There is an article coming from Archbishop Paglia, saying, **"For Catholics, who say that Judas is in hell, is a heresy."** [Vatican Official: It’s Heresy to say Judas is in Hell](https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/vatican-official-claims-its-heresy-to-say-judas-in-hell) When Ab. Paglia stated **"hell"** it means the **"real hell of the damned"**, the question is, was Judas really a damned soul and deserve to be put in real hell of the damned? Remember, when Judas died, he was not cast out in real hell of the damned but only in Hades or hell, a prison. Further reading of scriptures, we know that the Catholic Church teaches in **Catechism (CCC 632k-635)**, that Jesus descended into hell/Hades to preach the gospel. Contemplating the passages, we will see, that Judas encounter Jesus in hell or Hades. The next important question is, if we place ourselves in the shoes of Judas, will we approach Jesus to ask for forgiveness, for betraying him? Judas certainly repented in **Matthew 27:3-4**, with perfect contrition, as he first acknowledge his sins, regretted his sins, and return the money, completing the acts of perfect contrition. > Then Judas, his betrayer, seeing that Jesus had been condemned, deeply regretted what he had done. He returned the thirty pieces of silver* to the chief priests and elders, > saying, “I have sinned in betraying innocent blood.” They said, “What is that to us? Look to it yourself.” Jesus descended into hell where Judas was cast out, to preach the gospel and to offer God's mercy, on all souls including Judas. Did Jesus have a saving plan for Judas, why? Because, Jesus was the one who pushes Judas to commit the sins of betrayal, how? Jesus said to Judas, > What you are going to do, do quickly." (John 13:27) If Jesus commanded Judas to commit the sins of betrayal, knowing Judas will forever be torture in eternal hell, that would present a Jesus contradicting the Will of the Father, as the Father sent Jesus not to condemn but to save souls in John 3:17, and the Father desires all men be saved in 1 Timothy 2:4. If Jesus has no saving plan for Judas knowing he will be cast out into hell, then Jesus will contradict His very own words, as He said, **"I lay down my life for my friends"**, and Judas was a friend of Jesus, even after his betrayal. On the night of his arrest, Jesus called Judas **"friend"** despite of his acts of betrayal, and so, Jesus lay down His life also to save Judas, because He still a friend of Jesus. And for the second time, Jesus again commanded Judas to execute his plan of betrayal with a kiss. > Jesus responded by saying: "Friend, do what you are here to do." - Matthew 26:50 We can see that twice, Jesus commanded Judas to fulfill and execute his plan of betrayal, wouldn't this be inappropriate if Jesus could no longer save Judas, as it appears that Judas was condemn to hell because Jesus pushes him to do it, not just once but twice. Jesus could have said in the Last Supper, *"Judas I know your betrayal plan for me, you are my friend, and I don't want you to suffer the eternal fire in hell, please stay here, do not execute your betrayal, because if you do so, then I can no longer save you in hell..."* In view of the meditation or pondering of Judas fate and Jesus commands to Judas, is there any article supporting the minor view that Judas is in Heaven, because if the Catholic Church saw that anyone who say Judas is in hell, is a heresy, then, definitely, there's only one way for Judas, either he will be purge in purgatory after he accepted God's mercy offered by Jesus in hell, and it's over 2000 years now, Judas might have finish the purging now, and there's only one way up, but to Heaven. Judas is in Heaven now, because Jesus has a saving plan for him, that is in line with the Will of the Father, desiring all men be saved. And Jesus clearly said, > I have come not to do my own will but the Will of the Father who sent me. (John 6:38) **Is there any article written, seeing Judas is in Heaven now?**

Why were ousia and hypostasis synonymous in the Nicene Creed? ---- In the original 325 A.D. Nicene Creed, an anathema is included which has ousia and hypostasis as synonymous. In this case, the Trinity is one hypostasis ( = homoousios). >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*** (ὑποστάσεως ἢ οὐσιάς) or created, or is subject to alteration or change these the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes. Source: https://earlychurchtexts.com/public/creed_of_nicaea_325.htm It seems also the meaning of υποστασις in Hebrews 1:3. >He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his ***nature*** (υποστασις) (ESV). The ASV has "substance". However, in later centuries hypostasis began referring to the "person", not the "nature" or "being" of the Trinity. **Why did such change in definition occur?** It would be helpful to address the semantical development of υποστασις on how it changed from "substance" (nature/essence) to "person". >The Church confesses is that God is three Persons (hypostasis) in one Essence (ousia). Source: https://www.google.com.ph/amp/s/exploringthedepthsofthedivine.wordpress.com/2015/08/12/god-as-trinity-orthodox-trinitarianism/amp/

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

Science is supposed to be our observations that give an answer to the world around us. Since Darwin there have been many scientists who have sought to explain natural history through theories that exclude God, or limit His ability to create. If this is the case than psychologically couldn't we assume that their findings are biased? They often will point to the fact that since there are fossils that have been found with striking similarities, there must have been an evolutionary leap from one species to another. How can we justify this position since we can only observe the fossils, rather than first hand observation of the process? On top of this some Christians have adopted a position of theistic evolution. Again I would as how this is not contrary to this Biblical account? Why is this not considered a concession to the scientific community in an effort to appear more legitimate? If you start a study with the presupposition that there can be no supernatural causes you have automatically dismissed half of the argument. If you explanation for this is because supernatural theories are to difficult to believe you have missed the point of the word supernatural. Supernatural simply put means the cause of some event cannot be explained by a natural cause and thus since we cannot observe this would mean we might have a difficult time understanding it. Thus it might appear to be illogical, but when you observe it from a philosophical view it begins to make a bit more sense.

In light of ongoing global events—such as wars (e.g., the conflict involving Russia), geopolitical instability, and widespread moral and social upheaval—many Christians interpret these as signs that the “end times” are approaching. My questions are twofold: Imminence of Christ’s return: Within mainstream Christian theology, do these kinds of events meaningfully support the belief that Christ’s return is near? How have passages such as Matthew 24; Luke 21; 1 Thessalonians 5:1–6; and Revelation 6–16 traditionally been understood in relation to historical events versus recurring patterns throughout history? Christ’s presence before the Parousia: Is there any biblical basis for the idea that Christ is presently “walking the earth” prior to His return, possibly until all believe in Him as the Christ? How do texts like Matthew 28:20 (“I am with you always”), John 14–16 (the coming of the Holy Spirit), Acts 1:9–11, and Revelation 1:12–18 inform orthodox interpretations of Christ’s presence now versus His future, visible return? I am seeking answers grounded in Scripture and recognized Christian interpretive traditions (e.g., patristic, Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant), rather than speculative or purely contemporary prophetic claims.

In Genesis 12:10–20, during a famine, Abraham (Abram) goes to Egypt and tells Pharaoh that Sarah is his sister because he fears he will be killed on account of her beauty. Pharaoh takes her into his house, and God intervenes by sending plagues before she is returned. Later, in Genesis 20:1–18, Abraham again identifies Sarah as his sister while sojourning in Gerar. King Abimelech takes her, and God warns him in a dream, after which Sarah is restored to Abraham. Given that Abraham is later commended in Scripture as a model of faith (e.g., Romans 4; Hebrews 11), how should Christians understand these repeated episodes? What do these narratives teach about the relationship between fear and faith in a believer’s life?

> The Spirit immediately drove him out into the wilderness. And he > was in the wilderness forty days, being tempted by Satan. And he was > with the wild animals, and the angels were ministering to him. (ESV) > > Mark 1:12–13 In this verse, the Holy Spirit sent Jesus into the wilderness to be tempted by Satan. Given that Jesus was the Son of God, the Holy Spirit must have known that Jesus could withstand the temptation. Why did the Holy Spirit do that then?

> Romans 12:20 - "On the contrary: "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head." > > Proverbs 25:22 - "In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head, and the LORD will reward you." Do these two verses have the same contextual meaning or are Paul and the author of Proverbs saying different things? And what might the meaning be given their context?

### Background Zechariah 12:10 is cited in the New Testament as an explicit prophecy for Jesus's crucifixion by the Gospel of John: > These things occurred so that the scripture might be fulfilled, “None of his bones shall be broken.” And again another passage of scripture says, “**They will look on the one whom they have pierced**.” *John 19:36-37 (NRSV)* Christians through the ages cite Zechariah 12:10 as one of the clearest prophecies of Jesus's death, down to the details of him being pierced. However a close reading of Zechariah 12, starting just a few verses earlier seems to indicate more to the prophecy than simply someone being pierced: > On that day **the Lord will shield the inhabitants of Jerusalem** so that the feeblest among them on that day shall be like David, and the house of David shall be like God, like the angel of the Lord, at their head. > > And **on that day I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem**. > > **And I will pour out a spirit of compassion and supplication on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem so that, when they look on the one[a] whom they have pierced**, they shall mourn for him as one mourns for an only child and weep bitterly over him as one weeps over a firstborn. *Zechariah 12:8-10 (NRSV)* Critically this passage appears to promise that Jerusalem will be divinely protected, and that the nations who come against Jerusalem will be destroyed by God. This is extremely curious since Jerusalem was famously destroyed a few years after Jesus's death. ### Question How do Christians who believe Zechariah 12:10 applies to Jesus interpret Zechariah 12:8 and 9? Do they believe Jerusalem was miraculously protected in 33 CE and her enemies destroyed? What parts of this passage actually came true in Jesus's time?

I live in a country where the dominant religion is not Christianity and where adherents of all other religions are brutally persecuted. No one in real life knows that I believe in the Lord because I cannot tell anyone due to risk to my safety. The Bible is a dense book with a lot of chapters so even though I am an adult, the first book I read was 365 tales from the Bible written for children. It contained stories in Biblical order from both the Old and New Testaments [possibly [this one](https://archive.org/details/childrensbiblein00batc/page/4/mode/2up) , ed.]. I really liked those stories. But here I can't discuss my faith with anyone and my ethnic group is already persecuted. I have already lost many educational and employment opportunities because of it. **Can you please suggest several non-fiction books written in English / French or several authors writing about the Bible, Christianity, history of Christianity, and Testimonies by believers?** I shall be grateful.

Some modern day charismatic teachers exercise a kind of prophecy that seems very similar to non-Christian psychic readings or secular cold reading techniques. One example is Shawn Bolz prophesying , compared to Deren Brown explaining psychic readings . What Biblical support do these Christians give for calling these techniques prophecy, and what Biblical support do they give for practicing them? ------- *Closely Related To:* 1. https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/34214/what-is-the-biblical-basis-for-modern-day-prophets 1. https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/50899/what-is-the-biblical-basis-for-schools-of-prophecy-where-people-learn-to-pro

Is there anyone who can answer Yes, to the question, ***who is like God***? **Archangel Michael**: *Who is like God*? **Lucifer**: No, I can't be, because I am not created in the image of God. **Jesus Christ**: Yes, I am!, I am the visible image of the invisible God. > 15**The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.** 16For in Him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. All things were created through Him and for Him. - Collosians1:15-16 Is there anyone else, who can claim the ***"I am"***? > "God became man so that man shall became gods." - Athanasius Jesus said, you can do greater things that I am... > 11Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me—or at least believe on account of the works themselves. ***12Truly, truly, I tell you, whoever believes in Me will also do the works that I am doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.*** 13And I will do whatever you ask in My name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. - John14:11-13 We know that God like Jesus as His visible image, also God created mankind, male and female in His image and likeness. >27So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. - Genesis1:27 But we know, God is a Spirit, how then can a man claimed the **"I am"?** One Great Marian Saint named, St. Maximillian Kolbe was puzzled at the answer of the Lady saw by Bernadette in the known Lourdes apparition in the 19th century. The young Bernadette asked the Lady in her vision, *who are you?* The Lady answered, **"I am the Immaculate Conception"** St. Kolbe was puzzled by the answer because the word **"I am"** is divine in nature and in no way can be attributed to Our Lady. And so, if St. Michael asked again, ***who is like God?*** Can the Our Lady answered using the word ***"I am"***, can be seen, that She perfected the image and likeness of God in Her whole being, body mind and soul? Remember, the soul can be transform into a spirit, and since God is a Spirit, and anyone who can worship the Father in spirit and truth, had reached theosis or full divinization. *Here is the question:* **The question is: Can Our Lady, looking at Her holiness, righteousness and transformation as written in the bible, and extra-bibilical sources, can answer YES! to the question of St. Michael?** ***"I am"* the Immaculate Conception!** somehow can be seen, as high degree of holiness, as if Mary is seen here, as quasi-incarnating the Holy Spirit, as contemplated upon by St. Kolbe. And, the RCC is being attacked and criticized for over 500 years since the Reformation, as if the Catholic Church is elevating the holiness of Mary as the fourth member of the Holy Trinity. In closing, If Our Lady, the Blessed Virgin Mary, said the **"I am"**, is that somehow connected to why St. Gabriel bowed down to Her, and more events in Her life, leading to Her life, that can answer YES! to the question of *"Who is like God"?* Also, the question, by Protestant esp. the Bible Alone Believers, how can Mary hear all the prayer address to Her, is She a God, to hear all those supplications?

I went down a rabbit fox hole reading the original sermons of the founder of the Quakers (pun intended). I was not that familiar with George Fox and I found it very illuminating to read his works directly. He certainly had a lot to say about the "inner light". At first I just thought he was meaning the illumination of scripture by the Holy Spirit whereby our faith is lit and kindled. However as I kept reading different parts of his works he simply would not stop talking about this "inner light" and in fact barely talked about anything else. In the end, I grew to dislike the phrase. He also seemed quite envious of leaders in the other churches. But that’s just my initial impression. I began to realize it is not the illumination of scripture but something else that actually **put his mind in anger against the written word in some strange way** that is hard to pin down. The difficulty is that he correctly identified the difference between the inner life of a Christian as described in the scripture and the mere external form, but from there he amplified the difference into a much bigger issue and kept ranting about the "word" of scripture not being the Word (the Son), as though they can’t both be the Son in different senses. It is very difficult sometimes to read in between the lines to fully unravel the threads and I don’t have the time and have already lost interest to work out a fuller understanding. Does anyone actually know what George Fox meant by "inner light" and how it is different from the mainstream idea of the inspiration of the Holy Word and the illumination of the scripture by the Holy Spirit?

Here is the latest of many, many firmly Catholic websites highly recommending C. S. Lewis books more than Catholic classics! I saw this today under the heading "Spiritual Classics"(specific website to be anonymous). Confessions of St. Augustine by St. Augustine, Little Talks with God (modernized version of “The Dialogues”) by St. Catherine, City of God by St. Augustine, The Problem of Pain by C. S. Lewis, Dark Night of the Soul by St. John of the Cross, Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters by C. S. Lewis, The Everlasting Man by G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy by G. K. Chesterton, The Greatest Story Ever Told by Fulton Oursler, Meditations from a Simple Path by Mother Teresa, Interior Castle by St. Teresa of Avila, The Way of Perfection by St. Teresa of Avila, Story of a Soul by St. Therese of Lisieux, My Way of Life/Summa Theologica by St. Thomas Aquinas. Lewis received 3 recommendations when he is NOT Catholic! More recommendations than Augustine and Aquinas. Why would devout, educated Catholics subtly lead people **away** from Catholicism into Protestantism. Why?

Many Christians experience the manifestation of the Holy Spirit through spiritual gifts such as prophecy, tongues, healing, or teaching (cf. 1 Corinthians 12). My question is: If a believer has clearly received and exercised a gift of the Holy Spirit, does this mean they are assured of inheriting eternal life? Or is it still possible for someone to fall away despite having once been used by the Spirit in this way (cf. Matthew 7:21–23, Hebrews 6:4–6)? I am seeking answers from a Christian theological perspective, preferably with biblical support.

In response to this question https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1384/how-does-the-bible-explain-the-existence-of-fossils-that-are-millions-of-years-ol I'm curious to know if Dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible. I understand that the word *dinosaurs* wasn't invented until 1841. So obviously we won't find them by that name. Are there references to animals with the same characteristics as dinosaurs and just known by a different name?

> **Leviticus 11:7-8** (NIV) > > And the pig, though it has a split hoof completely divided, does not > chew the cud; it is unclean for you. You must not eat their meat or > touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you. > **Leviticus 11:11-12** > > And since you are to detest them, you must not eat their meat and you must detest their carcasses. Anything living in the water that does not have fins and scales is detestable to you. > **Leviticus 19:19** > > Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material. I haven't come across many Christians that campaign against the eating of bacon, the eating of lobsters or squid, or that refuse to wear clothes made of mixtures of cotton and wool. If a believer doesn't follow every instruction, how do they decide which to follow? *Note: I must credit the excellent book "The Philosophy Gym" by Stephen Law, from which these examples are taken*

Many Christians believe that the Archangel Michael is actually Jesus, most notably the Jehovah's Witnesses and Baptist preacher [Charles H. Spurgeon](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/63123/6071) . We have a question asking [for the Biblical basis for this belief](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/26253/6071) . This question asks: what is the Biblical basis **against** this belief, that Michael is not Jesus, but a separate angelic being?

Demographics-wise, **has the number of global Christians in communion with the Bishop of Rome** (called "Catholics" for convenience in this Q) **been always the majority in *every* generation since the church in Rome was established**, compared to the number of Christians of all ["Great Church"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Church)-compatible denominations? **Criteria for the accepted answer**: - References to scholarly estimates / reputable statistics are needed in the answer. - If the answer is no, then the statistics need to include a historic trend line with a point showing the years when the number lost majority. - If the answer is no, then please consider answering a related question of whether the "Catholic" percentage has always been greater than the percentages of other 4 major groups: Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Churches of the East + Nestorian Asian churches. ### Method of calculation and the rationale "Majority" is defined as more than 50% share of all Christians who subscribe to the key doctrines of the Great Church. The purpose for this answer is to figure out whether in light of post-Nicene schisms, **the numbers of adherents that remained in communion with Rome** from the time of the [Great Church](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Church) until today ("Great Church" understood as the mainstream that survived various pre-Nicene heresies) **can be interpreted to indicate that the Holy Spirit ***also*** assisted the ecclesial leadership of the Bishop of Rome by numerical strength**. That is why the criteria below excludes Christian movements that are outright incompatible with the key doctrines of the Great Church. This question may not be as straightforward to answer because at one point in the history of global Christianity, the Nestorian Eastern churches were very active in evangelism, widespread, numerous, and consisted of hundreds of bishoprics that mostly have perished and forgotten (except in the academia). See a fascinating 2009 book by historian Philip Jenkins [The Lost History of Christianity: The Thousand-Year Golden Age of the Church in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia--and How It Died](https://www.amazon.com/dp/0061472816) . ### Criteria for group inclusion **For the sake of identifying who **ARE** "Catholics"** (the numerator of the ratio): 1. The only criteria is **the number of Christians in full communion with the [Bishop of Rome](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope)** throughout history. In the modern period, a good starting point would be all the churches listed in the [Pontifical year book](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annuario_Pontificio) . 2. Protestant congregations who started afresh OR who broke communion with Rome (such as the [Church of England](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_England)) should *NOT* be counted. 3. Eastern Orthodox adherents are counted before the [1054 Great schism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East%E2%80%93West_Schism) , but not afterwards. 4. [Oriental orthodox churches](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriental_Orthodox_Churches) churches (such as the [Armenian Church](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Apostolic_Church)) are counted before they broke off from the Great Church. 5. [Eastern *Catholic* churches](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Catholic_Churches#List_of_Eastern_Catholic_churches) in communion with Rome (both Eastern / Oriental Orthodox) such as the [Armenian Catholic Church](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Catholic_Church) SHOULD be counted **starting at the year of their recognition by Rome**, so should ex-Protestant churches who are recognized by Rome such as parishes wishing to be part of [Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of Saint Peter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Ordinariate_of_the_Chair_of_Saint_Peter) . 6. [Church of the East](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_East) are counted, but not *after* the [Nestorian schism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestorian_schism) . 7. [Ancient churches in Asia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_Asia#Early_spread_in_Asia) (some of them Nestorian) are counted, but not after losing contact with the Great Church since after the AD 325 Nicene council. 8. Historic Arian factions (before 8th century) SHOULD be counted because (as far as I know) the centuries-long dispute was resolved without schism (see [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism#Struggles_with_orthodoxy)) . Similarly, during the 4th-5th century [Donatist controversy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donatism) Donatist dioceses should *also* be counted because (as far as I know) Rome never break communion with them (but *they* were the ones who broke from Rome because of their stricter doctrine). 9. A [rough historical schema](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Christian_denomination_tree) of the major schisms and reconciliations is shown below. **Only the solid gray and red lines are counted**, plus those not in the picture such as the Personal Ordinariate. 10. Christians who were forced to belong to a non-"Catholic" denomination or externally belong out of political / social expediency, should be counted **according to their external membership** for feasibility of demographics study, even though this makes the study imperfect. For example: - High church Anglicans or British Catholic sympathizers who chose to remain in the Church of England out of fear of political persecution between the [Act of Supremacy (1534)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Supremacy) and the creation of the [Apostolic Vicariate of England (1623)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Vicariate_of_England) should *NOT* be counted. - But Christians who chose to belong to the Vicariate after 1623, especially after the [Catholic Emancipation Act (1829)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Relief_Act_1829) , and those who moved to one of the 12 official Roman Catholic dioceses created after the [Restoration of the Catholic Hierarchy in England (1850)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universalis_Ecclesiae) SHOULD of course be counted in the numerator. **For the sake of identifying who **ARE** "Christians":** (the denominator of the ratio): 1. All of the numerator (Christians in full communion with either the Great Church or the Bishop of Rome) 2. All Nicene and Chalcedonian Protestants 3. All Eastern Orthodox churches 4. Historic [Non-Chalcedonian Christians](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Chalcedonian_Christianity) (such as [Coptics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coptic_Orthodox_Church) , [Syriac](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syriac_Christianity) , other Oriental Orthodox churches, [Nestorians](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestorianism) , etc.) who trace their roots to *before* c. AD 500 **ARE** included because: - they were *organic* schisms of the Great Church: they affirmed the common heritage except certain aspects of Christology - they never denied the divine hypostasis of Christ but disagreed only on the relation between the divine nature and the human nature of Christ (see [Christological comparison chart](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestorianism#/media/File:Christological_spectrum-o2p.svg)) - they baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit 5. Non-Nicene or non-Chalcedonian [restorationist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorationism) movements that started *after* c. AD 500 such as LDS, Jehovah's Witnesses, Unitarians, Oneness Pentecostals, are **NOT** included because unlike Protestants (who also started after AD 500), they repudiated the core beliefs of the Great Church in one or more of the following ways: - deny the orthodoxy of the Great Church by labelling it the "Great Apostasy" which they dated to happen very early (1st to early 2nd century): [LDS reason](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/the-restoration/the-great-apostasy?lang=eng) , [JW reason](https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101993005) - deny the divine hypostasis of Jesus (see the [Unitarian narrative](https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2017/08/02/once-upon-a-time-there-was-a-unitarian-god/)) - baptize [only in the name of Jesus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism_in_the_name_of_Jesus) ([Oneness Pentecostal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oneness_Pentecostalism#Baptismal_formula)) 6. Proto-Protestants such as the [Lollards](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lollardy) and the [Hussites](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussites) **ARE** included as they would have been part of the orthodoxy of the Great Church. They should *NOT* be counted in the numerator (when feasible). 7. Those who as a group were forced to convert to Christianity (thus subjectively do not identify as Christian), such as the plight of Spanish Jews between 1391 (or earlier) and 1492, (see [article here](https://www.pbs.org/wnet/exploring-hate/2022/07/26/expelled-from-spain-july-31-1492/)) are **NOT** included (when feasible), because their free will have been violated. Although I think it is safe to assume that were they to be included in either the numerator and/or the denominator, it would not change the majority ratio. ### Criteria for individual inclusion Considering [this congregation involvement statistics](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/16/church-involvement-varies-widely-among-u-s-christians/) (thanks to @OneGodTheFather for the discussion), **why are non-practicing Catholics included while the high-involvement JW/LDS members do not even count in the denominator**? This is because the purpose of this Q is to measure whether the Latin Church (later known as the Roman Catholic Church) has always been the church **which most orthodox Christians choose to teach the most "correct" doctrines** about Christianity compared to other valid descendants of the Great Church. The numbers should approximate the number of those who would answer "Yes" to this survey question: > Regardless of your level of faith in Jesus, your participation in church, the church in which you were baptized, how certain you are of the correctness of your church's doctrines, or the church you are attending (eg. if you are attending the church for family reason, not out of conviction), **which denomination would you *choose* as the one that teaches the most correct Christianity**? - Most non-practicing Catholics and C & E Catholics don't go to church more often out of laziness, backsliding, or agnosticism. They don't outright deny the authority of the Catholic church to teach the right doctrines even though they may not agree 100%. That is why they are *included* in the numerator. - Most non-practicing Christians and most of the "Nones" also don't go to church for the same reason, but when asked "which denomination would you most trust to teach the right doctrines of Christianity should you be a practicing Christian again" would STILL be able to choose one of the denomination as the one they would most likely trust over the others, even though they could be in the process mulling over whether to go to another religion. *Until they decide* to practice a non-orthodox form of Christianity (by going LDS, for example) or to practice another religion, they are still *included* in the denominator.

Some people believe that if you have not been baptized, you cannot be saved. Others (including myself) believe that it is merely the outward declaration of what has already happened in the heart. Given that Jesus baptized no one, and that one of the most famous conversions involved no baptism (the thief on the cross), what Biblical basis is used by those who believe that baptism is a prerequisite to salvation?