart in actual mortal sin, or merely with
original sin, are at once consigned to eternal punishment, the quality
of which corresponds to their sin (paenis tamen disparibus). The
doctrine is also in the profession of faith of Michael Palaeologus in
1274, in the Bull "Benedictus Deus" of Benedict XII, in 1336, and in
the professions of faith of Gregory XIII and Benedict XIV.

After the particular judgment, their soul will be in the condition of eternal suffering (Hell), eternal happiness (Heaven), or a purging period for temporal punishment due to sin (Purgatory) then eternal happiness. Eternal happiness is eventually guaranteed when a soul reaches purgatory since no soul in purgatory ends up in Hell according the the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of
the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the
damned. The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory
especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the
Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a
cleansing fire
As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final
Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever
utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in
this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that
certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in
the age to come.

Once a person faces particular judgment, there is no changing that judgment as Father Paul K. Raftery writes:

The state of the dead up to this point [after particular judgement] had been one of souls abiding
in separation from the body. But at the general judgment this
separation of body and soul will be for ever ended. From this moment
on men will have that union of body and soul God always intended for
them. However, the appearance of the body for these two groups will be
vastly different. The bodies of the blessed will be radiant with
divine light, but those of the condemned will manifest the twisted and
dark soul that is within (See Suppl. 75, 2, ad 3). Whatever the state
of the soul is, that the body will reveal.

What happens at the last judgment?
At the last judgment, the souls of the dead will be reunited with their bodies, and the consequences of their actions will be made known to all according to the Catechism paragraph 1038:

1038 The resurrection of all the dead, "of both the just and the
unjust," will precede the Last Judgment. This will be "the hour
when all who are in the tombs will hear [the Son of man's] voice and
come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and
those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment." Then
Christ will come "in his glory, and all the angels with him. . . .
Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them
one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and
he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left.
. . . And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous
into eternal life."

and paragraph 678 respectively:

678 Following in the steps of the prophets and John the Baptist, Jesus
announced the judgment of the Last Day in his preaching. Then will
the conduct of each one and the secrets of hearts be brought to
light. Then will the culpable unbelief that counted the offer of
God's grace as nothing be condemned. Our attitude to our neighbor
will disclose acceptance or refusal of grace and divine love. On
the Last Day Jesus will say: "Truly I say to you, as you did it to one
of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me."

So how does the last judgment apply to those who are still living?
The same happens for the living at the time, and they will NOT die (and thus, strictly speaking, not face particular judgment), but rather directly undergo the last judgment and be sent to their final condition, body and soul, for eternity.
The parameters that apply to both the living and the dead, however, will be identical, save that those living at the time of the last judgment will not need to have their soul reunited with their body.
And thus we go full circle. Your reading from 1 Thessalonians confirms this:

Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with
them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always
be with the Lord.


What does it mean for the Spirit to only speak of what he hears? (trinitarian perspective) I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. (John 16:12-13, NIV)

Am I correct that the Spirit of Truth is referring to the Holy Spirit?

If so, what does it mean for the Spirit to speak only of what he hears?

Trinitarians believe that the Holy Spirit is God, and God does whatever he wills to do. So how do they interpret these verses?

From John Gill's exposition of this passage:

  For he shall not speak of himself:
  as Christ, the Son, spoke not of himself in opposition to the Father, so the Spirit speaks not of himself in opposition either to the Father, or the Son, but in perfect agreement with both; being, as of the same nature and essence, power and glory, so of the same mind, understanding, and will; and as they agreed and wrought jointly and harmoniously, in the works of nature and providence, so in the economy of grace and salvation.

  But whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak;
  as Christ himself did, ( John 15:15 ) ; and they are such things as ear has not heard besides; what were secretly transacted in the council and covenant of peace, and agreed upon by all the three persons; things which concern the salvation of men, the Gospel church state, another world, and the glory of all the divine persons: ... (source)

This is extremely useful in two respects:

Recognising the Spirit when He comes: What the Spirit says will align with what the Father says and what the Son says - His voice will be familiar in that sense and a previous familiarity with words from the Father and the Son will serve as a suitable 'introduction' for a believer to therefore recognize the voice of the Spirit when He speaks.
A Safeguard from error - particularly Montanist style errors. There are many who claim to have received the Spirit, but are actually deceived as the words they claim as being from the Spirit are inconsistent with words that come from the Father and the Son. This passage of scripture makes it abundantly clear that the Spirit will not contradict the revelation previously given, therefore prophecies, 'words of wisdom' or 'words of knowledge' should be subjected to the test of whether they are consistent with scripture.


Is theodicy considered an open problem or a solved one, according to catholicism? Do catholics consider the problem of theodicy (Why God allows evil on this world) an open question, or is it "solved", seeing that so many people have tried to answer it. If it is not solved, what is the reason?

Yes, it is an open question.

Yes, it is a "solved" question.

No, it is not an OR question.

The question you are asking "Is Theodicy an "open" question or a solved one?" is based on a faulty premise.  Namely, "open" does not mean "unanswered" or "unsolved" - it means one that is continually being investigated.  Thus, the opposite of an "open" problem isn't a "solved" one, but rather an unasked one.

At best, one can ask, "Is there a consensus position?" and the answer is "within a fairly broad spectrum, yes."  Yes, there are several "solutions" that theologians have posited that each have a significant consensus behind them.  Go find them - that's a book.

In order to highlight the faulty premise, let's use another question as an example: "Did God create the world ex nihilo or did it evolve?" As contentious as the question is, no one can say there are no "solutions" to it. Non-theists have posed several answers, Theists have posed several answers, and there are even significant groups that seek a "theistic evolution" answer in the middle.  Is it an open question? Sure! People wrestle with the origins question everyday. And is it a solved one? For many people, again, the answer is "Yes!"  They have weighed the evidence and personally picked the "solution" they feel is most compelling.

In theology, there are very, very few "closed" questions. John Dominic Crosson believes the literalness of the Resurrection to be an "open question," despite Paul's very obvious answer to "If there is no resurrection, then we are to be pitied above all men!"  The closest thing I can think of as a "closed" question is the literal existence of a King David. For many years, theologians thought it an "open question" as to whether or not David existed.  When archeologists found a steele mentioning the House of David, the evidence pretty thoroughly closed any further debate, because it is really hard to argue with tangible evidence to the contrary - and yet there are still some who claim it is "open"

Back to the "problem" of theodicy - or "Why does a Good God allow evil?"  There are several solutions to the problem - but that does not mean it is unasked.  It is thus open and solved at the same time.  And frankly, until there is no more evil, or until people see God as not good, it will always be asked. It will and must be open to new queries as long as man asks questions.


Wedding after a death in the family in the Eastern Orthodox Church Does the Eastern Orthodox Church say anything on festivities after the death of a member of the family? Specifically weddings in the 40 days after the death when mourning is called for?

Generally, Orthodox weddings are prohibited on at least the following days:

Great Lent (variable)
Holy Week (variable)
Pascha (variable)
Pentecost (variable)
The Apostle's Fast (variable-June 29)
The Dormition Fast (August 1-15)
The Beheading of St. John the Baptist (August 29)
Exaltation of the Holy Cross (September 14)
Nativity Fast (November 14-December 25, or until January 7, depending on calendar)
Theophany (January 6)

Some parishes or jurisdictions may also not permit marriages on Saturdays or in the evening before Wednesdays and Fridays.

There are no restrictions about marrying after the death of someone in the family.


Where do we draw the line when questioning/testing God? It's pretty clear that we shouldn't put God to the test.

  Luke 4:12 NIV

  Jesus answered, “It is said: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the
  test.’ ”

Or is it?

  Isaiah 7:10-12

  10 Again the LORD spoke to Ahaz, 11 “Ask the LORD your God for a
  sign, whether in the deepest depths or in the highest heights.”

  12 But Ahaz said, “I will not ask; I will not put the LORD to the
  test.”

God clearly wanted Ahaz to ask him for the answer, but Ahaz assumed that this was a test. We know from other faithful people in the Bible that they all went to God and asked God for answers to their questions.

Where should we not test God and when/where is it ok to test Him?

The commandment against putting God to the test comes from Deuteronomy 6:16, as part of a series of instructions relating to loyalty to the one true God:

Do not put the Lord your God to the test as you tested him at Massah.

The reference to Massah is from the events of Exodus 17:1-7, also recounted in Numbers 20:1-13. This is the story where the Israelites have come out of Egypt, have been wandering in the desert, and are getting fed up with the harsh conditions and lack of water - they have lost their trust in God's promise. Moses, at God's command, strikes the rock with his staff to let out a stream of water. Exodus 7:7 explains: "He gave the place the names Massah and Meribah because of the Israelites' contentiousness and because they put the Lord to the test by saying, 'Is the Lord with us or not?'". 'Massah' means 'trial' and 'Meribah' means 'contention'.
The account in Numbers is a little more colourful.

There was no water for the community, so they banded together against Moses and Aaron. The people laid the blame on Moses. "We would rather have died," they said, "as our brothers died before the Lord! Why have you brought the Lord's community into this desert, for us and our livestock to die here? Why did you lead us out of Egypt, only to bring us to this wretched place? It is a place unfit sowing, it has no figs, no pomegranates, and there is not even water to drink!" (Nb 20:2-5)
The Lord then said to Moses and Aaron, "Because you did not believe that I could assert my holiness before the Israelites' eyes, you will not lead this assembly into the country which I am giving them." These were the Waters of Meribah, where the Israelites laid the blame on the Lord and where, by their means, he asserted his holiness. (Nb 20:12-13)

This context shows that 'putting God to the test' is strongly connected to one of the major themes of the exodus - that despite God's continual promises, people are still doubtful, resentful, unsatisfied, and disobedient. We demand more and more evidence of God's love for us (sweetening the foul water, raining manna, making water spring from the rock, ...) rather than  accepting and returning it. This is what is going on in the passage from Luke - the devil is suggesting that God's unconditional love is a resource to be exploited.
The statement of Ahaz in Isaiah 7:12 should be seen in the context of his reign, which is described in 2 Kings 16.

[Ahaz] did not do what the Lord his God regards as right, as his ancestor David had done. He followed the example of the kings of Israel, even causing his son to pass through the fire of sacrifice, also copying the disgusting practices of the nations whom the Lord had dispossessed for the Israelites. (2 Kings 16:2-3)

Ahaz was no true follower of God. As a king, besieged by Razon and Pekah (2 Kings 16:5 and Isaiah 7:1), his response was to offer his kingdom as a vassal state to Assyria. He sent treasures from the Temple to Assyria's king (2 Kings 16:8), and made other changes to the Temple structure (16:17-18).
The New Jerusalem Bible has this to say in a footnote to Isaiah 7:7-9 :

For the prophets, faith is not so much a theoretical belief in the existence and uniqueness of God as an attitude of confidence based on God's choice of Israel: he has chosen Israel, he is Israel's God, he alone has the power to save his people. This unconditional trust, a guarantee of salvation, excludes all reliance not only on human beings but still more on false gods.

So when Ahaz says, "I will not put God to the test," he is showing a lack of faith in God. He would rather trust in the mighty Assyrian empire, or in foreign gods, than accept the sign that God has just promised to give him. God demonstrates his patient love yet again by giving the sign anyway - a young woman (or virgin) is "with child and will give birth to a son whom she will call Immanuel" (Isaiah 7:14).


In Catholic theology is Yehovah the Father or all three persons? When reading the Hebrew scriptures and one encounters a reference to Yehovah, does that map in the NT to the Father? Or to the Father, Son and Holy Ghost? For example, in this passage can we be certain that the "I" is the Father? Or could it be all three persons?

  English Standard Version
  Exodus 3:7 Then the LORD said, “I have surely seen the
  affliction of my people who are in Egypt and have heard their cry
  because of their taskmasters. I know their sufferings,

Since יהוה or "He who is" (the name which St. Thomas Aquinas, the 'Angelic Teacher' of the Church, arrives at by logic as the only apt name for the kind of Creator we must needs acknowledge as responsible for creation) can only refer to the Eternal Creator, it must mean the Divine Nature and as such can be used of the Father, the Son, or the Holy Ghost equally.
Since the Fourth Lateran Council states:

Fourth Lateran Council, Canon 2.
...there is one supreme entity, incomprehensible and ineffable, which is truly Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, together (simul) three persons and each one of them singly. And thus in God there is only trinity, not quaternity,1 because each of the three persons is that entity, namely, substance, essense, or divine nature, which alone is the principle of the universe and besides which there is no other.
...
thus the Father and Son as well as the Holy Ghost proceeding from both are the same entity.

Without question "divine nature," "one supreme entity...alone the principle of the universe" etc. corresponds to "the one who is"  (יהוה) and thus all three Persons are equally and rightly called יהוה.
As far as early Church Fathers go, they variously interpret certain passages where God (יהוה) speaks to be either the Father or the Son or Holy Ghost. A good example is this passage from St. Justin:

Justin Martyr, First Apology, 37-39
And that this too may be clear to you, there were spoken from the person of the Father through Isaiah the Prophet, the following words: "The ox knows his owner, and the ass his master's crib; but Israel does not know, and My people has not understood. Woe, sinful nation, a people full of sins, a wicked seed, children that are transgressors, you have forsaken the Lord." And again elsewhere, when the same prophet speaks in like manner from the person of the Father, "What is the house that you will build for Me? Says the Lord. The heaven is My throne, and the earth is My footstool." Isaiah 66:1 And again, in another place, "Your new moons and your sabbaths My soul hates; and the great day of the fast and of ceasing from labour I cannot away with; nor, if you come to be seen of Me, will I hear you: your hands are full of blood; and if you bring fine flour, incense, it is abomination unto Me: the fat of lambs and the blood of bulls I do not desire. For who has required this at your hands? But loose every bond of wickedness, tear asunder the tight knots of violent contracts, cover the houseless and naked, deal your bread to the hungry." Isaiah 1:14, Isaiah 58:6 What kind of things are taught through the prophets from [the person of] God, you can now perceive.
And when the Spirit of prophecy speaks from the person of Christ, the utterances are of this sort: "I have spread out My hands to a disobedient and gainsaying people, to those who walk in a way that is not good." Isaiah 65:2 And again: "I gave My back to the scourges, and My cheeks to the buffetings; I turned not away My face from the shame of spittings; and the Lord was My helper: therefore was I not confounded: but I set My face as a firm rock; and I knew that I should not be ashamed, for He is near that justifies Me." Isaiah 50:6 And again, when He says, "They cast lots upon My vesture, and pierced My hands and My feet. And I lay down and slept, and rose again, because the Lord sustained Me." And again, when He says, "They spoke with their lips, they wagged the head, saying, Let Him deliver Himself." And that all these things happened to Christ at the hands of the Jews, you can ascertain. For when He was crucified, they did shoot out the lip, and wagged their heads, saying, "Let Him who raised the dead save Himself." Matthew 27:39
And when the Spirit of prophecy speaks as predicting things that are to come to pass, He speaks in this way: "For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And He shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people; and they shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." Isaiah 2:3 And that it did so come to pass, we can convince you. For from Jerusalem there went out into the world, men, twelve in number, and these illiterate, of no ability in speaking: but by the power of God they proclaimed to every race of men that they were sent by Christ to teach to all the word of God; and we who formerly used to murder one another do not only now refrain from making war upon our enemies, but also, that we may not lie nor deceive our examiners, willingly die confessing Christ. For that saying, "The tongue has sworn but the mind is unsworn," might be imitated by us in this matter. But if the soldiers enrolled by you, and who have taken the military oath, prefer their allegiance to their own life, and parents, and country, and all kindred, though you can offer them nothing incorruptible, it were verily ridiculous if we, who earnestly long for incorruption, should not endure all things, in order to obtain what we desire from Him who is able to grant it.

1 In context, this is against the heretical notion that the Father (actually, and not only as a matter of speaking) 'has' the Divine Nature, which is then made 'other'—that there is Father, Son and Holy Ghost, which 'have' a fourth Thing, the Divine Nature.' No heretic actually worshiped a quadrinity, but the Council rightly rejected this as the obvious conclusion of the heretical understanding of the relationship between the Divine Nature and what it means that the Persons are that Nature.


Scriptural/theological reasoning for renaming: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob I understand the significance of God's renaming.  But I wonder if anyone has done any research as to why the writers of scripture (and consequently, Jews and Christians today) refer to AbraHAM (changed name), Isaac (never offered a new name) and then JACOB (the name BEFORE God changed it to Israel)?  You never hear "Abram, Isaac, and Jacob" and you rarely hear "Abraham, Isaac, and Israel." (Though there are a few instances as pointed out below.)  Why is Jacob not granted his new name when his covenant participation is referenced?  Even in Genesis, once Abram is renamed Abraham in Gen 17:5, he is never again referred to as Abram, but "Jacob" and "Israel" continue to be used almost interchangeably throughout the Genesis narrative.

Not simply looking for opinions, but rather if someone has had insight (possibly building upon the insight of others) that can shed light on this.  The theory has been posed that it could be as simple as avoiding confusion between Israel the nation and Israel the person - which is verifiable because it can be assumed that "Israel" was a people group even if Moses wrote the pentateuch with his own hand.

If no significant research has been done on this topic, I may endeavor to spend a few weeks/months on answering my own question because I do believe it is valid and I do believe it is appropriately a matter of scholarly research.

In his monograph entitled The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Dr. Richard D. Patterson observes that in the pivotal event in Israel's history when Elijah confronted the prophets of Baal on Mount Carmel, Elijah invoked the formulaic or motivic words you have drawn our attention to:

  “O Lord, God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, let it be known this day that you are God in Israel, that I am your servant, and that I have done all these things at your bidding. Answer me, O Lord, answer me, so that this people may know that you, O Lord, are God, and that you have turned their hearts back.”

Dr. Patterson then makes the following observations:

  God sent a fire that not only consumed the sacrifice, but
  the altar itself and everything surrounding it. The use of the
  patriarchal formula not only reminded the Israelites of who was their
  God, but also demonstrated that those who are faithful to the Lord
  could call upon him and have their prayers answered (cf. Ps. 102:1-2.
  James 5:16-18). It is noteworthy as well that in the formula utilized
  here the patriarchal name Israel occurs rather than Jacob. For like
  Jacob of old, the Israelites of Elijah’s time (i.e., during the reign
  of Ahab and his wife Jezebel) needed to hold fast to the Lord if they
  were to experience his favor and blessing (my emphasis).

In other words, if Dr. Patterson is correct, the Israelites as a nation, and at that point in their backslidden condition, needed to cling to the LORD just as Jacob did on the night the LORD appeared to him and wrestled with him. I suggest, therefore, that by implication Dr. Peterson is saying that Jacob as Jacob was a grasper of the heel of Esau (see Genesis 25:26), but Jacob as Israel was one who held on to God and would not let Him go until God blessed him. At that point, God changed his name from Jacob to Israel, meaning "one who has striven with God and man and prevailed" (Genesis 32:24-32).

On Mount Carmel, then, Elijah is in effect telling Israel to keep holding on to God if you truly want to experience the LORD's blessing and prevail over the priests of Baal.

As for the other appearances of the formula, "Abraham, Isaac, and Israel," I'll leave them to another person who chooses to build upon my modest foundation of an answer!


Trinitarian Christianity and Numbers 23:19 - Was Jesus a man? In a discussion about the trinity, I was asked about Numbers.  I was completely stumped.

Numbers 23:19

  God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he
  should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he
  spoken, and shall he not make it good?

"If Numbers says that God is not a man, how can Jesus be God?"  Is the question I was presented and I had no answer.

This is not a very good Trinitarian objection for a number of reasons. First, the incarnation occurred at a definite point in history. As the Nicene/Constantinopolitan creed states, "[He] was made man." At the point Numbers became canonical, the Son of God was not yet incarnate.

But perhaps more fundamentally, we should not read the Bible in a rigidly literal way that misses the effect of what is being said. It's pretty clear what the point of the statement is: God isn't like sinners. God isn't like you people who go back on your covenants and can't be trusted for your words because he is fundamentally different.

Christians often refer to the things that prompt us to sin as, "The World, the Flesh, and the Devil," but Jesus had literal flesh, he came into the literal world, and was tempted by the literal Devil and he never sinned. That's the problem with this form of literal reading. The "flesh" that prompts sin in humans is the fallen nature of humanity, but is unfallen and perfect in Jesus. The "world" is not the planet itself, but the system of fallen sinners who form a sinfully willing collective that drives people, places, and things towards brokenness and godlessness. And the Devil can only tempt by deception and suggestion, something that leaves fallen humanity vulnerable, but divine humanity (Jesus) triumphant.

To say God is not a man that he should lie, is not to deny that God became man in the person of Christ, but to deny that God is like man in his fallen state. The fallenness is implied just as it is when the Bible speaks of worldliness, fleshliness, and temptation from the Devil.


Was Jesus a Hindu saint and belong to the religion of Hinduism? I am from  India and in various newspapers and in different electronic medias, people are arguing that Jesus was a Hindu person. His religion was Hinduism. He was born in Kerala state of country India in a Brahman family.
Also,in one of  stack exchange sites, it is said that Jesus was an incarnate of Hindu God "Shiva"
So my simple question is that are these true stories or just  rumors?

It's quite possible that someone with a similar name was born in India at around that time, but this person is not Jesus as understood by Christianity.  Our understanding of the details of his life comes from the Gospels, the first four books of the New Testament, which make it clear that he was born in Bethlehem, a small village near the city of Jerusalem in Israel, to an observing Jewish family, who raised him as a Jew, and that he lived in the Roman-occupied lands of Palestine for the majority of his life.  It gives no indication that he ever headed east across Arabia, much less came anywhere near the Indian subcontinent, although he did send his disciples "into all the world"--which necessarily includes India--to preach the Gospel.

Simply put, any person not matching this description is a different person than the Jesus of Christianity.


Doing Good Deeds In the Sight of Others The Bible (NT) seems to have contrasting views on this.

Matthew 5:14 says:

  In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.

Ref.  http://biblehub.com/niv/matthew/5.htm

Whereas Matthew 6:2 says:

  “So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

Ref.  http://biblehub.com/niv/matthew/6.htm

I am not sure how to interpret these; what is the way?

Nice question! I think the key here is to look at the context. Both quotes are included in The Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7); both are spoken by Jesus and probably both were spoken on the same day.
Matthew 5
First the context. Jesus says (in Matthew 5:13-16):

‘You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.
‘You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.

I interpret this to mean we should be doing good deeds for other people because this will encourage them to glorify God. So our motivation is to help people to turn to God, not to bring glory to ourselves.
Matthew 6
Again the context; Jesus says (in Matthew 6:1-4):

‘Be careful not to practise your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.
‘So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honoured by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

This clarifies what I said above - the glory should not go to us. But note this is specifically talking about giving. If a number of people give to a church (or temple or synagogue, in this case), then the church can then in turn give to the needy. The recipients will then hopefully praise God, knowing only that this was given in His name but not knowing specifically by whom.
Giving can be anonymous in a way that other forms of light (eg visiting the sick or those in prison) are not.
Also, giving (like the things that follow in chapter 6: prayer and fasting) is between you and God - so only God needs to know about it.


Why do many orthodox pastors grow long hair? I've noticed that many of the orthodox pastors are with long hair. I believe it isn't just because but it has a religious background. What's the reason for that? Is it something wrong with short hair in the religion, if any?

Why do many orthodox pastors grow long hair?
I have noticed this even with Eastern Rite Catholic priests.
Igumen Luke explains it as follows:

Orthodox Christian piety begins in the Holy Tradition of the Old Testament. Our relationship to the Lord God, holiness, worship, and morality was formed in the ancient times of the Bible. At the time of the foundation of the priesthood the Lord gave the following commandments to the priests during periods of mourning, And ye shall not shave your head for the dead [a pagan practice] with a baldness on the top; and they shall not shave their beard... (Lev. 21:5), and to all men in general, Ye shall not make a round cutting of the hair of your head, nor disfigure your beard (Lev. 19:27). The significance of these commandments is to illustrate that the clergy are to devote themselves completely to serving the Lord. Laymen as well are called to a similar service though without the priestly functions. This out ward appearance as a commandment was repeated in the law given to the Nazarene, a razor shall not come upon his head, until the days be fulfilled which he vowed to the Lord: he shall be holy, cherishing the long hair of the head all the days of his vow to the Lord... (Numbers 6:5-6).
The significance of the Nazarene vow was a sign of God's power resting on the person who made it. To cut off the hair meant to cut off God's power as in the example of Samson (see Judges 16:17-19). The strength of these pious observances, transmitted to the New Testament Church, were observed without question till our present times of willfulness and the apostasy resulting from it. Why, one might ask, do those Orthodox clergymen, while rejecting the above pious ordinances about hair, continue to observe the custom of granting various head coverings to clergy, a practice which also has its roots in the ancient ordinances of the Old Testament (cf. Ex. 24:4-6) and the tradition of the early Church (see Fusebius and Epiphanius of Cyprus concerning the miters worn by the Apostles John and James)?
The Apostle Paul himself wore his hair long as we can conclude from the following passage where it is mentioned that "head bands," and "towels" touched to his body were placed on the sick to heal them. The "head bands" indicate the length of his hair (in accor dance with pious custom) which had to be tied back in order to keep it in place (cf. Acts 19:12). The historian Egezit writes that the Apostle James, the head of the church in Jerusalem, never cut his hair (Christian Reading, Feb. 1898, p.142, [in Russian]).
If the pious practice among clergy and laity in the Christian community was to follow the example of the Old Testament, how then are we to understand the words of Saint Paul to the Corinthians cited earlier (I Cor. 11:14)? Saint Paul in the cited passage is addressing men and woman who are praying (cf. I Cor. 11:3-4). His words in the above passages, as well as in other passages concerning head coverings (cf. I Cor. 11: 4-7), are directed to laymen, not clergy. In other passages Saint Paul makes an obvious distinction between the clerical and lay rank (cf. I Cor. 4:1, I Tim. 4:6, Col. 1:7, and others). He did not oppose the Old Testament ordinance in regard to hair and beards since, as we have noted above, he himself observed it, as did Our Lord Himself, Who is depicted on all occasions with long hair and beard as the Great High Priest of the new Christian priest hood.
In our passage noted previously, Both not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? (I Cor. 11:14) Saint Paul uses the Greek word for "hair." This particular word for hair designates hair as an a ornament (the notion of length being only secondary and suggested), differing from [Gr.] thrix (the anatomical or physical term for hair). Saint Paul's selection of words emphasizes his criticism of laymen wearing their hair in a stylized fashion, which was contrary to pious Jewish and Christian love of modesty. We note the same approach to hair as that of Saint Paul in the 96th canon of the Sixth Ecumenical Council where it states: "Those therefore who adorn and arrange their hair to the detri ment of those who see them, that is by cunningly devised intertwinings, and by this means put a bait in the way of unstable souls."
In another source, The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, we read the follow ing concerning the Old Testament practice: "To an extent, hair style was a matter of fashion, at least among the upper classes, who were particularly open to foreign [pagan] influence. Nevertheless, long hair appears to have been the rule among the Hebrews (cf. Ezek. 8:3), both men and women" (cf. Cant 4:1; 7:5). Thus we observe that cropped or stylized hair was the fashion among the pagans and not acceptable, especially among the Christian clergy from most ancient times up to our contemporary break with Holy Tradition. It is interesting to note that the fashion of cropped or stylized hair and shaved beards found its way into the Roman Catholic and Protestant worlds. So important had this pagan custom be come for Roman clergy by the 11th Century that it was listed among the reasons for the Anathema pronounced by Cardinal Humbert on July 15, 1054 against Patriarch Michael in Constantinople which precipitated the Western Church's final falling away from the Orthodox Church: "While wearing beards and long hair you [Eastern Orthodox] reject the bond of brotherhood with the Roman clergy, since they shave and cut their hair." -Concerning the Tradition of Long Hair Beards

St. Tikhon of Moscow
Custom of wearing long hair and beards is not universal nowadays.
Here is what the St. Tikhon of Moscow has to say on the subject matter:

St. Tikhon and Clerical Appearance
When Patriarch St. Tikhon was Bishop in America early this century, he ordered his clergy to shave and wear Western clerical dress. What does this say of your "traditional" dress?
We have seen only one directive attributed to St. Tikhon on this subject, and it by no means "orders" clergy in America under his jurisdiction to abandon traditional Orthodox dress and grooming. It is also well known that the late Father Georges Florovsky disputed the authenticity of this directive. Whatever the case, St. Tikhon did openly speak of a distinction between the "essentials" and "accidentals" of the Faith, allowing for a number of innovations, including some in clerical appearance. A distinction of the kind made by the Saint is atypical in Orthodoxy, wherein "externals" (matters of apparent accident) are thought to reflect and to be inseparable from an "internal" (or essential) reality. St. Tikhon of course embraced this principle, and his deviation from it merely entailed practical accommodations necessitated by difficulties facing the early Orthodox immigration to America. It is both dishonest and an insult to the Saint's memory that his use of justifiable oikonomia in what was then a relatively new mission is now invoked as a standard of Orthodox practice in a local Church that is more than two centuries old.

The following articles may be of interest to some:

The Question of Long Hair in Orthodox Christianity
Why Greek Orthodox Priests Have Beards

An icon of Jesus Christ Pantocrator from Macedonia, from the 14th Century showing him with unshorn hair and beard.
Most pictures, statues and icons have Our Lord as having long hair!


Is it wrong to consume alcohol? Possible Duplicate:
  How far is too far when it comes to drinking alcohol?

Most Christians agree that getting drunk is wrong, and there's even a question about getting tipsy.  But is it okay for Christians to consume alcohol at all?  I realize there are many views, and different (Christian) traditions and cultures have different takes on this question, so please provide Biblical (or other authoritative) evidence for your view.

No, it's drinking to excess that is wrong - Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit (Eph 5:17-19).

Then, one needs to define "excess".  Which is likely to more personal and will vary from believer to believer; one might draw the line at the legal limit for driving as a useful guideline.  It's widely recognized that a glass of red wine a day is healthful and beneficial.

Then there's the case of the wedding feast an Cana where Jesus made 120-180 gallons (455-680 liters) of wine - and not just any wine, but wine of superlative quality. I find the argument that Jesus created non-alcoholic wine to be tortuous, at best. Then, too, there's the comment about the normal practice of serving the best wine first and the worst last - because after drinking the better wine people are too inebriated to notice the poorer quality of the latter wine; that's a clear indication the that what they were referring to as the "best wine" contained alcohol.

There was wine at the Last Supper, and every Passover Jesus celebrated in his life.

And Paul instructs Timothy to "Stop drinking only water, and use a little wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses" (1 Timothy 5:22-24), probably because the alcohol in wine and the process of fermentation kills germs, where clean drinking water was harder to obtain.


How does the divine office compare between the different rites? I'm wondering how the liturgy of the hours looks different in different quarters of the church. When Byzantine Christians pray the Divine Office, how is it different to when Latin Christians pray the Divine Office? How about Copts? etc. What do they have in common and what is different between them?

If this question is too broad, please scope it to a comparison of only the Latin and Byzantine rites.

Commonalities between the Horologion (Eastern Divine Office) and the Divinum Officium (Roman Office):

Psalms are all found, that is assured.

Some differences between the Divinum Officium and the Horologion:

The Hours in the Eastern Church often are made up of a variety of different books. Whereas the Hours of the Roman Church can be used within a single book called the Roman Breviary, plus the Matins, usually separate, which contains the rest of the entire Sacred Scripture, papal homilies, and the Gospel.
The Psalter in the Byzantine Office is divided into 20 kathismata, where each is divided into three stases each. Whereas in the Roman Office, the psalms are distributed across the span of (not 3, but) 4 weeks in the Liturgium Horarum, and in a span of 1 week for the 1962 Divine Office and the pre-1955 Divine Office.
The rubrics of the timing of the recitation of the Hours differ between the Horologion and the Divinum Officium.

In the Horologion, The Ninth Hour, Vespers, and Compline (Apodeipnon) may be said in block before sunset, calling it the Evening Aggregate. The Midnight Office (Mesonyktikon), Othros(Matins), and the First Hour can be recited in the morning before sunrise. The Third Hour and the Sixth Hour are recited in the midday, calling it the Midday Aggregate.

In the Roman Office however, Matins is typically said with Lauds in the morning, then Vespers with Compline in the evening, then the person typically recites the other Hours--Prime, Terce, Sext, and None separately throughout the day. There are not much governing rubrics as to mind when the Hours may be recited, except that:

In the pre-1955 Office, Matins and Lauds may be anticipated as early as 2 PM before.
In the pre-1969 Office, Matins may be anticipated without Lauds in the evening after Compline of the Day
In the Liturgium Horarum, you can recite the Office of the Readings any time of the day.

The Canticles (Benedictus, Nunc Dimittis, Magnificat) are said in different Hours:

The Magnificat is said at Vespers in the Roman Office, meanwhile it is said in Matins in the Eastern Offices
Benedictus is not sung as a canticle in the Eastern Office, but it is the Gospel reading for Matins and the Divine Liturgy on the Feast Day of the Nativity of John the Baptist (June 24). It is a Canticle however, at Lauds
Nunc Dimittis is sung every Compline in the Roman Office, whereas in the Eastern Offices it is sung at Vespers.

The differences in the Divine Office between the two churches are vast; depending on the version of the Offices in question, the liturgical season, day, religious orders, and even the number and status of the participants.


Why do Premillennialists teach the 1,000 year reign of Christ will take place on Earth? Revelation 20 [1] mentions a special 1,000 year period commonly referred to as the Millennial Reign. That chapter also mentions of an angel coming down from heaven. However, the Holy City does not come down until Revelation 21 [2]. It makes me wonder if the Millennial Reign will take place in Heaven. The main reasons are:

There is no mention of Millennial Reign taking place on earth.
Where would the Millennial Reign be on earth if the Holy City has not landed on earth until Revelation 21.

But Premillennialists teach that this Millennial Reign will take place on earth. What is the Biblical or theological basis for their teaching?

[1] Revelation 20:1 - 6 ESV
Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand
the key to the bottomless pita and a great chain. And he seized the
dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound
him for a thousand years, and threw him into the pit, and shut it and
sealed it over him, so that he might not deceive the nations any
longer, until the thousand years were ended. After that he must be
released for a little while. Then I saw thrones, and seated on them
were those to whom the authority to judge was committed. Also I saw
the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Yahusha
and for the word of Elohim, and those who had not worshiped the beast
or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their
hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.
The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years
were ended. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is the
one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death
has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they
will reign with Him for a thousand years.

[2] Revelation 21:1 - 3 ESV
Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from Elohim, prepared as a bride adorned for her Husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of Elohim is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be His people, and Elohim Himself will be with them as their Elohim

There is no mention of Millennial Reign taking place on earth.

Not true.
When Christ returns, the tribulation will end and he will become King of Kings, here on Earth:

Blessed are the meek, For they shall inherit the earth. — Matthew 5:5

And have made us kings and priests to our God; And we shall reign on the earth.” — Revelation 5:10

The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever! — Revelation 11:15

The Old Testament contains many prophecies about the world to come, and it clearly takes place here on Earth.
At first many nations will refuse Christ's rule, but soon they will all come to accept it and cooperate with each other during the Millennium:

And it shall come to pass that everyone who is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the Feast of Tabernacles.
And it shall be that whichever of the families of the earth do not come up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, on them there will be no rain.
— Zechariah 14:16–17

He shall judge between the nations,
And rebuke many people;
They shall beat their swords into plowshares,
And their spears into pruning hooks;
Nation shall not lift up sword against nation,
Neither shall they learn war anymore.
— Isaiah 2:4

The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb,
The leopard shall lie down with the young goat,
The calf and the young lion and the fatling together;
And a little child shall lead them.
— Isaiah 11:6

In that day there will be a highway from Egypt to Assyria, and the Assyrian will come into Egypt and the Egyptian into Assyria, and the Egyptians will serve with the Assyrians.
— Isaiah 19:23

Would there be any need for plowing and pruning, or highways and rain, in Heaven?
Will there be wolves and leopards and lions? and children?

Where would the Millennial Reign be on earth if the Holy City has not landed on earth until Revelation 21.

The Millennial Reign will be over the entire earth (it's not clear why you would think otherwise).


What is the original appearance and sound of the Nicene Creed? There are numerous places on line where one can see the modern Greek text of the creed and hear it read.  I would like to know how differently the original 4th century text would appear in a contemporary manuscript, and how differently it would sound if verbalised by one of the original authors.

Disclaimer: I am neither linguist or a Greek.

Since Koine Greek was used in that era, you could compare it with the current language rules.

There are two versions: Creed of 325
and Constantinople Creed of 381
so you are probably looking for original version.

Original (325) Greek version:

  Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα Θεὸν Πατέρα παντοκράτορα
      πάντων ὁρατῶν τε καὶ ἀοράτων ποιητήν·
      καὶ εἰς ἕνα Κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν
      τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ,
      γεννηθέντα ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς μονογενῆ
      τουτέστιν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Πατρος
      Θεὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ,
      Φῶς ἐκ Φωτός,
      Θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ,
      γεννηθέντα, οὐ ποιηθέντα,
      ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί,
      δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο
      τά τε ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ καὶ τὰ ἐν τῇ γῇ,
      τὸν δι’ ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, καὶ
      διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν,
      κατελθόντα,
      καὶ σαρκωθέντα,
      καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα,
      παθόντα,
      καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ,
      ἀνελθόντα εἰς τοὺς οὐρανούς,
      ἐρχόμενον κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς.
      καὶ εἰς τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα.
      Τοὺς δὲ λέγοντας Ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν,
      καὶ Πρὶν γεννηθῆναι οὐκ ἦν,
      καὶ ὅτι Ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων εγένετο,
      ἢ Ἐξ ἑτέρας ὑποστάσεως ἢ οὐσιάς φάσκοντας εἶναι
      ἢ κτιστόν
      ἢ τρεπτόν
      ἢ ἀλλοιωτὸν τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ,
      τούτους ἀναθεματίζει ἡ ἁγία καθολικὴ καὶ ἀποστολικὴ ἐκκλησία.

English translation of the 325 version:

  We believe in one God,
      the Father almighty,
      maker of all things visible and invisible;
      And in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
      the Son of God,
      begotten from the Father, only begotten,
      that is, from the substance of the Father,
      God from God,
      light from light,
      true God from true God,
      begotten not made,
      of one substance with the Father,
      through Whom all things came into being,
      things in heaven and things on earth,
      Who because of us men and because of our salvation came down,
      and became incarnate
      and became man,
      and suffered,
      and rose again on the third day,
      and ascended to the heavens,
      and will come to judge the living and dead,
      And in the Holy Spirit.
      But as for those who say, There was when He was not,
      and, Before being born He was not,
      and that He came into existence out of nothing,
      or who assert that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or substance,
      or created,
      or is subject to alteration or change.
      - these the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes.

Here is comparison between 352 and 381 versions.

All I could find was this video claiming to be in Koine Greek: ΤΟ ΣΥΜΒΟΛΟΝ ΤΗΣ ΠΙΣΤΕΩΣ (The Symbol of Faith)


What is stopping Christians from having just one doctrine/interpretation? As far as I know, there is only one God, one Jesus, and one Holy Spirit, and they are ONE. But, what we have here is dozens of different doctrines (I'm not sure if "doctrine" is the right word for this). Catholics, Protestants, Mormons etc.

And, the driving force of understanding the Bible comes from the guidance of Holy Spirit. And the Bible of course is the best place to learn about God's will. Since there is only one Holy Spirit that is teaching us all,

Why can't we have a universal belief and practice? What creates this different bible interpretations from the spiritual point of view?
Is it possible to have just one universal doctrine/belief/practice?

The answer is "sin".  The only thing stopping us from having one doctrine is sin.  If sin didn't enter into the equation, we would agree.
God wants us to agree.

Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment. - 1 Corinthians 1:10

But because of sin, we don't agree.  Sin can be summarized as lust...

"In the last time there will be mockers, following after their own ungodly lusts." These are the ones who cause divisions, worldly-minded, devoid of the Spirit. - Jude 1:18-19

...and pride.

As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines  - 1 Timothy 1:3
For some men, straying from these things, have turned aside to fruitless discussion, wanting to be teachers of the Law, even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions.  - 1 Timothy 1:6-8

Example
Suppose I am doing ok financially, and I read a passage indicating that I should provide for my brothers who are in need, and for those who minister to me.  Buuut... something inside me tells me "Nah... that money is yours!  You worked hard for it.  Forget those lazy people... they can go get a job and make their own money!"  Well, such a person would be inclined to have a "different interpretation" of those passages I linked.
It's a sad reality... difficult to accept; difficult to consider a possibility in our own lives... but reality none the less.