Every time I revisit questions about God's nature on Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange I can't help but come out with more doubts than convictions. For example, take a look at the following questions: - [Is Paul suggesting in Eph. 4:6 that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not God?](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/70188/38524) - [Is 2 Corinthians 13:11-14 an assertion that God is three equal Persons?](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/55344/38524) - [“Very truly, I tell you, before Abraham was, I am.” - why did the Jews want to throw stones at Jesus for saying this?](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/55803/38524) - [What does it mean to be "equal with God" in John 5:18?](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/60302/38524) - [What does "equality with God" mean, and how can it be "exploited"? Philippians 2:6](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/55612/38524) - [What can we learn about the relationship between "God" and "the Spirit of God" ontologically from 1 Corinthians 2:6-16?](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/55640/38524) - [Is the Son second in authority under God the Father? 1 Corinthians 15:24-28](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/55872/38524) When questions about Christology, Pneumatology and the nature of God in general can cause so much debate and doctrinal division among Christians, with arguments both for and against each conceivable position, it is very hard for me to accept the idea that one has to embrace a particular doctrinal position about God's nature **as an essential condition for salvation**, as opposed to simply withholding judgement. Personally, I see no other way to hold a strong conviction about the nature of God than God Himself revealing these details about Himself in a crystal clear manner to the individual, through a special revelation. **Question**: Are there any Christian groups or denominations that do not see having a definite doctrinal position on God's nature as essential for salvation, even if they, personally, have one? Or in more colloquial terms, are there any Christian groups or denominations that either lack a definite doctrinal position on God's nature OR believe in one but say *"we believe that God's nature is best described by X, but if you are not sure or have doubts about X, that's okay, you can still be saved"* ? ___ Related: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/86199/50422

I am confused about whether or not it was St. John the Baptist who wrote the Book of John in the New Testament. I thought this was a different John who was one of the apostles.

Acts 4:23-31 (ESV): > 23 When they were released, they went to their friends and reported what the chief priests and the elders had said to them. 24 And when they heard it, **they lifted their voices together to God and said**, “Sovereign Lord, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them, 25 who through the mouth of our father David, your servant, said by the Holy Spirit, > > “‘Why did the Gentiles rage, > and the peoples plot in vain? > 26 The kings of the earth set themselves, > and the rulers were gathered together, > against the Lord and against his Anointed’— > > 27 for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28 to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place. 29 **And now, Lord, look upon their threats and grant to your servants to continue to speak your word with all boldness**, 30 **while you stretch out your hand to heal, and signs and wonders are performed through the name of your holy servant Jesus.”** 31 **And when they had prayed, the place in which they were gathered together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and continued to speak the word of God with boldness**. This is an account of a powerful visitation of the Holy Spirit to the early church in response to fervent communal prayer. And what was the outcome? Extraordinary power and boldness for preaching and witnessing -- exactly what the church needs to carry out the great commission. With such a powerful divine assistance at the church's disposal, it would seem very strange to me if Acts 4:23-31 were an isolated case. **Question**: Have other group visitations of the Holy Spirit similar to Acts 4:23-31 been reported in church history? If so, what was the aftermath of said visitations? Did revival follow as a result?

Most Christians and leaders seem to quote inspirational verses out of the prophetic books consistently. The issue is that they are taking lots of verses out of context. Recently, I've been wondering how we correctly read the 17 prophetic books. These books seem to only be written for 1. the people at the time 2. descriptions of the Messiah 3. descriptions of The New Heaven and New Earth Outside of this, I have also seen that these prophecies include 1. Double References (Isaiah 14 talking about Satan and a king) 2. Insight into God's Creation (Jeremiah 4) [the Book of Job also does this, but that would of course be poetry and not prophecy] 3. Showing the character and demonstrations of God But what exactly does someone do when they want to read through the Book of Ezekiel or any other book? I have oftentimes been led of the Holy Spirit to see new things in the Prophetic Books, but for the most part, if I have to be honest, it seems like the entire Body of Christ just steers away from these books because of the level of confusion that comes from reading them. Why are they in the Bible? What do they do for New Testament Believers? How does it bring us into the full stature of Christ (2 Timothy 3:16-17)? I understand that there is historical evidence for the prophecies and that we can see what makes God angry, but there has got to be more reasoning behind having 17 books written in this style than just those things. What should I be able to pick up from these books that is beyond what my eyes can see? I cannot find a single answer online, so please know that I did my research before posting here. Thank you.

I am a returning christian with many unanswered questions. I am now seeking the meaning of life through the bible after a positive experience in the Alpha course. Firstly, I am very curious on the purpose, objective and direction of heaven. We cannot be singing praises all eternity. Every Kingdom must have a goal or aim or something similar. What could it be, for eternity is a very long time. Thank you for reading.

Martin Luther lived from 1483 – 1546 and John Calvin from 1509 – 1564. Both thse men wrote about the importance of infant baptism which can be read in The Large Catechism by Martin Luther & Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin Was there a period in the history when all who believed in Christ allowed infant baptism? If it is true who or which sect started/revived "only credo baptism" procedure?

In Luke 2:26 the text states that Simeon would not see death before he had seen τὸν χριστὸν κυρίου (‘the Christ of the Lord’). How can Trinitarian theology reconcile the genitive construction — ‘of the Lord’ — which implies belonging or being sent, without diminishing Christ’s ontological equality with the very Kyrios? (Lk. 2:26 BGT) > καὶ ἦν αὐτῷ κεχρηματισμένον ὑπὸ τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ ἁγίου μὴ ἰδεῖν θάνατον πρὶν [ἢ] ἂν ἴδῃ τὸν **χριστὸν κυρίου**. Luke 2:26 (KJV) > “And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord’s Christ.”

There is a belief that baptism (in Christianity) should be done later on life (e.g., adulthood), rather than in infancy. However, I do not see any reasonable (?) reason to NOT perform the baptism in infancy. One of the major drawbacks of credobaptism (the way that I understand things) is that the person is deprived of the Holy Spirit two-fold: though the lack of baptism itself, and through the ban for communion (baptism being a major prerequisite for the communion). So, shortly: what is inherently bad about baptizing infants?

I was doing some research and even though could find different resources on devotion to Mary, Mary as the mother of God, I couldn't find anything useful about Mary as mediatrix / "to Jesus through Mary". What did the early church fathers have to say about it?

Some Christian denominations reject infant baptism, usually on the grounds that young children cannot profess their faith, or understand the significance of baptism. It logically follows from this that an intellectually disabled adult who can't profess faith or understand baptism should not be baptised, either. This is obviously problematic: life in Christ is meant to be open to all. How might a baptist respond?

### Background of the question **Bible and Philosophy together** The Bible is not a strictly philosophical text (although the Wisdom books in the Bible can arguably be called ancient Hebrew philosophy), yet there are many assertions about the nature of God that *invite* humankind to reflect *further* on humanity's (or a single human being's) **relationship with God**, that makes Christian philosophy a legitimate enterprise while remaining **truthfully** grounded in Biblical ***narrative* and *concrete*** revelation, since the philosophical mode is necessarily ***atemporal* and *abstract***. In this view, 1. proper Biblical exegesis (as [*salvation history*](https://www.crosswalk.com/faith/bible-study/what-is-salvation-history.html)) focusing on our *relationship with God* and on *redemption + sanctification + glorification* of humanity as **God relates with humankind *in time* and *in the flesh*** can work hand in hand with 2. *atemporal* reflections by our **God-given Intellect** to probe the depth of our existence & psychology, using all the faculties of our human psyche (which is ***our saved flesh***): passion, reason, will, happiness, purpose, emotions, memory, etc. One such Biblical assertion about the nature of God is the famous passage Isa 55:8-11 that has been used and abused in the service of *both* orthodoxy *and* heresies (such as Word of Faith), so it's not surprising that the *Catholic Culture* article cited below also cites that passage plus how Boethius works out Isa 40:22 philosophically. **Boethius and his definition of divine eternity** Humankind is created "tuned" for *both* narrative *and* atemporal reflection of God and Nature, which explains why Boethius's [*On the Consolation of Philosophy*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Consolation_of_Philosophy) remains popular maybe because Boethius was one of the most successful Christian thinkers who applied *both* Biblical truths and Philosophy to the human psyche. One sign of his continued relevance: in Nov 2024 Baptist historical theologian Gavin Ortlund reminded the faithful how Boethius is [The Most Neglected Theologian in All Church History](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYcIfZeXbe0) For those new to Boethian divine eternity concept, it's important get his definition right (from [Book V prose 6](https://www.exclassics.com/consol/consol.pdf)) . One translation: > “Eternity is the complete, simultaneously-whole, and perfect possession of interminable life.” (*aeternitas est interminabilis vitae tota simul et perfecta possessio*) Modern proponents use the Flatland analogy to help explain the relationship between the two horizons (eternal and temporal), before using it for many applications. For example, a major 21st century proponent of the Boethian solution, Eleonore Stump, also uses the analogy to explain Boethian relation of the 2 horizons before applying it of to flesh out *in psychological terms* how God is present to us and how God loves us **from His eternity to our time** (see her 2013 paper [*Omnipresence, Indwelling, and the Second-Personal*](https://philarchive.org/archive/STUOIA)) . Notice how the topic is *also* the #1 *narrative* theme in the Bible (namely, our personal relationship with God) and the paper illustrates how we can do proper **INTEGRATION** between what the Bible says (in its own mode of discourse) and the *atemporal* philosophical and psychological reflections **within our psyche** during our earthly life-span of about "70 years" (Ps 90:10), taking cues from how the Biblical Wisdom books *themselves* (Job, Psalms, Ecclesiastes, etc.) did these reflection in the ancient (Near Eastern) philosophical mode. **Boethian solution for "foreknowledge" and free will** Boethian concept of eternity is also often used to solve the problem of divine foreknowledge and free will, an enduring solution popularly called the "Boethian solution" outlined in [Book V prose 3-5](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Consolation_of_Philosophy) (see https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/111145/what-is-boethiuss-solution) that spells out *precisely* how God "might" from his *Eternal Horizon* interacts with us in the *Historical Horizon* in a way that preserves *both* Providence *and* free will. (I said "might" to acknowledge that philosophical thinking is *necessarily* speculative, although *grounded in the reality God created*, but also *necessary* to provide ourselves a good rational defense of the faith.) I still need to find a good, more rigorous paper on this, preferably one that compares this solution with a more common solution in terms of [compatibilism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism) , but a brief description can be found in [this *Catholic Culture* article](https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/never-failing-present-boethius-on-gods-eternity/) and [Gavin Ortlund's *Truth Unites* video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYcIfZeXbe0&t=467s) starting at minute 7:47. --------------- ### The question Sorry for the long (but necessary introduction) but my question is this: **how would proponents of the ["Boethian Solution"](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/111145/what-is-boethiuss-solution) (to solve the foreknowledge problem for human free will) give a *better* Biblical exegesis** than those who use the Bible to object, such as in [this answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/111146/10672) : > This theory contradicts the scriptural concepts which Paul expresses, namely foreknowledge, predestination and election. Of course **the answer needs to compare 2 Biblical exegeses** of the verses used to show how the one for the proponents is *the better and more responsible* exegesis. Example: the answer should avoid relying on the ambiguity of meaning by *mere citing* of open-ended phrasing of verses such as Isa 55:8-11, either by the **pro camp** (such as the *Catholic Culture* article above) or (on the other extreme) by the **opposing camp** (such as many Christians who use the same verses for *dismissing* the possibility of philosophical thinking on Biblical themes).

In *Acts 2:38–39 (ESV)*, Peter 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. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” Some Christian traditions—such as the Reformed, Anglican, Lutheran, and Catholic—practice infant baptism (paedobaptism), while others—such as Baptist and Pentecostal churches—practice believer’s baptism (credobaptism). How do these two traditions each interpret this passage (and similar texts) when justifying their baptismal practices? In particular, how do they understand the phrase “for you and for your children,” and how does it fit into their broader theology of baptism?

A recent talk by Father Bob Pierson 1 quoted Joseph Ratzinger (as he then was, now Pope Benedict XVI) as saying that the individual conscience *must* overrule ecclesiastical authority. I was intrigued by Pierson's claim and looked up the original source, which is an early commentary2 on [*Gaudium et spes*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaudium_et_Spes) , specifically its [Article 16](http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_cons_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html) . I've put the section quoted by Pierson in italics. > For [Newman](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Henry_Newman) , conscience represents the inner complement and limit of the Church principle. *Over the pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority there still stands one's own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else, if necessary even against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority.* This emphasis on the individual, whose conscience confronts him with a supreme and ultimate tribunal, and one which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, even of the official Church, also establishes a principle in opposition to increasing totalitarianism. Genuine ecclesiastical obedience is distinguished from any totalitarian claim which cannot accept any ultimate obligation of this kind beyond the reach of its dominating will. I am finding the final sentence quite difficult to parse. It seems like he is saying that *genuine* ecclesiastical obedience *does* accept a controlling role for conscience. But then it sounds like one can simultaneously disobey and "genuinely obey", which is odd. Elsewhere in the text, Ratzinger speaks about natural law and the Golden Rule as standards to diagnose and reshape the "erroneous conscience", and it surprised me that he doesn't also mention the Church there. Overall, I think I am missing something basic which would help me to understand what he means in the passage above. So: **What relationship between conscience and Church authority does the Pope actually envisage?** I'm looking for answers that draw on his other writings, up to the present day - in particular, sources that illuminate what he personally thinks, as opposed to those which are primarily about what the Church as a whole accepts. 1. [Video and transcript here](http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/06/12/1099517/-Awesome-Priest-slams-Catholic-Church-on-MN-amendment-says-Catholics-CAN-vote-no) ; I'm linking to Daily Kos because they're the only site I can find which provides a text transcript, not because I endorse Pierson, Kos, etc. The original talk was on homosexual civil marriage, but this question is **emphatically not**; I'm not asking whether he's right or wrong, just using his quotation to ask a different question.
2. Monograph by Joseph Ratzinger collected in *Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II*, volume 5, ed. Herbert Vorgrimler (Herder and Herder, 1969). Translated by W. J. O'Hara from *Das Zweite Vatikanische Konzil, Dokumente und Kommentare* (1968). The quoted text starts on page 134.

Did any of the Church Fathers write explicitly on the connection between the Church and the New Jerusalem. Did any say that the Church *IS* the New Jerusalem? If so, in a nutshell, what did they say? Can anyone point me to specific resources? Thank you.

My research into the Council of Nicaea called by the pagan Roman emperor Constantine, shows they Council of Nicaea voted to change the name to iesus kristus by a vote of 161 for & 157 against. Again, why did they vote to change the Name of The Messiah?

In Mormon theology, it is taught that Jesus Christ’s atonement guarantees the universal, physical resurrection of all humankind. When Jesus physically died on the cross his mortal suffering ceased and his spirit departed from his body. On the third day after his death his spirit re-inhabited his body and he was thereby the first to be resurrected, receiving a perfected, immortal, physical body. Mormon theology holds that all who have ever lived on earth will one day be resurrected. Following resurrection, individuals are subject to judgment by Jesus Christ as part of the Final Judgment. Mormon cosmology describes three possible post-mortem eternal realms, and that the assignment to one of these kingdoms is to be determined at the Final Judgment. These realms are called the the celestial, the terrestrial and the telestial kingdom. (Joseph Smith articulated this conception of the afterlife primarily on the basis of a vision he reportedly experienced with Sidney Rigdon in 1832. This doctrinal exposition is canonized within the Latter-day Saint scriptural corpus as section 76 of the Doctrine and Covenants.) We can succinctly describe these different realms: * The celestial kingdom is reserved for those who have lived righteously, accepted the fullness of Jesus Christ’s teachings and respected all holy covenants. \* * The terrestrial kingdom is an intermediate kingdom. It includes individuals considered honorable in their conduct yet who, during mortality, rejected the "fullness of the gospel." This rejection is explicitly attributed not to inherent malice but to external deception, characterized as being "blinded by the craftiness of men." It also includes individuals who repudiated "the testimony of Jesus in the flesh" (i.e., during their mortal lives), and accepted that testimony in the post-mortal spirit world. In the terrestrial kingdom we also find individuals who did accept the gospel testimony during their earthly lives. but failed to demonstrate sufficient commitment or zeal. * The telestial kingdom constitutes the lowest of the three degrees of glory. Its inhabitants are described as including those who, during mortal life, “received not the gospel of Christ, nor the testimony of Jesus.” It also includes "liars, and sorcerers, and adulterers, and whoremongers and cloakers". We also find murderers, and idolaters in this realm. * A small subset of individuals will not be assigned to any of these realms. Though they will be resurrected, they will be in realm or state of “outer darkness”. Those described as “sons of perdition” are traditionally portrayed as residing in this state, dwelling in company with Satan and his attendant spirits. Many ex-Mormons have reported profound existential anxiety and genuine dreaded angst at the prospect of being assigned to a different eternal dwelling place than loved ones. It is not clear to me – however – whether all Latter Day Saint movements view these assignments as eternal, or whether individuals from lower realms universally (among Mormons) are denied communication with individuals from higher-order higher-status realms. Does the LDS Church or any other Latter Day Saint movement teach a notion of possible social mobility between these realms, in the afterlife? To make it concrete: if one’s parents were assigned to the terrestrial kingdom, one’s siblings to the celestial kingdom, and one’s cousins to the telestial kingdom, according to Mormon theology, will there be any possibility of those relatives ever meeting again? Does the answer differ to this question depending on which Latter-day Saint tradition one considers? To my knowledge, the dogma of hierarchical visitation is accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ([D&C 88:22-24](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/88?lang=eng&id=22-24#22) and [D&C 76:86-88](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/76?lang=eng&id=86-88#85)) , but the Community of Christ has largely moved away from the literal, detailed cosmology of D&C 76 and D&C 88. --- \* "All men who become heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ will have to receive the fulness of the ordinances of his kingdom; and those who will not receive all the ordinances will come short of the fulness of that glory" – Joseph Smith

The Bible reveals the year and month of the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. But does anyone have an idea of ​​the exact day and hour?

From the website Catholic.Org comes this explanation of what is meant by the title Co-Redemptrix as applied to Mary, the Mother of Jesus: > In his helpful Introduction to Mary: The Heart of Marian Doctrine and Devotion, Deacon Mark I. Miravalle, S.T.D., Professor of Theology and Mariology at the Franciscan University of Steubenville in Steubenville, Ohio, offers a valuable explanation of this term. > "The title, "Co-redemptix," refers to Mary's unique participation with and under her Divine Son Jesus Christ, in the historic Redemption of humanity. The prefix, "Co," comes from the Latin "cum," which means "with." The title of Coredemptrix applied to the Mother of Jesus **never places Mary on a level of equality with Jesus Christ**, the divine Lord of all, in the saving process of humanity's Redemption. Rather, **it denotes Mary's singular and unique sharing with her Son in the saving work** of Redemption for the human family. The **Mother of Jesus participates in the redemptive work** of her Savior Son, who alone could reconcile humanity with the Father in his glorious divinity and humanity." Deacon Miravalle states: > "Mary uniquely **participated in the sacrifice of Jesus** on Calvary and in the acquisition of the graces of Redemption for humanity And Pope Pius XII, in his encyclical On the Mystical Body, confirmed that: > **Mary offered Him on Golgotha to the Eternal Father**, together with the holocaust of her maternal rights and her motherly love, like a New Eve for all children of Adam. The apostle Paul, deeply concerned that the Corinthians were being deceived away from undiluted devotion to Christ, wrote: > I wish you would bear with me in a little foolishness. Do bear with me! For I feel a divine jealousy for you, since I betrothed you to one husband, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ. **But I am afraid that** as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, **your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ**. For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough. - 2 Corinthians 11:1-4 "Sincere and pure devotion to Christ" here in the ESV is sometimes rendered "simplicity towards Christ" (ASV), "simplicity that is in the Christ" (YLT) or "sincere [and pure] commitment to Christ" (NABRE). **Douay-Rheims and the Latin Vulgate both contain "simplicity that is in Christ".** While some take the meaning to refer to an uncomplicated presentation of the Gospel message and some decry doctrinal teaching as muddying the "simple Gospel" the idea actually appears to refer not to some quality in Christ (although He exemplified simplicity as explained below towards the Father) or in the Gospel message itself but to us: > It is not simplicity *in* Christ, but *towards* Christ of which the Apostle is speaking; not a quality in *Him*, but a quality in *us towards Him*. - MacLaren's Expositions This seems well in keeping with the apostles concern that anything (in the immediate context, the teachings of the Judiezers) be received as an admixture to what Christ has done in redemption. MacLaren goes on further to describe the word picture intended in the Greek haplotēs (ἁπλότης): > To be ‘without a fold,’ which is the meaning of the Greek word and of its equivalent ‘simplicity,’ is, in one aspect, to be transparently honest and true, and in another to be out and out of a piece. There is no underside of the cloth, doubled up beneath the upper which shows, and running in the opposite direction; but all tends in one way. A man with no under-currents, no by-ends, who is down to the very roots what he looks, and all whose being is knit together and hurled in one direction, without reservation or back-drawing, that is the ‘simple’ man whom the Apostle means. Catholicism currently holds 4 Marian dogmas (from Wikipedia ): 1) Mother of God - 1st magisterial definition, Council of Ephesus, 431 AD 2) Perpetual Virginity - wikipedia has the 1st magisterial definition as (one of the?) Synod of Milan (345, 355, 389, 451, 860), but the University of Dayton lists the Fifth Ecumenical Council held at Constantinople in 553 3) Immaculate Conception - 1st magisterial definition, Pope Pius IX, 1854 4) Assumption in Heaven - 1st magisterial definition, Pope Pius XII, 1950 Of the four dogmas the latter two are relatively recent, at least in terms of their formal definition and acquisition of dogmatic status. An article in the National Catholic Register on Pope Francis' spontaneous remarks regarding the Marian title "co-redemptix" during a Dec. 12 2019 Vatican Mass explains the evolution of these latter two dogmatic statements as being the results of massive "people of God petition drives". This appears in the context of a current, worldwide, and century old "people of God petition drive" to introduce a fifth Marian Dogma, namely Mary's Spiritual Motherhood of All People: > The century-old international movement for a proposed fifth Marian dogma of Mary’s Spiritual Motherhood (**which necessarily includes her foundational roles as Co-redemptrix and Mediatrix of all graces**) was started by the renowned Belgian cardinal, Cardinal Désiré Mercier, in 1915, and by 1918, Pope Benedict XV has received hundreds of other cardinal and bishop petitions for the solemn papal definition or “dogma” of Mary’s relationship with humanity as a “mother to us in the order of grace” as delineated by the Second Vatican Council (Lumen Gentium, 61).But over the course of the last 100 years, it has especially been the holy People of God who, as an expression of the sensus fidelium, the common consensus of the faithful, have prayed and petitioned the various popes for this dogmatic crowning for Our Lady. Over the past 25 years, the People of God from over 170 countries have sent over 8 million petitions to the Holy See for this dogmatic crowning for Our Lady. This contemporary movement of the Christian faithful has constituted a massive worldwide “People of God petition drive” to recent pontiffs, which follows the Church precedent of the past petition drives from the laity that successfully led to the last two Marian dogmas of the Immaculate Conception (1854) and the Assumption (1950). The following is from CRUX: Taking the Catholic Pulse : > ROME — Pope Francis appeared to flatly reject proposals in some theological circles to add “co-redemptrix” to the list of titles of the Virgin Mary, saying the mother of Jesus never took anything that belonged to her son, and calling the invention of new titles and dogmas “foolishness.” > > “She never wanted for herself something that was of her son,” Francis > said. “She never introduced herself as co-redemptrix. No. Disciple,” > he said, **meaning that Mary saw herself as a disciple of Jesus**. > > Mary, the pope insisted, “never stole for herself anything that was of > her son,” instead “serving him. Because she is mother. She gives > life.” > > “When they come to us with the story of declaring her this or making > that dogma, let’s not get lost in foolishness [in Spanish, tonteras],” > he said. How does the petitioning for a new Dogmatic definition, which necessarily includes the naming of Mary as "co-redemptix", to the highest levels of Roman Catholic authority, "grass-roots" style from the laity, exemplify and encourage simplicity and purity of commitment towards Christ (sole-mediator between God and man), especially when the current Pope appears to reject the notion, calling her a disciple?

In Protestant eschatology, it is commonly taught that when Christ returns, believers who are alive at that time will have their mortal bodies transformed into glorified, heavenly bodies (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:51–53; 1 Thessalonians 4:16–17). My question is: What happens to those who are alive but not saved when Christ returns?

As far as I know [there are 4 Gospels](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/18703/what-is-a-gospel-and-how-many-gospels-are-there-in-the-catholic-bible) : Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. I am an ex-Christian (currently atheist) who had a debate with a Muslim about a few discrepancies between the Qur'an and the Bible. The Muslims believe that 1. Haman worked for Pharaoh and is building babel tower 2. Mary was a sibling of Aaron 3. Jesus is given "gospel". As a non-Muslim and atheist, I of course think that Muhammad simply made a mistake. Perhaps he didn't get the story right or wasn't consistent with his sources. But of course Muslim apologists will claim that it's a misunderstanding anyway: different Haman, different meaning of sibling, and different gospel. The 3rd point is more interesting though. My Muslim friend pointed out that gospels *already* EXISTED before the Bible was written: - [Mark 1:14](https://biblehub.com/mark/1-14.htm) - [Matthew 4:23](https://biblehub.com/matthew/4-23.htm) - [Luke 8:1](https://biblehub.com/luke/8-1.htm) So it's a bit tricky. In Indonesia the word for "gospel" is "injil". I wonder where that word came from. Muslims seem to think that Jesus got the "gospel" like Muhammad got the Qur'an. But I think that's just not the case. The Gospels we have now, I understand them to be Jesus' late biographies, a bit like Hadith in Islam. However, the fact that the word "gospel" DOES show up in the Gospels themselves is intriguing. **What "gospel" was Jesus preaching because the Gospels as books weren't even written when he was living?** It looks to me that he was a Rabbi who preached typical Judaism stuff that might or might not be reinterpreted by his followers to be something much more than that.