- What are the most common reasons that cause Christians to lose their faith and turn to atheism, agnosticism or skepticism? - Are these reasons only effective against young Christians? What about pastors, priests, elders, evangelists, missionaries, etc.? Are long-time committed Christians also vulnerable to have their faith "shaken" by these reasons? I think these are important questions to answer, especially with so many atheist activists spreading skepticism and atheism nowadays. Wikipedia has an informative [list of atheist activists and educators](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheist_activists_and_educators) . There are also the ["Four Horsemen of the New Atheism"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism#%22Four_Horsemen%22) , namely, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, and Sam Harris. In social media we also find lots of content producers who spread agnosticism, atheism and skeptical ways of thinking. For example, on YouTube I'm familiar with [Genetically Modified Skeptic](https://www.youtube.com/c/GeneticallyModifiedSkeptic/featured) (458K subscribers), [CosmicSkeptic](https://www.youtube.com/c/CosmicSkeptic) (446K subscribers), [The Atheist Experience](https://www.youtube.com/user/TheAtheistExperience) (365K subscribers), [Rationality Rules](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqZMgLgGlYAWvSU8lZ9xiVg) (296K subscribers), [AronRa](https://www.youtube.com/c/AronRa) (263K subscribers) and [Bart D. Ehrman](https://www.youtube.com/c/bartdehrman) (83K subscribers). Here is [a list with the top 50 atheist YouTube channels](https://blog.feedspot.com/atheist_youtube_channels/) . ____________ EDIT: [For legacy reasons.] This question originally had a third dot point which was removed to make it more focused. However, before the question was closed a user managed to post an answer where a big chunk of it addresses this third point. Therefore, I'm keeping it below for legacy reasons only. Future answerers may feel free to completely ignore it if they wish. > - What measures (if any) are Christian churches taking to counteract these reasons for deconversion? Do any Christian churches or organizations teach people how to have an unshakable faith, even in the face of the most challenging objections?

Wanted to ask if there are any historical record (Besides the Bible) that shows that pouring baptism was a common church teaching and/or practice?

In the book "Rock and Sand" by Josiah Trenham he criticises Evangelicals for their emphasis on personal purity. I didn't understand this and, to the best of my ability, I don't remember him elaborating what he meant by this. There was an Orthodox apologist in the early days of Youtube who used to talk about religion while smoking. For me, coming from a Protestant background, this was quite shocking. Even as I write this, there is another (in)famous Orthodox man on Youtube from North America who also smokes. Could someone explain what Orthodoxy and possibly Roman Catholicism mean when they criticise us Protestants for our emphasis on personal purity. PS: 1. While I use cigarette smoking as an example, this question isn't specifically about smoking. 2. In the Protestant sect I grew up in, tobacco, betel nut and many other drugs were strictly off limits even in the privacy of our homes. We would be told that the body is God's temple and warned against stumbling others(Romans 14:13-23). 3. The quote from Trenham's book is as follows: > In the Protestant world today the majority of evangelicals are from > Holiness, Pentecostal or Charismatic congregations. They are the > fastest growing segment of Evangelicalism. The most influential > Pentecostal denomination is the Assemblies of God with a membership in > the millions. The Great Awakenings defined the Evangelicalism of the > 18th and 19th centuries. But the 20th century has been the century of > the Holiness, Pentecostal and Charismatic movements. > > On the first day of the new century, in Topeka Kansas, Agnes Osmond, a > student at Charles Parham’s Bethel bible college began speaking in > tongues. News spread and an African-American hotel waiter, William J. > Seymour carried this Pentecostal gospel with him to Los Angeles in > early 1906 and speaking in tongues erupted on April 9th at a house on > Bonnie Brae Street where Parham was staying in Azusa California. The > bible college moved to a warehouse at 312 Azusa Street, where for the > next several years, the Azusa Street mission promoted divine healings, > Pentecostal enthusiasm and missionaries to promote the Pentecostal > movement throughout the world. This Pentecostal movement not only > replicated Pentecostal churches throughout the world, but deeply > influenced both established denominations and even the Roman-Catholic > church. > > These movements share in common a quest for a higher spiritual life > sometimes called a second blessing. Leaders of this movement have > placed tremendous emphasis on moral purity and have given the > Protestant churches a moral uplift. At the same time many of these > movements have established an externalized ethos in which dancing, > drinking and smoking rather than pride, vainglory and self-love are > the great taboos to be avoided and abstinence from these external > vices is seen as the defining characteristic of holiness. Such > erroneous visions of holiness have led evangelicals to the promotion > of such things as teetotalism which is seen as the demonisation of > recreation.

I did some reading but cannot say for certain I understand. Imagine the fiber is a cylindrical object. Does the stain cover the upper most fiber for 360 degrees around the fiber extrior? And does the back of the Shroud contain the same discoloration 360 degrees around the upper most fiber?

Having sang [What a friend we have in Jesus](https://hymnary.org/text/what_a_friend_we_have_in_jesus_all_our_s) since childhood, sharing with Jesus my griefs (verse 1), my struggle with temptation (verse 2), and my toiling in life (verse 3) is natural for me. But when I encourage a lapsed Catholic friend (who grew up in pre-Vatican II era) to do the same with Jesus, I received a strong pushback, saying he is extremely uncomfortable seeing Jesus that way, how what he most appreciated about the Tridentine Mass is the **utmost respect** that everyone shows to God and to Christ, which is another reason he doesn't like to go to church anymore. I happened to hear him talking to his old high school friend, who to this day remains a devoted Catholic (and who also is a catechist at his parish), telling my friend that **for him missing daily mass feels like not visiting a "friend"** (he meant Jesus who is present bodily in the Eucharist). He then tried to disabuse my friend of his misconceptions of the *Novus Ordo* mass, how it's essentially unchanged doctrinally from the *Tridentine* mass, and encouraged my friend to resume his sacramental life. I don't plan to convert my friend to Protestantism but I am trying to **share the Gospel in Catholic terms**. I would be happy if my friend is willing to go to church again and to have a good relationship with Jesus, even in Catholic terms, like how his high school friend is doing. My friend is fine praying the Rosary, which is [in the same spirit](https://udayton.edu/imri/mary/h/hail-holy-queen-prayer.php) as *Salve Regina*. The *Salve Regina* text (see [here](https://www.preces-latinae.org/thesaurus/BVM/SalveRegina.html) , along with the history and the liturgical use of the prayer) **contains similar language with *What a friend we have in Jesus* hymn but directed to Mary** > To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve To thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this valley of tears. followed by a request for Mary to "see" us with compassion and to "show" us Jesus: > Turn then, most gracious Advocate, thine eyes of mercy toward us. And after this our exile show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus. While I personally do not have a problem with praying to Mary as an individual believer's 1. **spiritual mother** who as the second Eve has *compassion* for us, casualties of the original sin of the first Eve, who like an earthly mother *embraces* and *comforts* a crying child 2. **intercessor**, praying for our salvation, along with the angels and the saints 3. **advocate**, who points us to the One who can help us: God the Father who ***only*** through Jesus Christ His Son takes away our pain, sin, and suffering by our participating in the sacraments, I do wonder whether there is some truth in the Protestant's objection of how prayers to Mary **redirect some aspects** of a believer's relationship with Jesus. It seems to me that Catholic spirituality takes a **BOTH-AND** approach with regards to Jesus and Mary, **dividing the affections** that Protestants direct solely to Jesus. This division of affection by a Catholic seems to match the two main Catholic prayers: - **relating to Mary in the Marian prayers (Rosary, *Salve Regina*):** - as someone who understands us in our weakness like a close friend - as someone whom we are not afraid to approach, because she is "one of us" - as someone who loves us and comforts us like our earthly mother and who wants the best for us - **relating to Jesus as celebrated in the Mass:** - who is the awesome standard of holiness, thus reminds us of our sinfulness (*Kyrie Eleison*) - who is sent by the awesome glorious ruler of heaven and earth (*Sanctus*) - who is also the means of grace through His sacrifice (*Agnus Dei*, the Lamb "who takes away the sins of the world") which then explains perfectly my friend's reticence to relate to Jesus like how the hymn suggests (as a friend). This also explains his preferred attitude when going to mass (utmost respect). Given the above analysis, it now makes sense to me how Eleonore Stump labels her new Atonement Theory described in his 2018 book [*Atonement*](https://www.amazon.com/dp/0198813864) **Marian Interpretation** because her theory cannot be easily subsumed under any previous theories in history, though she relies heavily on Thomas Aquinas. In her account Jesus is portrayed as highly compassionate and as having complete solidarity with us in our weaknesses through complete **mind reading** in compassion & solidarity, hence the Marian aspects in *Salve Regina* ("see" and "show"). Believers no longer need to feel distant to God nor afraid of God's justice and holiness, but are instead motivated to lay our burdens to Jesus, receiving his love for us, being united with Him in the Eucharist, and agreeing to be molded to Jesus's image by being yoked with him. I try to understand a theological tradition and a spirituality in their own terms, so I want to understand the Catholic logic of the devotion to both Mary and Jesus **as Catholics understand it**. So, seeing how Catholics seem to relate to Mary as mother and "friend" but to Jesus mostly as Lord, Savior, and Exemplar, although both are united in love toward us (sojourners in exile, striving in the Church Militant), **can you help me understand the role of "friendship with Jesus" in Catholic spirituality**?

The [Hebraic Roots Bible](http://www.coyhwh.com/en/bible.php) makes the claim, > The original New Testament was not written in Greek, but Aramaic. I thought that only the Gospel of Matthew might have been written in Aramaic, and that the rest of the NT was originally written in Greek. There is also the strange claim that the name Yahshua (Jesus) appears in the Old Testament: > There are also almost 100 scriptures in the Tanach (Old Testament) that personify our Savior’s name. Due to the fact that most translations do not use our Savior’s original Hebrew name they totally miss this fact. This is impossible because the Old Testament was written before Jesus was famous. Perhaps the word in these passages that the Hebraic Roots Bible translates as Yahshua should be translated as a simple word, not a name, as it is in other translations.

According to St. John Chrysostom in his [*Baptismal Instruction* 11.28](https://archive.org/details/20191212st.johnchrysostombaptismalinstructions/page/n171/mode/2up?view=theater) : > After stripping you of your robe, the priest leads you down into the flowing waters. But why naked? He reminds you of your former nakedness, when you were in paradise and not ashamed. When did this practice originate? It doesn’t seem to be in the [*Didache*](https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0714.htm) . Further, when did it end?

Does anyone have any good resources on Astronomical dating of Biblical prophecy? I have been looking into how Daniel and John used Astronomical "signs" to date their prophecies and have made several interesting connections. But I need more information on how these prophets use the descriptions of their visions to relate with astronomical positions of the stars and planets.

Daniel Chap 8 always confused me. The last (4th) Beast was detailed in Chap 7 and the former 3rd beast detailed in Chap 8. Both detailed beasts had a little horn coming up later but from different scenarios of previous horns. However Chap 8 explains the 3rd Empire (Chap 7 Leopard) instead as a Goat and in more detail. It's little horn rises out of 4 horns (Generals) taking over (per history) Alexander the Great's empire (at his death). But this little horn isn't said to subdue any previous horns but rather it waxed exceeding great to the south, east, and pleasant land. If one examines history the first sections of Chap 8 seems to be about the Seleucid Empire's Antiochus Epiphanes IV. But the latter part of Chap 8 also seems to go beyond Seleucid's Epiphanes IV and details more in line with the timeline and happenstance of the 4th (final) beast of Chap 7(?). Other than this said implicit latter section expansion Chap 8 does not specifically mention the 4th beast empire included Daniel Chap 7. The Seleucid Empire encompassed a good fraction of the same area as the Eastern Roman (4th beast) Empire. But it's confusing to see the little horn out of the 4 horns go on in the latter section of Chap 8 to sound synonymous with the little horn of the Chap 7's 4th beast which subdued 3 of it's previous 10 horns. Unless Chap 8 is not referring to the 4th beast at all (timeline or premise) and verse 11 is referencing Israel of Christ's earthly time. And verse 23's latter time is referencing the same? I.e. making Chap 7 more about the end of the times of the Gentiles and Chap 8 more about the cutting off of the messiah and Israel being scattered until the last days?

>In his letter dated 28 March 1941 addressed to the believers throughout the West, Shoghi Effendi emphasizes: As to the position of Christianity, let it be stated without any hesitation or equivocation that its divine origin is unconditionally acknowledged, that the Sonship and Divinity of Jesus Christ are fearlessly asserted, that the divine inspiration of the Gospel is fully recognized, that the reality of the mystery of the Immaculacy of the Virgin Mary is confessed, and the primacy of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, is upheld and defended.... ("The Promised Day is Come", rev. ed. (Wilmette: Bahá'í Publishing Trust, 1980); p. 109) With regard to the resurrection of Jesus, they believe that although there was no physical bodily resurrection, “His Spirit... ascended to the presence of God and continued to inspire and guide His followers and preside over the destinies of His dispensation.” - [Resurrection of Christ and the Bible](http://bahai-library.com/uhj_resurrection_bible) . I would like to know the perspective of Christian denominations (any who subscribe to the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed or the Athanasian Creed) on the beliefs of the Baha’i Faith (especially with regard to the person of Jesus Christ).

My understanding of the Hebrew Roots movement is that they celebrate feast days and more closely resemble Jewish traditions rather than "Christian" ones. For example, most Christians would celebrate Christmas while Hebrew Roots would celebrate Hanukkah, though both believe in Christ as savior. If I'm misunderstanding, feel free to set me straight. My question is how the Hebrew Roots (denomination?) handles Paul's writings, since a lot of it seems to disapprove of following the traditionally Jewish practices. For example, Galatians 4 says things like > But now that you know God—or rather are known by God—how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable forces ? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you (9‭-‬11) NIV And verses 21 through 31 talk about being "children of promise" where those under the law are slaves to it. Does the Hebrew Roots movement have an explanation for scriptures like these?

Hoping to gain insight from the Hebrew Roots/TO community: Let me preface my question by saying that while I understand the requirement of observing the Sabbath as commanded—as well as the importance of the LORD's Feasts—I'm trying to reconcile why food laws (Leviticus 11) seem to be such a 'big' item among the HRM/TO communities, but no emphasis is put on keeping the bodily hygiene-related laws in Leviticus 12–15; (i.e. childbirth, skin diseases, uncleanness of men/women). Do those who subscribe to Hebrew Roots/Torah Observant beliefs and who have a skin infection, sexual emission, menstruation, or given birth, refrain from meeting in/with the congregation during the required time(s) outlined in Leviticus? Let me add that I have no objection to eating clean from a health perspective. I am merely seeing inconsistency in belief when it comes to which 'clean laws' are observed and which ones are discarded.

According to ChatGPT-5, "both numbers are thought to be examples of gematria ", which is a system where "letters also stand for numbers": Meaning the name of a person can be expressed as a number. However I've searched online and can't see how you can get to "Nero" from these numbers? Is it all pseudo-science? Again, according to ChatGPT-5: 666: Often interpreted as referring to Nero Caesar when written in Hebrew letters (נרון קסר = 666). 616: Matches the same name Nero Caesar but in a slightly different spelling (the Latin form without the final “n”: נרו קסר = 616). It concludes: "So both numbers likely point to Nero, the Roman emperor infamous for persecuting Christians." Does gematria really point both of these numbers to "Nero"?

In the 1800s there were movements which aimed at recovering the Unity of the Body of Christ, which movements separated from denominational allegiances to found something better : >Several movements originated around 1830, seeking spiritual renewal and purer fellowship. The Strict Baptists took shape as a distinct body; those associated with Edward Irving formed churches governed by apostles and claiming a restoration of the spiritual gifts and ministries mentioned in the New Testament (they were later known as the Catholic Apostolic Church); what became known as Anglo-Catholicism took shape in the Church of England; and the Brethren came into existence. > >Their earliest meetings were in Ireland (Dublin especially) and Plymouth (giving rise to the designation ‘Plymouth Brethren’). Their aim was to provide a fellowship in which all true believers could worship together, gathered round the Lord’s Table, and study the Scriptures without being divided by differing denominational allegiances. Brethren History.org None of these movements seems to have achieved their objective, the Brethren having formed several 'exclusive' groups and a loosely affiliated 'open' following which does not have the coherence that the original Plymouth movement sought. My question is whether the Reformed tradition feels that they have achieved what Brethrenism sought in the 1800s. Setting aside the clear distinction between Reformed Presbyterianism (which holds to infant baptism) and Reformed Baptists (who hold to adult baptism) is the Reformed movement as a whole, in the opinion of its Leaders, a suitable expression of the Unity of the Body of Christ ? I am not asking for opinions of individuals, I am strictly seeking what the *Leaders of the Reformed movement* express in regard to their own quest for the Unity of the Holy Spirit and for the Unity of the Body of Christ.

Matthew 26:26 (KJV): > And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 (KJV): > 27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. How does Judas Iscariot’s participation in the Last Supper illustrate Paul’s warning in 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 about partaking in the Lord’s Supper unworthily, and what are the implications of this connection for the practice of communion in the Christian community?

I’ve often heard a distinction made between *oppression* and *possession*, with the claim that while demons cannot possess Christians, they can still oppress them. In particular, I’ve heard it said that when a Christian struggles with an addiction or a persistent sinful habit, a stronghold they cannot seem to overcome, there may be a demonic influence behind it. This does not mean the believer is unsaved; rather, they are genuinely saved but still wrestling with a stronghold that requires deliverance. My question is: is there any scriptural support for the idea that Christians can be oppressed (but not possessed) by demons, and that they may need deliverance from such oppression, for example in cases where a demon is tied to an addiction or persistent sinful habit from their past that they have not yet overcome?

Scripture warns against revenge at the personal level: - *“Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: ‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay,’ says the Lord.” (Romans 12:19, NIV)* - *“Do not say, ‘I’ll pay you back for this wrong!’ Wait for the LORD, and he will avenge you.” (Proverbs 20:22, NIV)* - *“But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” (Matthew 5:44, NIV)* At the same time, governments are described as God’s servants in carrying out justice: - *“For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.” (Romans 13:4, NIV)* When a government acts out of revenge rather than justice, does this mean it is violating God’s law?

John 18:37 > “‘So you are a king?’ Jesus said, ‘You say that I am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.’” John 14:6 > “Jesus answered, ‘I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.’” John 15:26 > “When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me.” John 1:18 > “No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.” If Jesus declares that He came into the world to bear witness to the truth (John 18:37), and also affirms that He Himself is the truth (John 14:6), how does this personal testimony reveal the intrinsic relationship between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in the Trinitarian concept—where the Son not only communicates truth but is the very Truth proceeding from the Father and manifested in the Spirit?

The text is from Luke 23:43, > And He/Jesus said to him, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be > with Me in Paradise. The following are the words of Joseph Smith: > There has been much said by modern divines about the words of Jesus (when on the cross) to the thief, saying, “This day shalt thou be with me in paradise.” King James’ translators make it out to say paradise. But what is paradise? It is a modern word: it does not answer at all to the original word that Jesus made use of. Find the original of the word paradise. You may as easily find a needle in a haymow. Here is a chance for battle, ye learned men. There is nothing in the original word in Greek from which this was taken that signifies paradise; but it was—This day thou shalt be with me in the world of spirits. (Scriptural Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith, page 309) Under Gospel Topics on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' website the following summary is given: > When Jesus was on the cross, a thief who also was being crucified said, “Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.” The Lord replied, “Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.” The Prophet Joseph Smith explained that this is a mistranslation; the Lord actually said that the thief would be with Him in the world of spirits (source ). Notice the words, "The Prophet Joseph Smith "explained" that this is a mistranslation? How does he know it's a mistranslation? It's not a mistranslation according to Greek Scholar A.T. Robertson. Here is what he has to say on the matter. > "Today shalt thou be with me in Paradise (Σημερον μετ' εμου εση εν τω > παραδεισω). > > However crude may have been the robber's Messianic ideas Jesus clears the path for him. He promises him immediate and conscious fellowship after death with Christ in Paradise which is a Persian word and is used here not for any supposed intermediate state; but the very bliss of heaven itself. This Persian word was used for an enclosed park or pleasure ground (so Xenophon). The word occurs in two other passages in the N.T. (2 Corinthians 12:4; Revelation 2:7), in both of which the reference is plainly to heaven. Some Jews did use the word for the abode of the pious dead till the resurrection, interpreting "Abraham's bosom" (Luke 16:22) in this sense also. But the evidence for such an intermediate state is too weak to warrant belief in it." (source ) I am not aware that Joseph Smith knows any Greek so maybe the LDS can explain how Smith came up with how Jesus should have said, "the thief would be with Him in the world of spirits?"

A “panel with a central oval” was inserted in the 16th century in the frontal lower part of the high altar of the S. Maria della Passione church in Milano, Italy. The altar cavity in oval shape located in the central panel contains relics and is adorned with gold gilded symbols of the passion. Inside this cavity are relics of the saints presented in small glass containers and identified with written documents. Question: Did this individual central panel with cavity for the relics require 5 crosses for the high altar to be consecrated in the 16th century? Did the imagery of this panel require sacred imagery? Is the cavity a sepulcrum?? ![The high alter with panel of Santa Maria Della Passione ][1] Please view the image of the high altar and panel on the YouTube video "[MILANO, la meravigliosa chiesa di SANTA MARIA DELLA PASSIONE](https://youtu.be/PVhw393Bdno?t=541) " at minute 9:04.