Did St. Thomas Aquinas deny the Holy Spirit proceeds immediately from the Father alone? There have been many attempts from among both Catholic1 and Eastern Orthodox2 theologians to revisit the theology behind the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son in light of recent ecumenical dialogue in the past decades following the Second Vatican Council. One of the leading figure important in the dispute on the Latin theology of filioque is St. Thomas Aquinas, respected by both Catholics3 and Eastern Orthodox4.

Among the Latin fathers there are two school of thoughts on filioque:

Monarchical filioque is popularized by St. Anselm of Canterbury and Bl. Duns of Scotus. Whereby the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone is constituted to be principaliter and immediate while the procession through the Son is secondary and mediate.
Diarchical filioque is a popular view among neo-Thomists who reread the procession of the Holy Spirit to be identical from both the Father and the Son. There is no distinction in the procession itself, with the sole distinction is only in respect to the two spirators as they are distinct from one another.

While there is no dispute that Thomas was advancing St. Augustine's filioque, a disagreement in regards to whether or not his filioque is monarchical versus diarchical remain unresolved.  Which of these two camps did he fall into?

1 Rev. Dr. Christiaan Kappes the dean of Ss. Cyril and Methodius Metropolitan Seminary of Byzantine Catholic Church in Pittsburgh has been one among many who popularized a renewal of interest in the Thomist-Scotist debate on the filioque within Catholicism and on its impact on Catholic–Orthodox dialogue.

2 Dr. David Gilbert, an Eastern Orthodox scholar has been one among many who in the past decade is revisiting the Palamite solution on the theology behind the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son in terms of energetic procession.

3 Recognized as a Doctor of the Church in the Catholic Church.

4 Highly praised by Gennadius II Scholarius, a 15th century Greek Patriarch of Constantinople, a Byzantine Thomist, a prophet, and a saint venerated on August 25th in the Greek Orthodox church. "Would O excellent Thomas that you had not been born in the West. Then you would not have needed to defend the deviations of the church there ... you would have been as perfect in theology as you are in ethics." Oeuvres Complètes de Georges Scholarios, eds. Petit, Sidéridès, Jugie (Paris 1928–1936) vol VI, 1.

Before we are exploring whether or not St. Thomas of Aquinas deny the Holy Spirit proceeds immediately from the Father alone, firstly it is important to establish that by the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son no Catholics deny the Father alone to be the principaliter of the Holy Spirit. Any Catholics associated the Father together with the Son as the one principle of the Holy Spirit without denying that the Father alone is the principaliter1 while the Son is a principle2, a distinction developed by St. Augustine of Hippo.

Therefore, the Father alone is called author [of both the Son and theSpirit], even though the Son be called principle [of the Spirit] conceptually. [I]deo solus pater auctor dicitur, quamvis etiam filius principium dicatur notionaliter.
St. Thomas of Aquinas, Sentences I:d29:q1(a1).

There are two texts from Summa Theologia that we will be focusing primarily. The first one is from the first book on question 36 at article 2,

For when the Lord says, "No one knoweth the Son, but the Father," the idea of the Son knowing Himself is not excluded. So therefore when we say that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, even though it be added that He proceeds from the Father alone, the Son would not thereby be at all excluded.
St. Thomas of Aquinas, Summa Theologia, I:36:ii(a1).

In here we find a positive affirmation from the Angelic Doctor whereby there will not be any theological difficulty "even though it be added that [the Holy Spirit] proceeds from the Father alone." He is especially respected by his opponents particularly because he honor the interlocutors by representing them with their best arguments. He did this by showing that no contradiction can be found by those insisting that the Holy Spirit in a sense is eternally proceeding from the Father alone and in another sense to be from the Son as later will be shown to be clear.
To put to rest the two extremities among his interlocutors who emphasized the involvement of the Son in the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit at the expense of the sole monarchy of the Father and against those who attributed the procession from the Son in the economy alone to combat diarchy, Aquinas maintain an important distinction. A distinction that was introduced by Augustine to keep the involvement of the Son in the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit in balance with the sole monarchy of the Father who alone is the principaliter of the Holy Spirit. The second important text that explicitly address this distinction is from the same question 36 at article 3,

So, if we consider in the Father and the Son the power whereby the spirate (virtus qua spirant) the Holy Spirit, there is no mean (medium), for this is one and the same power (virtus est una et eadem). But if we consider the persons themselves spirating (spirantes), then, as the Holy Spirit proceeds both (communiter procedat) from the Father and from the Son, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father immediately (immediate), as from him, and mediately (mediate), as from the Son; and thus he is said to proceed from the Father through the Son (per filium), which has the same meaning.
ibid, ST, I:36:iii(a1).

In this second text, he addressed two important points. The first is the unity of father/son as the one spirator of their Holy Spirit. This is an important point that shows the unity not shared by father/spirit or son/spirit. This unity between the Father and the Son distinguishes the two from their Holy Spirit.3 At the Council of Florence the language "as from one principle" is a reflection of this unitive spiration from the Father and the Son, whereby the Holy Spirit is their Holy Spirit.
The second important point is the crux of the debate whereby he distinguished the immediate procession from the mediate. Had he has in mind that the procession from the Son is identical and in the same sense as from the Father, he would be enforcing the diarchical filioque or the eternal procession immediately from both. The mediation of the Son is a reflection to the fact that the Son is spirating His Spirit as He is receiving Him from the Father, or in another way to see it is that the Father is begetting the Son in order to send His Spirit to rest in the Son. Hence, the spiration of the Holy Spirit is not an after thought but rather inherent in the generation of the Son that He is being begetting so that through the mediation of the Son in that generation the Holy Spirit also proceeding in Him.
To remove any possible misrepresentation or misinterpretation on the doctrine of filioque, St. John Paul II in 1995 commissioned Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity to release an authoritative magisterial statement:

On the basis of Jn. 15:26, this Symbol confesses the Spirit "to ek tou Patros ekporeuomenon" ("who takes his origin from the Father"). The Father alone is the principle without principle (arche anarchos) of the two other persons of the Trinity, the sole source (peghe) of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit, therefore, takes his origin from the Father alone (ek monou tou Patros) in a principal, proper, and immediate manner.
The Greek Fathers and the whole Christian Orient speak, in this regard, of the "Father's Monarchy," and the Western tradition, following St. Augustine, also confesses that the Holy Spirit takes his origin from the Father principaliter, that is, as principle (De Trinitate XV, 25, 47, P.L. 42, 1094-1095). In this sense, therefore, the two traditions recognize that the "monarchy of the Father" implies that the Father is the sole Trinitarian Cause (Aitia) or Principle (Principium) of the Son and the Holy Spirit.
This origin of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone as Principle of the whole Trinity is called ekporeusis by Greek tradition, following the Cappadocian Fathers. St. Gregory of Nazianzus, the Theologian, in fact, characterizes the Spirit's relationship of origin from the Father by the proper term ekporeusis, distinguishing it from that of procession (to proienai) which the Spirit has in common with the Son. "The Spirit is truly the Spirit proceeding (proion) from the Father, not by filiation, for it is not by generation, but by ekporeusis" (Discourse 39. 12, Sources chretiennes 358, p. 175). Even if St. Cyril of Alexandria happens at times to apply the verb ekporeusthai to the Son's relationship of origin from the Father, he never uses it for the relationship of the Spirit to the Son (c.f. Commentary on St. John, X, 2, P.G. 74, 910D; Ep 55, P.G. 77, 316D, etc.). Even for St. Cyril, the term ekporeusis as distinct from the term "proceed" (proienai), can only characterize a relationship of origin to the principle without principle of the Trinity: the Father.
That is why the Orthodox Orient has always refused the formula to ek tou Patros kai tou Uiou ekporeuomenon [an unwisely proposed translation of "who proceeds from the Father and the Son"] and the Catholic Church has refused the addition kai tou Uiou [and the Son] to the formula ek to Patros ekporeumenon in the Greek text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol, even in its liturgical use by Latins. ...
The doctrine of the Filioque must be understood and presented by the Catholic Church in such a way that it cannot appear to contradict the Monarchy of the Father nor the fact that he is the sole origin (arche, aitia) of the ekporeusis of the Spirit. ...
We are presenting here the authentic doctrinal meaning of the Filioque on the basis of the Trinitarian faith of the Symbol professed by the second Ecumenical Council at Constantinople. We are giving this authoritative interpretation, while being aware of how inadequate human language is to express the ineffable mystery of the Holy Trinity, one God, a mystery which is beyond our words and our thoughts.
PCPCU, The Father as the Source of the Whole Trinity: The Procession of the Holy Spirit in Greek and Latin Traditions (1995). Emphasis by the authors.

In 2003 the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops published an addendum to earlier 1995 Clarification on the Doctrine of Filioque,

No clear record exists of the process by which the word Filioque was inserted into the Creed of 381 in the Christian West before the sixth century.  ... None of these writers, however, makes the Spirit’s mode of origin the object of special reflection; all are concerned, rather, to emphasize the equality of status of all three divine persons as God, and all acknowledge that the Father alone is the source of God’s eternal being. ...
Much of the difference between the early Latin and Greek traditions on this point is clearly due to the subtle difference of the Latin procedere from the Greek ekporeuesthai: as we have observed, the Spirit’s “coming forth” is designated in a more general sense by the Latin term, without the connotation of ultimate origin hinted at by the Greek. The Spirit’s “procession” from the Son, however, is conceived of in Latin theology as a somewhat different relationship from his “procession” from the Father, ...
[T]he Catholic Church, following a growing theological consensus, and in particular the statements made by Pope Paul VI, declare that the condemnation made at the Second Council of Lyons (1274) of those “who presume to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son” is no longer applicable.
USCCB, The Filioque: A Church Dividing Issue?: An Agreed Statement (2013).

Expanding upon its statement 'all acknowledge that the Father alone is the source of God’s eternal being,' it affirms that '[t]he Spirit’s “procession” from the Son, however, is conceived of in Latin theology as a somewhat different relationship from his “procession” from the Father.'
In regards to Medieval fathers, Dennis Ngien wrote:

Thus the filioque, far from dividing the Godhead into two separate sources, safeguards its fundamental unity. Even though the Spirit does not proceed from the Son in the same way as from the Father, it is vitally necessary that we name the Father and the Son together in affirming his procession; otherwise we might exclude the Spirit from the ontologically fundamental unity.
Dennis Ngien, Apologetic for Filioque in Medieval Theology, 31-2.

While there is only one spiration the procession is differentiated between immediate from the source and mediate through the channel, similar to how water propagate from the fountain through the river.4 St. Anselm of Canterbury says:

The Son and the Holy Spirit have their being from the Father—but each in a different way: one by generation, the other by procession, so that they are thus distinct from one another. ... For even if for no other reason were the Son and the Holy Spirit distinct, this alone would suffice.
St. Anselm of Canterbury, De Processione Spiritus Sancti, I

1 The Father as the principle without principle in Latin is principium non de principio.
2 The Son is a principle from the principle, in Latin is principium de principio.
3 Because the Holy Spirit does not have the property to spirate, He has no paternal/filial namesake but rather called as a neuter common to the Father and the Son as their Holy Spirit.
4 Ss. John of Damascus and Anselm of Canterbury illustrated the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son with an analogy of water flow from the spring through the river to the lake.

Did St. Thomas of Aquinas deny the Holy Spirit proceeds immediately from the Father alone?
The answer is No.
St.Thomas Aquinas understanding is more focus on the Gifts of the Holy Spirit that will defined it's role on every mankind. It is somehow distinguished as the Holy Spirit that proceeded from  the "Love of the Father and the Son from eternity". And the Holy Spirit that proceeded from the First Act of Mediation of the God-Man Jesus to the Abba Father.
A good way to understand St.Thomas understanding of the Holy Spirit is his teaching on the Gifts of the Holy Spirit. Link below is St.Thomas articles related to the Holy Spirit as the Gifts poured into humanity.

The Gifts of the Holy Spirit according to Thomas Aquinas
https://www.pathsoflove.com/blog/2008/11/gifts-of-the-holy-spirit-in-aquinas/

From here lies the distinction of the East & West understanding. They are both correct that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone but the West taking into consideration of John14:16 passages spells out the distinction. We are going to unearth the deep mystery hidden in John14:16. Let's ponder..

"And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— (John14:16)

We can see here Jesus the God-Man the Incarnated Logos and not the "LOGOS the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity" who exist in eternity are the one requesting or Mediating to the Father. This is the First Act of the God-Man Jesus when He enters the Glory of Heaven. The Abba Father hearing the request of the now Mediator between God and Man hears His petition and now send the Holy Spirit. What type of Holy Spirit did the Abba Father had sent?
What is the difference of the Holy Spirit that descended unto Jesus in the Baptism in the Jordan and the Holy Spirit that proceeds from the prayer request of Jesus to the Abba Father?
The Holy Spirit that descended to Jesus soul since it was begotten not made is the Third Person of the Trinity the Infinite Holy Spirit because Jesus soul's was able to hold Her being co-substantial. The Holy Spirit anointed Jesus humanity to become the First Advocate.
On the other hand, Jesus prayer in John14:16 is also to send the Holy Spirit but this time the recipient are created human being with a finite soul and will not be able to hold the Infinite Holy Spirit in their soul. So, the Holy Spirit that proceeds from the Abba Father upon the request of the First Act of the Mediation of Jesus was described by St.John as has no authority on it's own, a mystery to unfold.

“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. He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you.  All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.” (John16:12-16)

The Holy Spirit that will descend to become the "another Advocate" and the "Spirit of Truth" has no authority.Also the intriguing part is that all the knowledge that the Spirit will possess will come from Jesus Himself and worst this Spirit will have to glorify Jesus the God-Man.Can we imagine the Holy Spirit who is equal with Jesus and the Father be described in a manner devoid of Power & Authority?
It's like Jesus the God-Man who emptied himself assuming the nature of man with Jesus humanity not possessing "omnipotence".The passage below described how Jesus omnipotence relied only on the revelation to him by God the Father.

Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. 24 Anyone who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.
25 “All this I have spoken while still with you. 26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. 27 Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid.
28 “You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. 29 I have told you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe.

In closing, the mystery here lies on the difference of Holy Spirit as the Love that proceeded  from Son the Second Person and the Abba Father in eternity. And the Holy Spirit that proceeded from the First Act of Mediation of the Jesus the Incarnated Logos and the Abba Father that speaks more of a Gift or a Role of the Holy Spirit.
This mystery is explained simply by the words of St.Alphosus Liguori a Doctor of the Church.

"In his eagerness to show you mercy, God has given His Son as your Advocate. And then to make your confidence even stronger.He has given you "another Advocate". who obtains thru Her prayers whatever She asks. Go to Mary and you will see salvation."

The mystery can be understood in Jesus Humanity possessing a Divine Soul and assumed humanity that can hold the Infinite Holy Spirit as co-substantial that took place in the Baptism in the Jordan. While in the Upper Room the recipient of the Holy Spirit are all finite creature in the Apostles & Disciples with the exception of the Blessed Virgin Mary who possessed a mysterious soul.
The Blessed Virgin Mary pure womb contained the Logos which the Highest Heavens cannot contained.

"The Highest Heavens cannot contained God whom She carried in Her pure womb." (Book of Kings)

Can the mysterious soul of Mary formed in the Eternal Realms of Most Holy Trinity hold the the Third Person the Holy Spirit infinitely? Where does the Holy Spirit resides in Mary?
The answer lies in Her Sorrowful & Immaculate Heart pierced with the Seven Swords.

"Wisdom has built her house; she has carved out her seven pillars."(Proverbs9:1)

To put it in a beautiful phrase on the reflections of this mystery;
Jesus the Begotten Son of the Father "assumed humanity" in descending from Heaven to earth while Mary the beloved daughter of the Abba Father "assumed divinity" in the proclaimed Church Dogma of the Assumption.
The "assumed humanity" of Christ had glorified the Handmaid of the Lord to possessed an "assumed divinity" crowned in Heaven as the Soveriegn Queen of Heaven & Earth. (Revelation12:1)


Why were Aaron and his son only ones eligible for being a Priest? In ancient times, the only people who were offered a chance to become the priest were Aaron and his sons.

Would not this be unfair? There might have been people who were better suited for the position. It has been shown throughout the Bible that sons of people with the position of priest were not always good (Eli's sons, Samuel's sons, etc.).

What was the reason for this strictness regarding the position of being the priest?

What was the reason for this strictness regarding the position of
  being the priest?

I have come to believe that most of the commandments from God have a logical backing. And one simply has to image herself being present in the situation and position of God to understand it.

Suppose you were setting up a software company. How would you go about hiring good programmers? The first thing might be to put an advertisement for people with a computer science degree. Now why this strictness about having a college degree? Though it is possible to find good programmers who don't have one, these cases are rare and exceptional. A degree though just a piece of paper shows that the person has put substantial time, effort and money in systematic study of the field. And since -

  Practice makes a [wo]man perfect.

Hence our strictness.

The Levites were a tribe that had a special job. They were not supposed to take up other professions like agriculture, metalworking or trading etc. Their life was made up of these things -

Recite and memorize the scriptures.
Give sermons and practice oratory skills
Meticulously copy manuscripts by hand and double-triple check them for copy errors.
Clean up and maintain the temple.
Coordinate social ceremonies and religious celebrations.

This is not to say that others could not excel in these things but that the probability was very less. Much less than in modern times because of these reasons -

There were no schools, no books and no internet to gain information not relevant to your profession.
Life was much more busy. Cooking food on coal fire, cleaning up the barn and walking to the next village took entire day. This left little time for independent research for pursuing your ideal profession.

Now put yourself in the situation. You are setting up a temple. What would your advertisement read? Why your strictness?

  Matthew 22:14 For many are eligible but few are qualified. (Monika's
  Translation)

never forget the same principle of dedicating the first born unto God. Besides Moses's argument with God, he wasn't the first born. Aaron was.

I always wondered why the seed of Moses weren't really in office until I thought so much about these three issues;

When Moses began ministry, his children were not only absent, being with Ziporah their Mum back in the wilderness, they were also very very young and could not have been committed with serious issues like the temple and spirituality.
God would never go against himself. The first born of thy seed shall thou dedicate unto me ... Moses wasn't the first born in that particular family. Although he got the calling, the office of the ministry should have been dedicated to the one for whom it was meant. The first born of course.
The third thing I've always wondered about was the long argument that Moses was so bold enough to have with God. There had to be some price to pay for that.

However, my number one reason seems most close to the reason God chose the seed of Aaron in preference. Moses had it by calling ... Reuben was first born though, but we should also not forget that there was a stigma to Reuben of going unto his father's couch.

Pretty much to learn from them that have gone before us.


What is the Biblical basis for a Heavenly Mother? We know that the Bible tells us of our Father in heaven, but is there any Biblical indication of a Mother in heaven?

Some non-mainstream churches say that there is a Mother in heaven. What is their Biblical basis for this belief?

In the Bible there are various mentions of goddesses and female idols worshipped by the pagan nations surrounding the Israelites—which, of course, are rejected as false gods.

By contrast, references to the God of the Israelites (which Christians see as the true God) are overwhelmingly male.

Still, there are a few passages scattered throughout the Bible that suggest or attribute to God female characteristics, including some that present God as a mother.

The first passage suggesting that God has female attributes occurs in the very first chapter of Genesis:

  So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. (Genesis 1:27)

In saying that God created humankind male and female in the image of God, this passage suggests that both male and female reflect the nature of God. In other words, this passage suggests that God encompasses both male and female qualities and characteristics, and that we humans get both our maleness and our femaleness from corresponding attributes of God. We are not merely created male and female by God, but created male and female in God's image.

Next, from the Psalms:

  As the eyes of servants look to the hand of their master, as the eyes of a maid to the hand of her mistress, so our eyes look to the Lord our God, until he has mercy upon us. (Psalm 123:2)

Here God is compared both to a master (male) and a mistress (female), to which servants look.

Next, from the Prophets:

  For thus says the Lord: . . . As a mother comforts her child, so I will comfort you; you shall be comforted in Jerusalem. (Isaiah 66:12–13)

Here the Lord speaks of being like a mother to the Israelites.

Next, from the Gospels:

  "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!" (Matthew 23:37)

See also the parallel passage in Luke 13:34.

Here Jesus, speaking from the perspective of his eternal divine nature, compares his desire to care for Jerusalem to a hen gathering her chicks under her wings. This is a clear example of God presented as a mother to God's children.

And finally, a somewhat obscure and surprising one from the book of Revelation:

  And I turned to see the voice that spoke with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden lampstands, and in the midst of the seven lampstands one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the feet and girt about the breasts with a golden girdle. (Revelation 1:12—13, italics added)

I am purposely using an old-fashioned translation (the Jubilee Bible) because it uses the word "breasts" rather than the now archaic word "paps" (meaning "nipples" or "breasts") used in the King James Version, or the word "chest" used in many modern translations.

The Greek word is μαστός (mastos). While this word can be used to mean a man's nipples, it is the usual Greek word for a woman's breasts. See, for example, Luke 11:27; 23:29.

There are more ordinary Greek words for "chest" that could have been used in Revelation 1:13.

One of them is κόλπος (kolpos), traditionally translated "bosom."

But the obvious word to use would be στῆθος (stēthos), traditionally translated "breast" (in the archaic sense of "chest"), and in modern translations as "chest." This, in fact, is the word used in a very similar passage later in Revelation:

  After this I looked, and the temple of the tent of witness in heaven was opened, and out of the temple came the seven angels with the seven plagues, robed in pure bright linen, with golden sashes across their chests. (Revelation 15:5-6, italics added)

The fact that in describing the figure of Christ in the vision the writer of Revelation did not use the more obvious and common word for "chest" that he used later in the very same book to describe the placement of sashes worn by angels, but instead used the word for the female breast or the male nipple, suggests that the figure of Christ in the vision conveyed to the person who saw and recorded it a sense of motherly nurturing and care, similar to Jesus' earlier image of God's care for Jerusalem as being like a hen gathering her chicks under her wings.

Conclusion

This is not an exhaustive list of female and motherly images of God in the Bible. A quick Internet search will turn up various lists of them. But these five examples should be enough to show that although God is overwhelmingly presented as a male figure in the Bible, there are places where the Bible speaks of God as being motherly, and having other female attributes.

There are four distinct Hebrew words in the Old Testament which are typically translated into the English word ‘God’ when the scripture is referring to God the Father. (see Strong’s Concordance)

The first example is the simple Hebrew word, ‘El’. The basic Hebrew rules of grammar identify this word as a singular, masculine title, meaning God or ‘Heavenly Father’. It occurs 213 times in the Old Testament.

The second example is the Hebrew word, ‘Eloah’, which is El joined with the suffix ‘oah’.  It occurs 57 times as the title of God in the Old Testament. Again referring to the basic rules of Hebrew grammar, a masculine noun is made feminine by attaching the ‘h’ sound using a suffix such as ‘oah’, ‘ah’, ‘oh’ or ‘ahh’ for example, and that is the way Eloah was formed. So following the basic rules, Eloah means 'Goddess’ or ‘Mother in Heaven’

The third example is the Aramaic form of the above Eloah, and appears as Elah or Elahh, and it occurs 79 times as the title of God in the Old Testament. As you can see, it was formed by adding a feminine suffix to the masculine root of the word God to form the word Goddess.

So why have these words been continually been recognized and translated only as the masculine God, rather than the feminine Goddess, which they were grammatically designated to be? Even the modern concordances regularly ignore the fact. However, it is interesting to note that when their true meaning is recognized to mean goddess, it is only when they are applied to the pagan goddesses. Perhaps it was a deliberate cover-up by the priestly scribes, who have been accused of being sexists, and who had taken control of the written records of the Hebrews during the Babylonian captivity.

We know that the first-century and later Christians believed in and wrote about a Heavenly Mother. Some thought she was the Virgin Mary, others that she was the Holy Spirit, others that she was a mysterious being known in scripture as Wisdom, and others that she was the Bride mentioned in Revelation 22.

Before continuing this discussion, we must consider the fourth example of the Hebrew word for God, which is ‘Elohiym’. This is a most interesting word, which most Hebrew scholars recognize to be the plural for Gods, as it ends with the masculine plural suffix ‘iym’.  However, notice the word to which it is attached, ‘Eloh’. According to basic rules of Hebrew grammar, this word is a feminized form, meaning ‘Goddess’.

Thus, a simple analysis of the word Elohiym, divided into its separate elements: 1. – El = God the Father; 2. - oh (feminine suffix) added to El = Eloh, our Heavenly Mother; 3. – iym (plural masculine suffix) added to Eloh = Elohym, both of our Heavenly Parents.
Now a perfect example of the logic and truth of the above analysis presents itself in the very first chapter of Genesis. In verses 26-27 we read, “And God [Elohiym] said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness . . . So God [Elohiym] created man  in his [their] own image, in the image of God created he [they] him; male and female created he [they] them.“

This context clearly demonstrates from the very first chapter of the entire Bible that Elohiym means more than one God, and that both a male and a female God are represented in that word. Leave it to the philosophies and the ‘wisdom’ of man to change the obvious meaning and then to invent the reasons why these simple truths are unacceptable. But there are other biblical sources which reveal and reinforce the reality of our Heavenly Mother.

For example, there is a hidden female deity known as Chokmah, who is spoken of in the Proverbs, particularly in chapter 8. There we are told that she has great wisdom to share with all who will seek her out. She is so wise, in fact, that her name, Chokmah, has now become synonymous with wisdom, the attribute, rather than the divine being whom she obviously seems to be. In fact many will say she is not a divine being, but only an aspect of God’s nature. However, when you read about Her in Proverbs she clearly describes Herself as a living, sentient Being. She also says she was God’s companion before He even began the creation of the earth. (Prov. 8:26-30), and that she loves to teach and guide His children. (vs. 31-35)

But perhaps her qualities as a Heavenly Mother are best displayer in Proverbs 1:20 to 2:2, where she is strongly represented as a compassionate feminine spirit-being that is a bearer of great knowledge and understanding, and is concerned for the ignorance and stubborn nature of man and where she continually offers to all mankind the safety of her wise words of counsel and invites her children to escape their destruction and desolation through hearkening to her words and understanding with their hearts, until it is everlastingly too late for the wicked to escape [emphasis is mine]:

1:20 “Wisdom [Chokmah] crieth without; she uttereth her voice in the streets: 1:21 She crieth in the chief place of concourse, in the openings of the gates: in the city she uttereth her words, saying, 1:22 How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge? 1:23 Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you. 1:24 Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded; 1:25 But ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof: 1:26 I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh; 1:27 When your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you. 1:28 Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me: 1:29 For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the LORD: 1:30 They would none of my counsel: they despised all my reproof. 1:31 Therefore shall they eat of the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own devices. 1:32 For the turning away of the simple shall slay them, and the prosperity of fools shall destroy them. 1:33 But whoso hearkeneth unto me shall dwell safely, and shall be quiet from fear of evil. 2:1 My son, if thou wilt receive my words, and hide my commandments with thee; 2:2 So that thou incline thine ear unto wisdom, and apply thine heart to understanding;"

These are certainly the words of a feeling, concerned, spirit female, even a Heavenly Mother.


Is creationism falsifiable? Falsifiability of a theory is an inherent possibility to prove it to be false. Which is a requirement in the field of scientific methodology for a theory to be regarded valuable. As by Karl Popper's "falsificationism", there is a problem of demarcation (distinguishing the scientific from the unscientific), which he solves exactly by introducing falsifiability as the demarcation criterion. So, anything not falsifiable can not be proven, and is therefore not even (scientifically) worth examining, and thus has no scientific value. As far as I can recall at the moment, creationism is NOT falsifiable??

A similar matter is Occam's Razor; which actually does seem to work in favor of creationism.

Does anyone have an answer on this?

Thoughtbox (Possibly second question): I'd say that God is prevailing through nature (i.e. it's creations) and thus all science or governing laws (thermodynamics, gravity, magnetism etc.) should lead us to learn about His Excellence. So, I'd say that we learn about Him, but to what extent does nature show His existence? That is, once his Existence is accepted, nature plays a very different role so as to reflect what God does and how He acts. But if not accepted, would nature lead to Him??

You're right, creationism, of whatever variety, is not scientifically falsifiable.

Creationists do not think this is a problem. In fact, they would say that all alternatives to creationism are equally unfalsifiable. The scientific method cannot test the past; it may be able to tell us what is possible, what is likely and what is unlikely, but it ultimately cannot confirm any theory about the past. This is especially the case for unique or miraculous events, such as the creation of the universe or Noah's flood.

Whether you believe creationism is falsifiable will entirely depend on how far you think God is prepared to go in order to fool you.

Consider a break in pool.  The cue ball hits the pack, and balls scatter everywhere.

Now suppose we have a blindfold on for the first two seconds.  Then someone starts a video for the next two seconds, whilst we keep the blindfold on.  Then we get to take the blindfold off.  At this point the balls are all still scooting around.  At the moment we take the blindfold off, we'd like to check how the balls are moving to predict where they'll all end up before they get there, and we'd like to use the same rules to work backwards to how the balls were originally racked.

Based on the evidence, and on some good experimental work with the physics of balls and cushions and table, you could rewind the movements of all the balls to the initial state of the cue ball at one end and the pack at the other end.  Or you could say that someone has independently started all the balls moving in their respective positions and velocities at that instant in time, and before that moment they were not moving at all.

The universe and creationism works the same way.  Yes, Young Earth creationism could be true - IF AND ONLY IF God manipulated every sub-atomic particle we are currently able to detect so that the resulting universe contained ample evidence that it went back a lot further.  It's like faking an antique on the scale of the universe. :)

The trouble is that either way the creationists are stuffed on the science front.  If you believe that God would do that, then your Young-Earth hypothesis is not falsifiable because God could literally do anything to make the universe look that way.  And if you don't believe that God would do that, then there is more than ample evidence (from Copernicus onwards) that every religion's creation myths are not historical fact, so the hypothesis is disproven.


What works do the LDS Church recognize as Scripture? I understand the LDS Church recognizes the Book of Mormon and the Old and New Testaments as well.

What other works are also considered Scripture?  Any Apocryphal works? Doctrines and Covenants?

What is considered scripture

The Standard Works

The LDS Church accepts 4 volumes as "standard works" of scripture:

The KJV Bible (minus Apocrypha)
The Book of Mormon
The Pearl of Great Price
The Doctrine and Covenants

Each book is esteemed basically equally with the others as pertaining to their scriptural value. Of course, Mormons will emphasize the Book of Mormon since that is the book which mainly sets the LDS religion apart from other Christian faiths.

See: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/standard-works

The inspired words of modern prophets

In addition to the standard works, Latter-day Saints acknowledge the inspired words of prophets and apostles since the Restoration began in about 1820 as the revealed word of God in our day.

Several Articles of Faith mention living prophets as God's spokesmen on the earth today, and their importance is reinforced with Biblical teachings by prophets like Amos, Jesus, Paul, and Moses.

Not everything prophets and apostles, seers and revelators, say might be scripture. They are human, and have candid moments as anyone would. So the LDS are careful to distinguish their opinions and other, non-authoritative statements from actual, prophetic teachings over the pulpit in, say, a General Conference.

Teachings of modern prophets are given considerable weight as they have the authority to reveal anew the will of God atop older revelations contained in ancient scriptures.

See: The current LDS Church leadership (general authorities)

Patriarchal blessings

Not all scripture is general, meaning, intended for everyone. In an abstract sense, any truly-God-inspired words are scripture. But that inspiration may have a narrow scope in some cases, applying to only an individual or a small group of people.

Patriarchal blessings are important instances in a Mormon's life, as these blessings contain their declaration of lineage and also inspired counsel from a patriarch, who can receive such revelation. These blessings become very personal and sacred scripture to individuals. They don't apply to everyone and aren't usually shared.

See: http://www.lds.org/topics/patriarchal-blessings

Official declarations (and similar)

There have been only two Official Declarations which are published in the Standard Works, but similar declarations, such as The Family and The Living Christ, are equally important. Many Mormons have one or both of these hanging on the walls of their home.

What is not necessarily considered scripture

These are likely to contain truth and may be cited reliably, but they are more like secondary sources, in that they draw upon more authoritative scripture from prophets or the standard works to lay their doctrinal foundation, or their main purpose is to edify and uplift, or inform: not necessarily declare doctrine.

These items may have truth in them, but any readings of these should be done carefully with the guidance of the Spirit to discern truth from error.

New doctrine/revelation for the church will never originate from these sources:

CES Devotionals
Speeches at BYU
Books written by general authorities (though these are often opinion)
Publications from the Maxwell Institute at BYU
Content on LDS Church websites (just because it's on lds.org, mormon.org, or mormonnewsroom.org, or others, doesn't mean it's scripture)
Things said by general authorities away from the pulpit
Talks by members of the Church in sacrament meetings
Scripture reference material
Student manuals
Scripture footnotes, chapter headings, approximate dates, etc.
The Apocrypha

It quickly becomes apparent that Mormons believe that God will reveal His truth in a very organized and specific way.

What is not at all considered scripture

Note that these also may not be affiliated with the LDS Church in any way.

The Journal of Discourses
Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR)
Wikipedia
Any secular publication or statement, esp. not by the LDS church
Videos / multimedia (scripture is written)

Have I missed anything?

The Journal of Discourses was considered "good as scripture" while they were published. See preface of vol. 3, "WE are privileged to present to the Saints and the world, the Third Volume of the containing the principles of the Gospel of salvation delivered to this generation through the Apostles and Prophets of the Most High, by the power of the Holy Ghost."

Consider: D&C 68:4
 4 And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.

Any living prophet must find his words in harmony with prophets of God in times past. To suggest that living prophets trump dead ones, does not bode well with the whole idea of "scripture". Is Isaiah to discounted because he is dead? Is Joseph Smith and Brigham Young less prophets now that they are dead? The problem is that these prophets said things under the spirit of prophecy that the modern Church finds uncomfortable. And, wants to distance its self from. These things include prophecy of coming apostacy amoung succeeding leaders of the Church.

Let me suggest that you pray for attendance of the Holy Ghost as you ponder the things that you study, that He may testify of its truthfulness. The same test that you use on the Book of Mormon applies to any other teaching of any other "Prophet".

That said, there are other books deemed authoritative by the Church. These include: "The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith"; "The Articles of Faith", by James Talmadge; his, "Jesus the Christ"; and "Gospel Doctrine" by Joseph F. Smith. On a lower tier of authority, accepted by many LDS, are "Doctrines of Salvation" by Joseph Fielding Smith; and "Mormon Doctrine" by Bruce R. McConkie. (Watch whether you read 1st or 2nd editions, depending on how conservative you are.) "Mormon Doctrine" has been denounced by the Church.


Was the Last Supper not the Passover meal? The accepted answer on How long was Jesus in the tomb? would only have been possible if the Last Supper was not the Passover meal, which I had always thought it was.  Was the Last Supper in fact not the Passover meal?

My new understanding of the Last Supper is mostly based on the information at http://www.therefinersfire.org/celebrating_passover.htm.
The key verses which indicate that Christ was actually crucified on the day before the Passover feast are John 18:28 and John 19:14.

John 18:28 NIV
Then the Jewish leaders took Jesus from Caiaphas to the palace of the Roman governor. By now it was early morning, and to avoid ceremonial uncleanness they did not enter the palace, because they wanted to be able to eat the Passover.
John 19:14 NIV
It was the day of Preparation of the Passover; it was about noon.
“Here is your king,” Pilate said to the Jews.

The day of preparation would be when they slaughter the Passover lamb, which would then be eaten that night.

No it wasn't. It was a meal converted into something new. The Gospel of John is correct and the Synoptics are wrong. In any case it wasn't possible to telescope all that happened in such a short time. By the way it was forbidden that the Sanhedrin meet at night!  The Orthodox have it right - not a Passover Seder (which is a post-70s invention anyway), and use leavened bread.


Are there any passages in Sacred Scripture that explicitly describe apocalyptic weather patterns? I've heard my whole life that one of the major signs to look for concerning the end of the world is that no one will be able to tell what season it is.

Most of my fundamentalist friends and family (especially my Southern Baptist Grandmother) assume that this "end-times prophecy" is biblical, and that it should be thrown right in there    with all the other "signs of the times."

I have made it all the way through the New Testament several times now and haven't noticed anything about strange seasons.

The closest thing I have noticed is in Matthew chapters 24 and 25, where Jesus is describing what will happen right before he returns.

  As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him
  privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, and what will
  be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”

  Jesus answered: “Watch out that no one deceives you. For many will
  come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Messiah,’ and will deceive many.
  You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are
  not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come.
  Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There
  will be famines and earthquakes in various places. All these are the
  beginning of birth pains. Matt. 24:3-8

  How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing
  mothers! Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the
  Sabbath. Matt. 24:19

  “Immediately after the distress of those days

  “‘the sun will be darkened,
      and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky,
      and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’  “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the
  earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of
  heaven, with power and great glory. Matt. 24:29-30

This question is prompted by a conversation I had the other day with some of my pastor friends. We are experiencing an unusually mild summer here in North Georgia, and during our conversation it was brought up that "in the end times you won't be able to tell what season it is."  I responded, "Ya know, I've heard that saying my whole life. Where is that in the Bible?"

No one had an answer.

Is anyone else familiar with this idea? Am I missing something? Where is this in the Bible?

If it is not, then where did this "end-times prophecy" originate?

The only passages that come to mind regarding weather patterns in the end times have to do with clouds:

  Joel 2:2  A day of darkness and of gloominess, a day of clouds and of
  thick darkness, as the morning spread upon the mountains: a great
  people and a strong; there hath not been ever the like, neither shall
  be any more after it, even to the years of many generations.

  Zep 1:14  The great day of the LORD is near, it is near, and hasteth
  greatly, even the voice of the day of the LORD: the mighty man shall
  cry there bitterly.  Zep 1:15  That day is a day of wrath, a day of
  trouble and distress, a day of wasteness and desolation, a day of
  darkness and gloominess, a day of clouds and thick darkness,

Is it the quantity of clouds? Will they be blacker than normal? We can expect unusual weather patterns when much of the earth's greenery is burnt ("The first angel sounded, and there followed hail and fire mingled with blood, and they were cast upon the earth: and the third part of trees was burnt up, and all green grass was burnt up" -- Rev. 8:7), the air is scorched, and smoke is everywhere. From what I've seen in my life on earth, dense smoke turns the sun red:

  Joel 2:30  And I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth,
  blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke.  Joel 2:31  The sun shall be
  turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and
  the terrible day of the LORD come.

The abundance of burning vegetation will surely cause crazy weather patterns.

You may want to consider that season can be interpreted as feast of God...ie. you can determine what is to take place per the convocation of the Feasts of Jehovah.  If people are under a strong delusion, which is an end time sign, they will not understand the Feasts... the information which Jehovah has appointed.  You may also want to study the Menorah and how the lamps correspond to the feasts.
These are perilous times, do not look to people for Godly answers. STUDY  to show YOURSELF approved and be lead by the HOLY SPIRIT which teaches ALL things.


According to Trinitarianism, is Jesus God Almighty? First of all I want a Trinitarian answer.

Is it proper to say that Jesus is God Almighty? The Scriptures are very clear but they (and the church fathers) are very clear that the Father is God Almighty and they never call Jesus "Almighty". I struggle to understand the doctrine of the Trinity...I know that the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God and they are distinct persons, but I struggle to understand how they can be "one being".

I see that the scriptures teach an economic trinity, that the Son comes from the Father, eternally being born of the Father and he shares his substance of being God. But the Son is not as Almighty as the Father since his will is fully dependent on the will of the Father, and his existence comes from the Father eternally. And the Holy Spirit comes from the Father and the Son eternally.
Is this an orthodox understanding of the trinity? And yet the problem is...how can the Father, Son and Holy Spirit be one God since they all come from the Almighty God, the Father?

Please don't call me a heretic...I am just trying to understand the truth. If someone can prove any other way of understanding the Trinity, in harmony with the Scriptures, I am open to change my understanding.
God bless!

EDIT : Tertullian :

  We, however, as we indeed always have done and more especially since we have been better instructed by the Paraclete, who leads men indeed into all truth, believe that there is one only God, but under the following dispensation [economy], as it is called, that this one only God has also a Son, His Word, who proceeded from Himself, by whom all things were  made, and without whom nothing was made. Him we believe to have been sent by the Father into the Virgin, and to have been born of her – being both Man and God, the Son of Man and the Son of God, and to have been called by the name of Jesus Christ; we believe Him to have suffered, died, and been buried, according to the Scriptures, and, after He had been raised again by the Father and taken back to heaven, to be sitting at the right hand of the Father, and that He will come to judge the quick and the dead; who sent also from heaven from the Father, according to His own promise, the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost. That this rule of faith has come down to us from the beginning of the gospel.”

From this I understand that the Father is the One True God (THE BEING of God) and he shares the same being to the Son and the Holy Spirit

Yes. Within the text of the “Athanasian Creed” is the following statement:

Similarly, the Father is Almighty (omnipotent); the Son is Almighty (omnipotent); [and] the Holy Spirit is Almighty (omnipotent). And yet, there are not three Almighties (omnipotents), but one Almighty (omnipotent).
Similiter omnipotens Pater, omnipotens Filius, omnipotens [et] Spiritus Sanctus. Et tamen non tres omnipotentes, sed unus omnipotens.

Where your confusion seems to lie is in Person. God is not three differing persons. God is three distinct Spirits in one.

John 4:23 and 24 KJV  But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

These words spoken by Jesus tells us that there is no part of God that is in any way material.

John 14:10 and 11 KJV  Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.

Although Jesus was a man; here he acknowledges that his works (miracles and such) are the works of the Spirit God. In more common terms Jesus is saying that all of his divinity is in the Spiritual Realm, and not of the man Jesus.
In the following verses Jesus tells us that the Spirit can be divided and even be a part of humans.

John 3:5 through 3:8 KJV  Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

In the Old Testament God is seen as one individual Spirit.

 Genesis 9:17 KJV  And God said unto Noah, This is the token of the covenant, which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth.
 Genesis 32:30 KJV  And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.

In the New Testament we find God is divided into the father and the son. This is more understandable if we consider an Apple pie. If we take one slice of the pie we have still one Apple pie, but now we can take a part of that apple pie away from the main part of the pie, but it does not become an Apple pie; and instead remains a part of that one Apple pie; except that now the Apple pie is now divided.
Jesus also told us that when he went away he would send a comforter.

John 14:16 KJV  And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

He said that, that comforter is the Holy Ghost (holy Spirit).

John 14:26 KJV  But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Just as the Apple pie can be cut into more than one piece, God the Spirit can be divided into more than one.
One more thing we need understand is that since God has no beginning and no end; likewise those divisions of the original Spirit also have no beginning and no end.
Although it is true that all three were there at the beginning, it appears that God was not divided then.

Genesis 1:2 KJV  And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Hope this helps.


According to the doctrine of Trinity, was Jesus always co-equal to the Father? So I'm trying to understand the Trinity.

I always thought of it like this: Jesus was 100% divine when he was with the Father. In other words, he was fully co-equal to the Father. Then, when he became a human being (on earth), he wasn't 100% divine, so he was not co-equal to the Father. In other words, he was part divine, part human (inferior to the father). And when he rose into the heavens (after the crucifixion and resurrection and everything), he became fully 100% divine again. So basically he's co-equal to the Father once again.

But that's how I always understood it. Does the Trinity support this view? According to the doctrine of Trinity, was Jesus always co-equal to the Father? Even during his lifetime on earth?

The Chalcedonian Definition (AD 451) was a key christological statement of the early church, and is respected throughout trinitarianism.  The first portion of the part relevant to this question emphasizes that Jesus is "truly God and truly man":

  Following, then, the holy Fathers, we all unanimously teach that our Lord Jesus Christ is to us One and the same Son, the Self-same Perfect in Godhead, the Self-same Perfect in Manhood; truly God and truly Man.

But perhaps his divinity was reduced?  The creed continues:

  [Jesus is] acknowledged in Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each Nature being preserved and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis; not as though He were parted or divided into Two Persons, but One and the Self-same Son and Only-begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ.

So no, your understanding is decidedly not trinitarian – Jesus was simultaneously 100% God and 100% man while on earth; his divinity was not compromised.

The Trinity is expressed best in 1 John 5:7. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Becoming the man Jesus He did not give up any of his attributes.
Philippians 2:6-8  Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.


Why is the The Nativity called "Christmas"? Why was the the Feast of the Nativity of Jesus called "Christmas" and not some other feast day of Jesus?  There are lots of other feast days that have more or less fallen by the wayside etymologically speaking (Michaelmas, Candlemas, etc...), but Christmas has succeeded as the English name of the celebration.

There are several other feast days for Jesus and one, namely the Feast of the Baptism of Jesus, would seem more appropriate as Christmas. Nativimas seems like it would have been a more appropriate name for the holiday.

Why is the Nativity called “Christmas”?

There is no clear cut source as to why the word "Christmas" became such a popular term at this time of the year than that of the "Nativity".

However there are a few hints as to why this came about. Let us take a look at the etymology of the word "Christmas" first.

  “Christmas” is an Old English word, constructed from the combination of two words, namely “Christ” and “Mass”. The first recorded Old English version of the phrase, “Crīstesmæsse,” dates back to 1038, but by the Middle Ages the term had already morphed into “Cristemasse;” a slightly more modern version of the phrase.

  The two separate parts of the word can be traced back to Greek, Hebrew and Latin origins. “Christ” comes from the Greek word “Khrīstos” (Χριστός) or “Crīst,” and there’s a lot of evidence to suggest that the Hebrew word “Māšîaḥ” (מָשִׁיחַ) or “Messiah,” which actually means “anointed,” has also played a considerable role in the construction of the first part of the word “Christmas.” The second part most probably comes from the Latin word, “Missa,” which refers directly to the celebration of the Eucharist. - Where does the word Christmas come from?

So, we can see that the word "Christmas" could actually mean the "Mass of the Anointed One", for that is what the word "Christ" truly implies and means in itself.

We must remember also that during the Middle Ages, Latin was more popular in the liturgical books of the day.

The fact that the English term for the Navivity of Our Lord Jesus Christ is called Christmas and not ""Nativitissimas" or something similar is due to the fact that the Church also celebrates the Nativity of Blessed Virgin Mary (September 8) and the Nativity of St. John the Baptist (June 24). There can not be three feasts called "Nativitatissimas'. That would just be too confusing to say the least.

The whole idea of calling the Nativity or Birth of our Lord Jesus Christ instead of Christmas reminds me of the solemn Proclamation of the Birth of Christ that one time was pronounced (sung/chanted) just before the Midnight Christmas Mass. It is with true love and moving faith to be able to remember this tradition where it still exists.

  The Proclamation of the Birth of Christ, Kalenda Proclamation, or Christmas Proclamation, is a chant sung before the Midnight Mass for Christmas in the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church. The long text is a timeline, in which each verse represents the years from an historical event, either secular or religious, until birth of Jesus Christ, and the number of years – expressed in centuries or years – decreases until the day of the first Christmas.

  Ceremonial

  Originating from the Roman Martyrology, traditionally read during the hour of Prime, the proclamation places the birth of Christ "within the context of salvation history."1 Prime was suppressed as part of the liturgical reforms following Vatican II, but Pope John Paul II restored the usage of the Proclamation during the 1980 Papal Christmas Midnight Mass. Since then, many parishes re-instituted the Proclamation as well.

  In the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, the Christmas Proclamation is chanted during Midnight Mass.

  Octavo Kalendas Januarii Luna N.
  Innumeris transactis saeculis a creatione mundi, quando in principio Deus creavit caelum et terram et hominem formavit ad imaginem suam; permultis etiam saeculis, ex quo post diluvium Altissimus in nubibus arcum posuerat, signum fœderis et pacis;
  a migratione Abrahæ, patris nostri in fide, de Ur Chaldæorum saeculo vigesimo primo;
  ab egressu populi Israël de Ægypto, Moyse duce, saeculo decimo tertio;
  ab unctione David in regem, anno circiter millesimo;
  hebdomada sexagesima quinta, juxta Danielis prophetiam;
  Olympiade centesima nonagesima quarta;
  ab Urbe condita anno septingentesimo quinquagesimo secundo;
  anno imperii Cæsaris Octaviani Augusti quadragesimo secundo;
  toto orbe in pace composito, Jesus Christus, æternus Deus æternique Patris Filius, mundum volens adventu suo piissimo consecrare, de Spiritu Sancto conceptus, novemque post conceptionem decursis mensibus, in Bethlehem Judæ nascitur ex Maria Virgine factus homo: Nativitas Domini nostri Jesu Christi secundum carnem. - Proclamation of the Birth of Christ

The Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh.

"Christmas" sounds so much better instead of "Nativitatimas" and it also keeps Christ in Christmas, just like Michaelmas keeps St. Michael in St. Michael's Day and Martinmas keeps St. Martin in St. Martin Day.

I subscribe to the minority opinion here that the Holiday originated first in Egypt, but since Alexandria and Rome have close ties what became Egyptian soon became what was Roman.
This sort of thing has happened before on other issues, Coptic Patriarch used the term "Pope' before the Patriarch of Rome used that term etc.   But it should be noted that the "mos" syllable being such a basic sound that is very much open for interpretation as it sounds like many words (especially Mass).

  Pharaoh of Egypt

  “And it came to pass the third day, which was PHARAOH'S BIRTHDAY, that he made a feast [BIRTHDAY PARTY] unto all his servants: and he lifted up the head of the chief butler and of the chief baker among his servants. And he restored the chief butler unto his butlership again; and he gave the cup into Pharaoh’s hand: but he hanged the chief baker: as Joseph had interpreted to them” (Genesis 40:20-22).

  When pharaohs were crowned in ancient Egypt they were considered to have transformed into gods. This divine promotion made their coronation date much more important than their birth into the world. Scholars have pointed to the Bible’s reference of a Pharaoh’s birthday as the earliest known mention of a birthday celebration (around 3,000 B.C.E.), but Egyptologist Dr. James Hoffmeier believes this is referencing the subject’s coronation date, since that would have been the Pharaoh’s “birth” as a god.

This Is Why You Get To Celebrate Your Birthday Every Year

The Romans however are widely credited for the celebration of birthdays among the everyday people if you do any study on the subject  (This includes the birth cakes tradition)  However, I believe the Coptsic Christians are the originators based on an entry speaking about Coptic, as well as the long established Egyptian tradition of celebrating deities and royalty (Christ qualifies as both).

  The origin of the word Christmas:

  According to the recent researches, it is proved that the word "Christmas" is of an ancient Egyptian origin. Where this word is consisting of two parts: Christ & mas; Christ is the Lord, but what is mas?

  Mas is an ancient Egyptian word means: to be born or Birth. The word is drawn in the Hieroglyphic language -the ancient Egyptian language-as follows:

Christmas in Egypt


How to answer "Why do evil and suffering exist?" I believe that evil exists because God gave us free will. Adam and Eve disobeyed God. Because of this The Fall of man happened and drew us away from God. Suffering exists not only because God can exert justice on the evil of the earth but also because God can grow people and bring them to greater revelation through suffering.

Is this a correct argument? If so how do I expand and support it to make a good response to a non-Christian who says something like:

I can't believe in a good God when there is evil and suffering in the world.

*Note my argument assumes a non-Christian who knows some of the basics of Christianity. To be clear, I intend for my question to be broad in the sense that a non-Christian also includes those of various other faiths and those that might not believe God exists.

This is called the problem of theodicy. The assumptions usually made in the problem statement are, with a little variance:

God is almighty and all-knowing
God does not want evil in the world
God is good

The problem goes on to state the fact that there is evil in the world, and claims a contradiction between the assumptions and this observation.

I see really no problem here. If just (1) was true, God could certainly do anything.
If (1) and (2) were true, there certainly would be no evil in the world. But if (3) were true, God would do only things that are good, regardless of whether He could.

Now we have (1), (2) and (3). God could do anything, but since He is good he will not do just anything. There's no contradiction. God could remove all evil, but that would not be good.

Up to that point it's all just logic. The reason that removing evil would not be good is more a matter of speculation. I suspect it has to do with free will: people are allowed to choose between good and evil, and removing the choice would be worse than the evil that ensues. This is just my speculation. God surely has His reasons.

Goodness doesn't always mean doing what is the most convenient to me. Quoting C.S. Lewis in A Grief Observed,

  What do people mean when they say, "I am not afraid of God because I know He is good"? Have they never even been to a dentist?

God is Breath Here are the verses that prove this

  God is Breath, and those who worship Him must worship in breath and truth. (John 4:24)

Error entered into the world with the knowledge of Function and Dysfunction

  but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die. (Genesis 2:17 NKJV)

Words of Perfection and Words of Error

  We are of God. He who knows God hears us; he who is not of God does not hear us. By this we know the breath of truth and the breath of error. (1 John 4:6)

Error creates suffering
What proof do I need? Just ask anyone who is suffering from a medical error, or a computer malfunction, all the way to the slightest mistake for a woman painting her nails.

With God there is no error he is perfect.

  As for God, His way is perfect; The word of the LORD is proven; He is a shield to all who trust in Him. (2 Sa 22:31 NKJV)

There is Evil and Suffering in the World Because we Sin

  And we believers also groan, even though we have the Holy Breath within us as a foretaste of future glory, for we long for our bodies to be released from sin and suffering. We, too, wait with eager hope for the day when God will give us our full rights as his adopted children, including the new bodies he has promised us. (Rom 8:23)

So Then Since You Do Not Like Sin Repent

  From that time Jesus began to preach and to say, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Mat 4:17)

The Kingdom of Perfection!
That will be so sweet!


Christian denominations that view Jesus as a human moral teacher? Are there any current Christian denominations that view Jesus as a human moral teacher, rather than as the supernatural Son of God?  I am looking for specific examples of denominations that state this viewpoint (or some variation) as part of their creed.

Unitarian Universalists maintain the Jesus was only a man, but with a unique relationship to God. Unitarians makeup the majority of a sect of Christianity known as nontrinitarianism. Nontrinitarians reject many parts of christian doctrine that other sects find essential. The most notably difference is their rejection of the concept of the Holy Trinity, the idea that God, the Holy Spirit, and Jesus Christ are all equal parts to a whole. This rejection of the trinity leads to the belief that Jesus was not supernatural but only a great prophet. Other belief systems that maintain this are:  Christadelphians, Christian Scientists, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Dawn Bible Students, Friends General Conference, Iglesia ni Cristo, Jehovah's Witnesses, Living Church of God, Oneness Pentecostals, Members Church of God International, and the United Church of God. Islam and the sects of several sects of Judaism maintain the Jesus was only a great prophet as well.

I think people or community or denomination can't call themselves as "Christian" if they were considering Jesus as a human moral teacher, rather than as the supernatural Son of God.
Still there are a lot of communities sharing that viewpoint and sometimes are considered to be "Christian" although they are not "Christian" like Jehovah's Witnesses or early (or later) heresies.


According to Reformed Theology, how does omniscience relate to election? If before the creation, God had planned everything from A to Z of the life on the earth since it's created until the end of day and every life of each individual from A to Z since he/she was born until he/she dies and who is going to hell/heaven - then what does it mean "omniscience" ?

I mean, a movie maker - based on his scenario story, while he himself also as the actor in that movie, when he is about to start the making of the movie - before he show the story to other actors, isn't he can be called "omniscience" ?

I have tried something like this :
The movie maker there is more like a puppet master, how the other actors respond is staged by him.

For example : (before making of the movie)
In the scenario the movie maker WhatsApp actor-A : hi, where are you now  ?  Then he himself stage the respond from actor-A in WA : I'm in the kitchen now.

God is different. Before the creation, God did not stage actor-A's reply but He knows that actor-A will reply "I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid." after He ask "where are you ?".

if like that above - the problem to me is :
when trying to understand it in chronological order - it's still made me think that God doesn't know everything because (before the creation, in His plan) He has to know first that He himself is going to ask "where are you ?" to actor-A, after that then He know how will actor-A respond.

So, what does it mean "omniscience" actually ?

If I try to connect it with the Election doctrine (Predestination), where between A B C D E God elect B and D which automatically God knows that in the day of judgment A C and E will go to hell, B and D will go to heaven.... then this is more similar to my illustration of the movie maker.... which I think there's no need to have a term "God is omniscience" here, because as the movie maker staged that actor-A will bla3x, actor-B will blu3x at the end of the movie - it's the same thing where God staged B and D will go to heaven, A C and E will go to hell.

So, what does it mean "omniscience" and what is the important thing that "God is omniscience" according to the Calvinist ?

I've checked this site, and found a link which describe Omniscience :

  Furthermore God's omniscience is therefore not constrained to temporal
  thinking; he knows everything in the present. He has no conflict with
  what will happen in the future, and the future does not limit him,
  because for him there is no future - all of existence is now.

  God's choices happen in the eternal-present and in no way limit him
  because they are made according to his perfect and infinite nature.

But still I can not understand what does it mean of those sentences.

What does it mean :
1. God omniscience is not constrained to temporal thinking
2. God knows everything in the present
3. God's choices happen in the eternal-present

How do people illustrate those 3 points above ?

First, it would be helpful to just define the term for the sake of clarity.  Omniscience means "all-knowing" and this is derived from "omni" which is a prefix taken from Latin meaning "all", and "scientia", from Latin for "knowledge."

According to many (perhaps most) Reformed theologians, God has foreknowledge of everything NOT because he somehow looks into the future and "sees" what man will do and acts in response; but He Himself has foreknowledge because He has decreed that certain things will come to pass: he does not decree (act in a certain way) because he foreknows, but He foreknows (knows prior to all human action) because he decrees.  He knew from the foundation of the world that the elect would be saved and the reprobate would be damned because He decreed that these things would come to pass.

Even though there has been some criticism about a supposed reconciliation between the two, it usually tends to lean toward Arminianism, and so Reformed thinkers have rightly refused any such efforts.  One Reformed thinker that holds this view (or some slight variation of it) would be Loraine Boettner:

  Foreordination in general cannot rest on foreknowledge; for only that
  which is certain can be foreknown, and only that which is
  predetermined can be certain.  The Almighty and all-sovereign ruler
  does not govern Himself on the basis of a foreknowledge of things
  which might haply come to pass.  Through the scriptures the divine
  foreknowledge is ever thought of as dependent on the divine purpose,
  and God foreknows only because He has pre-determined.  His
  foreknowledge is but a transcript of His will as to what shall come to
  pass in the future, and the course which the world takes under His
  providential control is but the execution of His all-embracing plan.  The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, 99.

Taking the controversial passage in Romans (8:29) that "those whom He foreknew, He predestined..." Calvinists interpret foreknew to be relational, that this indicated a special relationship between God and his elect:

  Calvinists contend that the passage teaches that God set His heart upon (i.e., foreknew) certain individual; these He predestined or marked out to be saved.  Notice that the text does not say that God knew something about particular individuals (that they would do this or that), but that God knew the individuals themselves: those whom He knew He predestined to be made like Christ.  The word "foreknew" as used here is thus understood to be equivalent to "foreloved"--those who were the objects of God's love He marked out for salvation. The Five Points of Calvinism, Steel, Quinn, Thomas. 158

Arminians take it on face value, meaning that even though God is active in influencing them to repentance, that it is a reference to God's knowledge of their future actions, and does not necessarily have any relation to God's action (or lack thereof) in bringing this about.  Prominent Arminian theologian says,

  ...all true Arminians believe in predestination, but not in Calvinist foreordination.  That is, they believe that God foreknows every person's ultimate and final decision regarding Jesus Christ, and on that basis God predestines people to salvation or damnation.  But Arminians do not believe God predetermines or preselects people for either heaven or hell apart from their free acts of accepting or resisting the grace of God. Arminian Theology, 180.

More could be said, but any further discussion would revolve around specific definitions of omniscience, debates about free-will, debates about future contingents, and attempted reconciliations of divine sovereignty and human freedom and the origin of sin/evil, of which last debate, Calvinists have generally fallen into two camps: the first, that we have no idea how the first sin (whether by Lucifer or Adam) came about.  R.C. Sproul held this view:

  We sin because we are sinners.  We were born with a sin nature.  But Adam and Eve were not created fallen.  They had no sin nature.  They were good creatures with a free will.  Yet they chose to sin.  Why?  I don't know.  Nor have I found anyone yet who does know.  In spite of this excruciating problem we must still affirm that God is not the author of sin.  Chosen by God, 31.

Second is that God did it but this in no way compromises His holiness since there is no standard to which God is subject.  Gordon Clark, a famous presuppositional Calvinist apologist held this view:

  God's causing a man to sin is not sin. There is no law, superior to God, which forbids him to decree sinful acts. Sin presupposes a law, for sin is lawlessness...the laws that God imposes on men do not apply to the divine nature.  Reason, Religion, and Revelation, 240.

In response to the 3 follow up questions about meaning:

God's omniscience is not retrained to temporal thinking: these aren't necessarily technical terms, but conservative Christian thinkers believe that God's knowledge is not limited by free actions (unless, like certain Calvinists, you don't believe in free actions or define freedom compatibilistically), and God's knowledge is not in any way imposed upon by the passage of time.  God does not learn anything new or come to believe something that He once believed false, or vice-versa.

God knows everything in the present: this is generally to say that God does not reflect upon any given event as past or future, but is aware of it as a present reality.  This is mostly to say that, again, God's omniscience is not restricted by the passage of time.  This also is a subject of much debate.

God's choices happen in the eternal-present: this is a rather crude metaphor for God's actions and their performance not being defined by our tensed descriptions of time.  To say "eternal-present" is like saying "every moment is now" which is a contradiction, which is why God is often described as transcending time, and so His actions are thus "outside" time.

This site - https://study.com/academy/lesson/omnipotent-omniscient-and-omnipresent-god-definition-lesson-quiz.html

..has this to say,

quote - "Omnipotent, God's power is infinite, or limitless.
        Omniscience means all-knowing."

One can be all knowing but still be allowing mankind's and people's choices to run their course. One can be all powerful and al-mighty and allow mankind, and people's doings and choices to run their course. Logically, one might do this in order to be teaching something.

Humanity is chewing the fruit of knowing (learning, understanding) good from evil.

Deuterononomy 30:19 says ".. I have set before you life and death.. therefore choose life" which seems to suggest life and death is the same as good and evil.

Calvinism believes God can save all but chooses some. Arminianism says God would save all (choose all) but cannot (due to man's will).

But here is what looks like a more complete comparison - https://www.whatchristianswanttoknow.com/what-are-the-main-differences-between-calvinism-and-arminianism/

Christian Universalism believes God can save all (Calvinism), and will (ultimately) choose and save all. Those called the elect, being ones chosen to come to the faith during this lifetime.

More on comparing the three - http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/partuniv.html
Quote - "All the various denominations of professing Christians may be classed under three heads: Calvinists, Arminians, and Universalists. A chart of the agreement and the difference in the religious opinions of these three classes on the most important doctrines of Christianity may be delineated as follows.."