After the Reformation got into swing and Rome started losing significant numbers of followers Rome responded with the Counter-Reformation. The basic plan was unfolded at the Council of Trent . After the Council of Trent the Secretariat of State was heavily developed to create a diplomatic network of Nuncios. How effective is the Secretariat of State? Would the Protestant movement have been more successful without their machinations?

According to [*Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma*](https://ia800507.us.archive.org/3/items/fundamentals-of-catholic-dogma-pdfdrive/Fundamentals%20of%20Catholic%20Dogma%20%28%20PDFDrive%20%29.pdf) (in reference to John 21:15-17): > "Feed" in ancient and biblical language means, in its application to human beings, rule or govern (cf. Acts 20:28). And Acts 20:28: > Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. (*Douay-Rheims*) QUESTION: What are some ancient (or Old Testament) references which demonstrate the linguistic equivalence of the terms "to feed" and "to govern (or rule)"?

How can one tell if one needs to convert in order to be a Catholic or if one is already Catholic? Would one's or one's ancestors' conversion to another religion or their lack of knowledge about Catholic change anything?

The Bible shows that Mary is in Heaven as the Ark of the Covenant (Rev 11:19), while the martyrs are crying out to God for vengeance under the altar (Rev 6:9) and the prayers of the saints are being offered as incense (Rev 8:4). So Mary and the saints are in Heaven, but what about **would-be saints**, i.e. people who haven't been perfected in this life? Do they experience sleep, meaning that they die, sleep, and wake up *all together* to the [final judgement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Judgment) ? Or are they judged *individually* before the final judgement? I would appreciate answers from different view points as long as it can be deduced from Scripture: Catholic (purgatorial), Eastern / Oriental Orthodox, and Protestant (non-purgatorial).

The passages of Luke 3:3 and Acts 2:38 have very similar language and according to Peter in Acts he is baptizing the same baptism as John, only in Jesus name. > Luke 3:3 says, "And he went into all the region around the Jordan, proclaiming a baptism of > repentance for the forgiveness of sins" > Acts 2:38 says, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" Both verses speak about repentance and baptism and both verses say they are "for the forgiveness or remittance of sin" So what does "for forgiveness of sins" mean. Now Acts 2:38 is often interpreted to mean that the act of baptism is necessary to wash away sin, however given the same language in both verses that means that Johns baptism also washes away sin. My question is, can this language be translated any other way that does not imply that baptism actually forgives sins or is when sins are forgiven.

Given the phenomenon known as the High Church can it really be said that the Reformation led to complete independence from the Bishop of Rome? How much influence does Rome still have in the Anglican Church?

Is there some doctrinal, historical or political reason that prevented this natural alliance from taking place? Are Protestants against the notion of the [Pentarchy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentarchy) in general and not just against the Papacy? If so, does this mean they see the Church as corrupt *already* before Emperor Justinian formed the Pentarchy?

My question is motivated by Eleonore Stump's video [Can Philosophy of Religion Find God?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4Qa1gAj7zY) , suggested by this [answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/100465/61679) . In the video, Stump elaborates on how philosophy of religion can be helpful in understanding facts about God, likening it to acquiring biographical information about a third person, from a rather distant perspective. This stands in sharp contrast with someone who possesses direct, intimate, one-on-one experiential knowledge of a person. [Some would even argue that God's existence can be established rationally using reason alone](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/100436/61679) , which is a point of contention, but even if we concede it, knowing that God exists intellectually is unlikely to be the same as knowing God personally. What are Christian guidelines for making the transition from "knowing about God" to "knowing God"? --- **Note**: Having an intimate experiential knowledge of God resonates strongly with *Christian mysticism*, by my lights (see [here](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/98050/61679) and [here](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/98040/61679)) . However, I acknowledge my potential bias in this matter and remain receptive to insights from various Christian traditions, which might suggest different approaches to knowing God personally. Considering this, perhaps transforming this question into an overview of different viewpoints would be beneficial?

I've seen [many posts here](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/search?q=mary+spouse+spirit) from Catholics describing Mary as the spouse or wife of the Holy Spirit. [Catholic Answers](https://www.catholic.com/qa/why-is-the-holy-spirit-called-marys-spouse) calls it a "pious custom". Is this official Catholic dogma? If so, when was it formally defined? If it isn't, then how widely supported is it? Where along the path to dogma described by [this question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/68502/6071) is this belief?

I’m having trouble finding the sources that would backup unsourced claims on the Wikipedia article about the Ebionites that they revered Jacob the Just and considered him the successor of the movement while rejecting Paul as an apostate. Does anyone know the exact sources? It would be useful for other questions if we could use the right sources.

How do Christians understand the vision of Obadiah? Is this an end time prophecy? If so who is Edom today? If they believe this was already fulfilled in the past and Edom no longer exists then why do we not see that the kingdom has already been established as the vision concludes?

Genesis 1:3 is quite mysterious for Trinitarians, Binitarians, and Unitarians alike. I'm trying to understand what the first work of God was, however, I am finding little to no information on the internet regarding what exactly it (or who) it was that God created. Do any denominations teach that these verses reveal that God created Jesus on Day 1 of creation? Genesis 1:3 BSB translation: > And God said, "**Let there be Light**," **and there was Light**. John 8:12 BSB translation: > Once again, Jesus spoke to the people and said, “**I am the Light of the > world**. Whoever follows Me will never walk in the darkness, but will > have the light of life.” Colossians 1:15 ESV translation: > He is the image of the invisible God, **the firstborn of all creation**. Proverbs 8:22 translation: > **YHWH created me at the beginning** of his work, **the first of his acts > of old**. Colossians 1:18 translation: > And He is the head of the body, the church; **He is the beginning and > the firstborn** from among the dead, so that **in all things He may have > preeminence**. Psalm 89:27 translation: > I will indeed appoint **My firstborn**, as the highest of the kings of the > earth. 2 Corinthians 4:6 translation: > For God, who said, “**Let Light shine out of darkness**,” **has made His Light > shine in our hearts** to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory > of God **in the face of Jesus Christ**. John 12:46 translation: > **I have come into the world as the Light**, so that no one who believes in > Me should remain in darkness. John 1:4-5 BSB translation: > In Him was life, and **that life was the light** of men. **The Light shines > in the darkness**, and the darkness has not overcome it. John 1:6-9 BSB translation: > There came a man who was sent from God. His name was John. He came as > a witness **to testify about the Light**, so that through him everyone > might believe. He himself was not the Light, but he came to testify > about the Light. **The true Light who gives light to every man was > coming into the world**. John 3:19 BSB translation: > And this is the verdict: **The Light has come into the world**, but men > loved the darkness rather than the Light because their deeds were > evil. John 1:1-2 NWT translation: > **In the beginning was the Word**, and the Word was with God, and **the Word > was a god**. This one was in the beginning with God. John 3:18 BLB translation: > For God so loved the world that He gave **the only begotten Son**, so that > everyone believing in Him should not perish, but should have eternal > life. Proverbs 8:25 BSB translation: > **Before the mountains were settled**, before the hills, **I was brought > forth**, John 17:5 NET translation: > And now, Father, glorify me at your side with **the glory I had with you > before the world was created**.

My research of the study of Christianity shows the Christian canon first formalized at the Council of Rome. This is pretty much 2 years after Christianity was made the official religion of the Roman Empire in 380 with the Edict of Thessalonica. So Rome was already in charge by this time. In earlier works by the Church Fathers there are fragmentary references to a competing narrative today know as the Gospel of the Ebionites . This gospel evidently contained a narrative which was much less objectionable to people of a Jewish origin and faith. No mythical virgin birth. No hint of claiming divinity of the protagonist. Nothing that would support the heretical teachings of the apostate Paul. Clear support for continuing Torah observance including circumcision. Clearly this version was not in line with the Roman agenda which was very much anti Jewish and anti Torah. So just how difficult was it for the Roman Church to suppress these competing narratives? My understanding is that the Ebionites lingered on for several more centuries before being reabsorbed by Jewish communities.

The Bible narrates that after Jesus died on the cross then Joseph of Arimathea took his body down from the cross and wrapped it in a linen clothing. They then buried him inside a tomb but then after he rose from the dead, two disciples went to check and found the linen clothing that his body was wrapped in lying on the stone where his body laid. # Burial of Jesus # Mathew 27:57-60 >When it was evening, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who also was a disciple of Jesus. He went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then Pilate ordered it to be given to him. And Joseph took the body and wrapped it in a clean linen shroud and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had cut in the rock. And he rolled a great stone to the entrance of the tomb and went away. Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were there, sitting opposite the tomb. The Gospels describe the resurrection scene differently but according to the Gospel of Saint John the linen cloth was left there and the cloth that had covered the face of Jesus folded up in a place by itself. # The Resurrection according to Saint John # John 20:6-7 >Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen cloths lying there, and the face cloth, which had been on Jesus' head, not lying with the linen cloths but folded up in a place by itself. Since Jesus appeared to Mary and other disciples clothed, does it leave us to conclude that he miraculously created a new set of clothes to cover his resurrected body with?

I’m interested in the Christian viewpoint on Daniel 2? Which kingdom is the fourth kingdom represented by the iron legs of the image? Do Christians believe this is the Romans? I am assuming, correct me if I am wrong, that Christians believe that the stone cut but not by hands which destroys the kingdom is the anointed king of Israel. Given that Rome has long been under the control of Christians does this mean that Christians believe that the Messiah will come to destroy Christianity in general or just Catholicism?

I understand that Foxe's Book of Martyrs (first published in English in 1563) is an exhaustive account of Christian martyrs, both pre- and post-Reformation. However, at a daunting 1,570 pages in length, my need is for a more concise overview. Also, my assignment specifically focuses on the early Church Fathers. So far I've got Ignatius of Antioch (martyred circa A.D. 110), Justin Martyr (A.D. 165), Irenaeus of Lyon (circa A.D. 202) and Origen of Alexandra, who was persecuted, tortured, imprisoned and after his release, died A.D. 254. Eusebius of Caesarea fled persecution and witnessed the martyrdom of Christians (circa A.D. 300) and John Chrysotom died while in exile A.D. 407. No mention of them dying as martyrs, though. Is there a link to a credible source of information about the early Church Fathers who were martyrs?

The "Gospel of the Hebrews" has [several quotations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_the_Hebrews#:~:text=The%20gospel%20emphasizes%20the%20fulfillment,%22rest%22%20and%20reigns%20forever.) from early church fathers. Did they ever believe it to be Inspired and equal to the traditional four gospels? Or did they view it as supplementary material that is likely to be true.

Latin is the official language of the Catholic Church. And, after Croatia got independent in the early 1990s, the Catholic Church has lobbied the Croatian government to introduce Latin as an obligatory subject in most Croatian high-schools for two years (grade 9 and grade 10). So, in Croatia, young Catholics (and around 80% of Croatians are Catholics) tend to know some Latin.
I was wondering, how well do Catholics in other countries speak Latin? How is it in the USA?

The Jehovah witness and Seventh Day Adventist denominations believe that Jesus is the arch-angel Michael. The reasons for this belief is based on the Biblical verses that Jesus will shout with the voice of the arch-angel at the end of the age, Gabriel refers to him as a prince, "except Michael your prince"(Dan 12:1), so does Isaiah(Isaiah 9:6-"Prince of Peace"). Since there is only one chief angel in heaven and there is no such thing as **Jesus' angels** and **Michael's angels** then it follows that Jesus is the arch-angel Michael , but if the later is true then any angel even the arch-angel was created and hence Jesus being created means he is not God. This is because it's very hard to disprove the belief that Jesus and Michael are two different entities. ## Michael nematology ## The word Michael means **One Who is like God**, an attribute that can only be claimed by Jesus ## Jesus as Commander of Heaven's armies ## Only a leader or a commander of the angelic armies in heaven would command them to his defense. **Mathew 26:53** >Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? Angels ministering to their their arch-angel who in this case is Jesus **Mathew 4:6** >Then the devil left him, and behold, angels came and were ministering to him. ## End Time Prophecy Regarding Lucifer ## It is commonly believed by many Christians that the devil will masquerade as Jesus to deceive many into false worship and the term that's been used here is to fake as an angel of light **2 Corinthians 11:14** >Even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light If it's Jesus that Satan is trying to fake his second coming then Jesus has been referred to as an angel of light How do Trinitarians respond to this?

I have a question pertaining to Hebrews 12:22-23, which says: > “But you have come to Mount Zion, to the city of the living God, the > heavenly Jerusalem. You have come to myriads of angels in joyful > assembly, to the congregation of the firstborn, enrolled in heaven. > You have come to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of the > righteous made perfect.” Are the myriads of angels the “congregation of the firstborn enrolled in heaven” and the “spirits of the righteous made perfect”? Is this saying that the chosen of God become angels? Jesus said in Mark 12:25, > “When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage. > Instead, they will be like the angels in heaven.” We see here that Jesus declares that we will be “like the angels”. Romans 8:19 says, > “The creation waits in eager expectation for the revealing of the sons > of God.” Here again, Paul said that the chosen of God are adopted as sons of God; a title shared by angels. Along with the belief that Jesus is the Chief Angel of God, and those who believe in him will become “just as he is” in glorified composition, does Hebrews 12:22-23 thus imply that believers become sons of God (angels) just as Jesus is the Son of God?