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?

How to ensure whether once a person man or woman passes away, his or her soul (RIP) is resting in peace now?

**Was Saint Mary of Egypt baptized as a child or at the Jordan river?** I am seeing conflicting information or a lack thereof when I research her.

Can the ***gloria*** and ***sanctus*** be replaced at Mass with some other liturgical hymn or song? Or can they be partially modified?

And do you have any examples of frescoes of Christ with a beard?

Does anyone know for sure how many Church Fathers have been so declared by the Catholic Church (assuming that the last one is St. John Damascene); and where I may find a reliable list of them? Thank you.

According to the [2020 PhilPapers Survey results](https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/results/5010?target_group=) , when asked about their stance on *Consciousness: identity theory, eliminativism, functionalism, dualism, or panpsychism?*, only 20.98% leaned towards or accepted [mind-body dualism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_dualism) . The remaining respondents were distributed among [functionalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionalism_(philosophy_of_mind)) (32.28%), [identity theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_physicalism) (12.64%), [panpsychism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism) (8.54%), [eliminativism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliminative_materialism) (5.51%), agnostic/undecided (12.31%), a combination of views (6.79%), and an alternative view (5.85%). The Christian belief in the existence of human spirits or souls appears to resonate most closely with the concept of mind-body dualism. Based on the survey results, this suggests that roughly up to ~20% of philosophers might find the notion of spirits or souls plausible. Conversely, a significant portion of philosophers (50.43%) subscribe to [materialist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism) or [physicalist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism) perspectives such as functionalism, identity theory, or eliminativism. Panpsychism (8.54%), on the other hand, posits that *"the mind is a fundamental feature of the world which exists throughout the universe,"* aligning more closely with certain Eastern religious traditions like *Advaita Vedānta* and *Buddha-nature* ([source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism#Religious_or_mystical_ontologies)) . While the Bible explicitly states that humans are more than physical bodies, by possessing spirits or souls, citing verses from the Bible to ~80% of non-dualist philosophers is unlikely to be a convincing or compelling argument. Thus, are there arguments beyond biblical references that Christians employ in apologetics to defend their belief in the existence of spirits or souls?

I'm interested in learning more about the relevance that the spiritual gifts have had for Christians over the course of history, with special emphasis on the gift of prophecy. For the apostle Paul, this was the most important gift, and it was his heart that every believer should earnestly desire the gifts of the Spirit, *especially that they may prophesy*: > Pursue love, and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, **especially that you may prophesy**. [1 Corinthians 14:1, ESV] An immediate question that arises when one looks at this matter has to do with the meaning of this gift. What does it mean to have the gift of prophecy in the first place? What kinds of spiritual experiences or abilities can a person with the gift of prophecy have, in contrast to a person who doesn't have the gift? My personal impression on this matter is that the gift of prophecy is quite a supernatural gift indeed, and I draw this conclusion through connecting multiple dots in Scripture: - 24 **But if all prophesy**, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all, 25 **the secrets of his heart are disclosed**, and so, falling on his face, he will worship God **and declare that God is really among you**. [1 Corinthians 14:24-25, ESV] - 16 Jesus said to her, “Go, call your husband, and come here.” 17 The woman answered him, “I have no husband.” Jesus said to her, “You are right in saying, ‘I have no husband’; 18 for you have had five husbands, and the one you now have is not your husband. What you have said is true.” 19 The woman said to him, “**Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet**. [John 4:16-19, ESV] - 39 Many Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman's testimony, **“He told me all that I ever did.”** [John 4:39, ESV] - 21 For no **prophecy** was ever produced by the will of man, **but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit**. [2 Peter 1:21, ESV] - 6 And when Paul had laid his hands on them, **the Holy Spirit came on them**, and they began speaking in tongues and **prophesying**. [Acts 19:6, ESV] - 10 When they came to Gibeah, behold, a group of prophets met him, and **the Spirit of God rushed upon him, and he prophesied** among them. [1 Samuel 10:10, ESV] **Questions**: Which Christian groups/denominations in the history of the Church have encouraged their members to earnestly desire the gift of prophecy? How common is it for contemporary Christians to pursue this gift? How has the gift of prophecy been understood by Christian groups/denominations that have endorsed its practice? ______________ Related: [Do any Christian congregations follow the example of 1 Cor 14:24-25 to win unbelievers for Christ?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/83176/50422)

- Did the Early Church (ante-Nicene period) believe in libertarian free will? - Did the Early Church (ante-Nicene period) believe in determinism? - Did the Early Church (ante-Nicene period) believe that salvation requires a synergistic cooperation between a free human being and God's grace, and that a person can freely choose to resist God's grace and lose their salvation? ____ Related: - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/65806/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/80167/50422

Jesus prays to the Father in the Garden of Gethsemane, distressing over the impending cup of wrath to come. The weight of bearing the sins of people and alienation from the Father put him such spiritual agony that he asked not once but three times that if there were any other way, for the Father to take this cup from him. Nevertheless, he eventually submits to the will of the Father and chooses to go. As the God-man, _could_ Jesus have refused to go to the cross? If he could have, then wouldn't that mean that he disobeyed the Father and would have sinned which would have been against his very nature? Would that have meant that the triune God would've been broken? If he couldn't have, then he wouldn't have willingly gone to the cross but would have been forced to by God the Father. It wouldn't have a sacrifice out of love but out of obligation. Help me understand what the right doctrine is here regarding Jesus' own free will and nature.

I understand that sanctification is used as a post-reformational theological term to refer to the ongoing process of Christian growth. But, biblically speaking, is this always what is meant? I know that the word literally means "to make holy," which does not necessitate an ongoing process (and neither a one-time event). I am a bit nervous about limiting the semantic range when something broader may be intended in scripture. So what is the semantic range of the word as used in scripture?

Regarding *The Pilgrim's Progress* by John Bunyan from Chapter 2 (“The Way of the World or the Narrow Way”), pages 52–53. A quote starting on page 52, the last paragraph at the bottom: > “Then Christian asked. ”May we go into the palace?” The Interpreter took him and led him up toward the door of the palace. There Christian saw a great company of men standing at the palace door, all desiring to go in, but few daring to. A little distance from the door there was a man sitting at a table with a [book open] before him. He was writing the names of those who wished to enter the palace. **My Question**: is the book Bunyan referred to "The Lamb's Book of Life" (Revelation 3:5; 13:8; 17:8) or some other book, possibly "The Book of Remembrances" (Malachi 3:16)?

I have spent time on the website [Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life, by Lee & Annette Woofenden](https://leewoof.org) , which has articles about some of this information but I cannot find what seems to be a sufficient answer to my questions on the nature of Christ's sacrifice according to Swedenborg's interpretation of scripture. Some of the questions I have in regard to the Swedenborgian perspective: Why did Christ die? Did Christ die for our sins as an offering as we find in the Old Testament? What about the book of Hebrews? How can Christ be the new covenant if his blood does not cover sin? I am just needing more clarity. I cannot seem to piece it together.

Can you tell me what the letters **JHS** mean? You can see them on the picture below. I am from Slovakia (East Europe) and we speak Slovak and these letters are from Catholic church. I saw these letters on many pantings in Slovak churches. But I do not know their meaning. Thanks for explanation.

Should the Altar in a Catholic Church be reconsecrated after a jr high boy, under the direction of his teacher and sanctioned by the priest, lay on top of the Altar while practicing The Stations of The Cross? I was horrified when the priest told be it was a beautiful thing to see for The Stations.

I've always heard examples of how the Sabbath is **not** broken, for instance, doing good to others, healing people, etc. However, I noticed that I've never heard examples of the opposite (how the Sabbath **can** be broken). What are illustrative examples of how the Sabbath can be broken according to Christians who hold to [Sabbatarianism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabbatarianism) ?

> **Last Thursdayism** (alternately **Last Tuesdayism** or **Last Wednesdayism**) is the idea that the universe was created last Thursday, but with the physical appearance of being billions of years old. It's also a counter to the creationism theory. Under Last Thursdayism, books, [fossils](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fossil) , [light already on the way from distant stars](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Starlight_problem) , and *literally everything* (including your memories of the time before last Thursday) were all formed at the time of creation (last Thursday) in a state such that they appear much older. > > Last Thursdayism functions both as a philosophical point on how our observations may not match with "reality" and a [reductio ad absurdum](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum) of the young-Earth creationist idea of the [omphalos hypothesis](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis) : if the world was created 6,000 years ago with the appearance of being made billions of years ago, what is there to stop us from claiming it was made Last Thursday? > > The debate on whether Last Thursdayism is true has raged on ever since the creation of the universe last Thursday. > > (source: [Last Thursdayism - RationalWiki](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism)) In short, Last Thurdayism is put forward as an attempt to do a *reductio ad absurdum* of the Young Earth Creationist notion that the universe was created relatively recently with the appearance of age. How do Young Earth Creationists go about showing that this attempt isn't successful?

_"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"_ _John 8:58 (NIV)_ Is this a grammatical error? Or is it because the Trinity does not experience time as we do, and are (is) everywhere; past, present, future?

I'm thinking of purchasing 2 books specifically grounded in biblical archaeology published by Zondervan. The first is called *Handbook of Biblical Archaeology* and the second is the *NIV Archaeological Study Bible* in which the footnotes are mostly grounded in archaeology than in theology. As a Catholic, would these resources be okay to read from?

1. **It makes someone other than God also have the title of "God".** (Exodus 20:3) There cannot be a capital-G God beneath the capital-G God—only a lowercase god. The capital-G God is the highest authority and source of all things. The Trinity therefore violates the Shema and the 1st Commandment; to worship no other gods but the only true God, who is just one being. 2. **It violates God's headship of authority.** (1 Corinthians 11:3) {Female < Male < Christ < God} is violated by making Jesus equal with Father God, thereby unleashing a domino effect which further results in man becoming equal with Christ, and woman becoming equal with man; a catastrophic annihilation of God's created order. 3. **It destroys the term "only begotten" (monogenes) in Greek.** (John 3:18) In contradiction of correct doctrine that Jesus was created (begotten) by the Father God on Day 1 of creation, Jesus is instead claimed to be co-eternal with the Father, nullifying Christ's terms of "only begotten", "firstborn of creation", and "first of his works of old". In a terrible attempt to explain this off, Trinitarians instead replace it with the illogical term "eternally begotten". "Eternally begotten" is a nonsensical term which is fielded to justify their blasphemous theology and discredit "only begotten" (monogenes in Greek). In recent times, Trinitarian translators have even gone so far as to remove the term "begotten" to leave it as "only Son", in a sinister attempt to hide the fact that Jesus was created by God on Day 1 of Creation as his only-begotten Son. They do this to make Jesus be God and co-eternal alongside God our Father. 4. **It disregards what a mediator is.** (1 Timothy 2:5) A mediator is someone who intercedes between two people. The mediator who intercedes cannot be the person who sent him, or the person he was sent to mediate for, otherwise it is not mediation. Jesus is not God, but the Son of God and Son of Man. God sent his Son to intercede on behalf of humanity to draw out the chosen elect from the foundation of the world. God sent his Son to be our Mediator. Jesus was an immortal god, yet emptied himself and came down into mortal human flesh to intercede on our behalf and save us from sin and the death. 5. **It ignores that God cannot die.** (1 Timothy 1:17) The scriptures make it clear that God cannot die. Jesus died, but God his Father resurrected him from the dead, just as God will resurrect us from the dead if we believe in Him and his Son. Jesus is not God because Jesus died. In fact, Jesus said that God abandoned him while he was dying on the cross. This was to fulfill Christ's mission of taking on the curse of our sin and deserved abandonment from God on our behalf, to save us from this world. 6. **It forgets that God can never be tempted.** (James 1:13) The scriptures also clearly tell us that Jesus was tempted by the devil Satan, but that he did not fall for the temptations. Jesus felt the pangs of temptation, but he fended them off in the Spirit of God. Likewise, we can fend off temptations by remaining in the Spirit of God. The scriptures tell us that God can never be tempted, yet Jesus was tempted on our behalf. Jesus is therefore not God. 7. **It contradicts itself by wrongly stating that an angel is God.** (Psalm 104:4) Jesus was pre-incarnate and post-incarnate as the Chief Angel of God as the only-begotten Son of God. Nevertheless, Trinitarians state that Jesus was God despite admitting that Jesus was the "Angel of the LORD" throughout the Old Testament. The issue is that God is not an angel, and will never be an angel, because angels are created by God, but God is eternal and uncreated. It is certainly true that the Angel of the LORD is the glorified Son of God, but the Angel of the LORD is absolutely not God because he is the mediating angel and viceroy of God's Presence! 8. **It discredits the fact that only God's will alone is accomplished.** (Ephesians 1:11) Jesus plainly told us that he came to do not his own will, but the will of God who sent him. Jesus was teaching us humility when he told us to hold others above ourselves, and to do the will of God alone and not our own will. "Not my will be done, but your will be done". "Let your will be done on earth as it is in heaven". Jesus is not God because Jesus was doing the will of his God, who is our God, and his Father, who is our Father. Only God's will is done, not the will of anyone else. 9. **It disregards that only God is omniscient and nobody else.** (Matthew 24:36) Jesus said that nobody knows the Day or the Hour, neither the Son, but the Father God only. Some take John 16:30 and John 21:17 to mean that Jesus "knows all things", but these passages simply state that Jesus knew everything that was necessary to know about the particular topics at hand, namely love and judgement. Only the Father God is truly omniscient and knows all things, as all things have come from him alone. 10. **It makes God not good despite God being described as only good.** (Mark 10:18) When Jesus was called "good teacher", he responded by rebuking it and saying that nobody is good except God alone. This implies that Jesus is not God, and that he is not truly good, as only his Father God is truly good, because God is the source all things, especially all that is good. Psalm 100:5 says that God is good, forever.