I’m doing some research about early Christianity, specifically looking into the circumstances of the divergence between Judaism and Christianity as two very distinct religions as we know them today. It seems Paul had a very remarkable role in shifting the Christian faith into a more Gentile and independent religion rather than enforcing Mosaic laws. Since Paul is considered the Apostle to the Gentiles, did Paul continue to consider himself a Jew after conversion?

Among the Ten Commandments in Christianity, there is no 'You shall not convert.

G.K. Chesterton is one of my favorite authors. On a lot of subjects, his way of looking at things really astonishes me. He can still show things in a fresh perspective, though his books are about a hundred years old. In his later writings, he quite strongly scoffs at Protestants at times. This is disturbing, as I haven't quite figured why. I probably would find information about his conversion in some of his books, but frankly there's a lot to read. And with none of his books available where I live, it's also troublesome to get them -- call me old-fashioned, but I only read books on paper. I'd like to get an overview of the reasons G.K. left the Anglican church for the Catholic, possibly along with some further reading recommendations. This question was partly inspired by Why didn't C.S. Lewis convert to Catholicism? I've wondered about G.K.'s conversion for some time. I haven't dared ask about it here before, as I've been afraid it would be off-topic.

*Note*: This question has been inspired by the related question *https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/99867/61679* --- I'm intrigued by the prospect of tailoring apologetics strategies specifically to effectively present a compelling case for the truth of Christianity to those who adhere to pagan beliefs. While traditional apologetics often focuses on persuading atheists and agnostics, such as in works like "[I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist](https://www.amazon.com/Dont-Have-Enough-Faith-Atheist/dp/1581345615) ," there is a unique challenge when engaging with individuals who already accept beliefs in deities, miracles, the supernatural, and similar concepts within a pagan or non-Christian framework. What arguments and approaches does Christian apologetics employ to effectively persuade individuals holding such perspectives? Delving further into pagan theology unveils intriguing concepts such as [theurgy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theurgy) and [thaumaturgy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thaumaturgy) . Theurgy, commonly linked with [Neoplatonism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoplatonism) , encompasses rituals and practices aimed at invoking the presence of divine entities. Thaumaturgy, on the other hand, often pertains to the use of magical acts or miracles for practical ends. Additionally, one may encounter related terms such as [Western esotericism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_esotericism) , [Eastern Esotercisim](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_esotericism) , [Perennial philosophy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perennial_philosophy) , [Kabbalah](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabbalah) , [Hermeticism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeticism) , [Occult](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occult) , [Modern paganism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_paganism) , [Shamanism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamanism) , [Spiritualism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritualism) , [New Thought](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Thought) , [Theosophy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosophy) , [Witchcraft](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witchcraft) , [Druidism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Druidry_(modern)) , [Yoga](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoga) , [Reiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reiki) , [Astrology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology) , and [New Age](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Age) . > Theurgy (/ˈθiːɜːrdʒi/; from Greek θεουργία theourgía), also known as divine magic, is one of two major branches of the magical arts, the other being practical magic or thaumaturgy. Theurgy describes the ritual practices associated with the invocation or evocation of the presence of one or more deities (also called "godforms"), especially with the goal of achieving henosis (uniting with the divine) and perfecting oneself. (Source: [Theurgy - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theurgy).) > Thaumaturgy is the purported capability of a magician to work magic or other paranormal events or a saint to perform miracles. It is sometimes translated into English as wonderworking. > >A practitioner of thaumaturgy is a "thaumaturge", "thaumaturgist", "thaumaturgus", "miracle worker", or "wonderworker". A 'saint', being one who is variably defined as having an exceptional degree of holiness, enlightenment, or likeness or closeness to God, may be claimed to have performed miracles; these generally being defined as exceptional events or deeds not within the normative means of natural or human power, instead being of some supernatural or preternatural manner. Although the definition of a 'miracle', like the definition of a 'saint', will vary yet further among separate religions, sects, and schools. > > **Buddhism** > See also: *Abhijñā* and *Miracles of Gautama Buddha* > In the introduction of his translation of the "Spiritual Powers (神通 Jinzū)" chapter of Dōgen's Shōbōgenzō, Carl Bielefel refers to the powers developed by adepts of Buddhist meditation as belonging to the "thaumaturgical tradition". These powers, known as siddhi or abhijñā, were ascribed to the Buddha and subsequent disciples. Legendary monks like Bodhidharma, Upagupta, Padmasambhava, and others were depicted in popular legends and hagiographical accounts as wielding various supernatural powers. > > **Hinduism** > See also: *Godman (India)* > Godman is a colloquial term used in India for a type of charismatic guru. They usually have a high-profile presence, and are capable of attracting attention and support from large sections of the society. Godmen also sometimes claim to possess paranormal powers, such as the ability to heal, the ability to see or influence future events, and the ability to read minds. > > (Source: [Thaumaturgy - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thaumaturgy).) When exploring these concepts, I'm intrigued to know if apologists have crafted arguments or techniques specifically designed to resonate with followers and practitioners of pagan religions. For example, are there instances where apologetics has been meticulously tailored to address the beliefs of modern New Agers or adherents of the *perennial philosophy*? Analyzing specific instances across different religions can provide valuable insights into how apologetics effectively navigates the nuances between Christianity and the diverse viewpoints found within pagan traditions, especially in the context of engaging with and proselytizing a pagan audience.

If a Christian "converts" to Judaism or Islam (or any of the Abrahamic religions), is he still considered saved as a Christian? What if he/she converted from Trinitarian to Unitarian? This is a general Christian question, so I am requesting an overview of Christian positions on such conversions.

## Background Paul is described as a highly educated Pharisee: > I am a Jew born in Tarsus in Cilicia but brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, educated strictly according to our ancestral law, being zealous for God, just as all of you are today. - *Acts of the Apostles 22:3* More zealous than his peers, and his understanding of Judaism exceeded his peers: > I advanced in Judaism beyond many among my people of the same age, for I was far more zealous for the traditions of my ancestors. *Epistle to the Galatians 1:14* The story of his persecution of Christians and subsequent conversion experience is well known. ## Premises 1. Paul was a highly trained Jewish scholar 2. Paul was familiar with messianic prophecies 3. Paul knew about *some* of the claims of early Christians about Jesus (messiahship, resurrection, divinity, etc) Therefore Paul could have evaluated the claims of Christians for himself prior to his supernatural experience. ## Question According to Christians why did Paul, who claimed to have a high knowledge of the Hebrew bible, need a supernatural encounter to believe in Jesus? Wouldn't he have been familiar with the myriad of prophecies which only Jesus could have fulfilled?

What is the definition of "Jewish origin" according to the [Association of Hebrew Catholics](https://www.hebrewcatholic.net/) ? - Would children of a Jewish father and a non-Jewish mother be considered to have "Jewish origin" by the Association of Hebrew Catholics? What about children of a Jewish mother? - When a Catholic has only one Jewish ancestor (say in cases where it is matrilineal or patrilineal) and *was a convert to Judaism*, conversions to which movement of Rabbinic Judaism (Orthodox, Conservative or Reform) or non-Rabbinic (Messianic, Haymanot or Karaite) would constitute "Jewish origin" in the case of this Catholic?

Constantine the Great and his Christian faith: Does anyone have any insight on how Constantine came to put his faith in Christ and what specifically led him [to commission the making of ***Codex Sinaiticus***](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus#Date) ?

My earlier question https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103636 received the following criticism in the comments: > Rather than asking for truth about a religious concept, ask something like *"What, if anything, have the church fathers or notable theologians written explaining how God chooses specific times, places, and people for significant conversion experiences?"*. That asks for objective facts (e.g. "Martin Luther wrote "…") as opposed to subjective opinion (e.g. *"It is absurd to ask …"*). Most of us might agree with that opinion, but it is still an opinion. Whereas Catholics, Hindus, and Atheists would all agree with the statement about Luther, even though they all disagree with what Luther said. Thus, I ask: **What, if anything, have the church fathers or notable theologians written explaining how God chooses specific times, places, and people for significant conversion experiences?**

I asked this question: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103636/81556 . The question references the conversion of Blaise Pascal as an example. In response, a user commented the following: > The question assumes that Pascal was in fact directly converted by God. **What reason is there to believe the Christian God decided to do this to him, as opposed to someone else's similar experience by a Hindu god?** The experiences can't both be real. But are they both delusional? How can you know? ¶ This isn't a site for asking about truth. The question should present some denomination's view of the situation, and the question should be about how that denomination thinks God makes his decisions. A good answer will be equally acceptable to a Christian, a Hindu, and an Atheist. Are there Christians who are skeptical of conversion stories like Blaise Pascal's? If yes, why?

For this question, I will refer to Blaise Pascal's personal case, as summarized on this [website](https://godandmath.com/tag/pascals-wager/) : > ### Conversion experience > > November 23, 1654, Pascal underwent a conversion experience. He had a vision of Jesus on the cross, he wrote: > >> “From about half-past ten in the evening until about half-past twelve … FIRE … God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, and not of the philosophers and savants. Certitude. Certitude. Feeling. Joy. Peace.” > > He kept this on a small piece of paper which he kept with him sewn into the lining of his coat. > > ### Pascal and reason > > Pascal was highly dubious about the role of natural theology. In his *Pensées* , published posthumously, he wrote: > >> “It is an astounding fact that no canonical writer has ever made use of nature to prove God. They all strive to make us believe in Him. David, Solomon, etc., have never said, “There is no void, therefore there is a God.” They must have had more knowledge than the most learned people who came after them, and who have all made use of this argument. This is worthy of attention.” (*Pensées* 243) > > Natural theology for Pascal leads to the god of the philosophers, not the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of the Bible. > > He could perhaps be thought of as an early reformed epistemologist, for him belief in God was properly basic. He asserted that: > >> “The heart has its reasons, which reason does not know.” (*Pensées* 277) >> >> “It is the heart which experiences God, and not the reason. This, then, is faith: God felt by the heart, not by the reason.” (*Pensées* 278) > > Nevertheless, he did provide one argument for belief in God: Pascal’s Wager (*Pensées* 233). Simply put, if God exists we will be rewarded. If he doesn’t exist we won’t be. If we believe in God and he doesn’t exist we might have lost out on a few ‘sinful pleasures’, however, if we don’t believe in God but he does exist, then we may face eternal damnation. It’s not worth the risk of not believing in God. Pascal believed that God is beyond the reach of reason and must be known through the heart. Natural theology and philosophical arguments may point to the "God of the philosophers," but not to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. As his own conversion experience suggests, Pascal did not come to faith through intellectual reasoning but through a profound spiritual encounter. Following Pascal's thoughts and testimony, it seems that God takes an active role in conversion, especially if such experiences require an encounter with the living God. The question then becomes: when and where does this occur? **Theologically, what factors does God consider when determining the moment and place for someone to have a conversion experience, like Pascal's?**

I was raised Christian, but abandoned my faith in my teens due to ridicule from atheists. I've tried multiple times to return in my adult life, but honestly I just couldn't accept what was required of me. If I became one of the local sects, I would have to become a homophobic Trump-supporting evangelical. I've been trying to read the bible for myself, so I can finally know for myself what it actually says. Its quite a lengthy text btw. However, would this really be enough for me to become Christian again? The main problem I've been having is I don't know what I would be allowed to do anymore. If you trust the internet, you're pretty much not allowed to do anything unless it constitutes worshiping god, seriously. I look up any question, from video games to Halloween, I just find extremist content saying its wrong. I realize I'll have to change, yes, but how to change? Besides, there's also the issue that I don't want to become a bigoted extremist. I know not all Christians are like that, but finding their opinions seems nigh impossible. As I've said, I look up anything on the internet I just find extremist content essentially claiming that you have to be an old-school puritan minus the dress.

If a woman is Roman Catholic, and a man is from Kerala, from the Malankara Orthodox Syrian church, and they wish to marry, does the woman need to convert to Syrian Orthodoxy? According to the Syrian Oriental Orthodox Church, can she marry him while remaining a Roman Catholic and planning to raise their children as Catholics?

I've identified several potential pathways for why someone may embrace Christianity: - Option 1: Influence of birthplace, culture, and upbringing, possibly resulting in a 'cultural Christian'. See related discussion: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/100901/61679 - Option 2: Conversion influenced by interpersonal relationships or community dynamics. This could involve being inspired by the faith of friends, family, or mentors, or finding belonging and conviction within a Christian community. - Option 3: Just choosing to believe. Right now. Just believe. That's it. - Option 4: Persuasion through intellectual engagement, often via philosophical reasoning found in natural theology and apologetics. - Option 5: Personal religious, spiritual, or mystical encounters—a direct and intimate experience with the divine. Option 1 often draws criticism from skeptics due to its reliance on factors such as parental and cultural influence, which are heavily tied to one's place of birth. This means that individuals tend to adopt the religion of their parents and the prevailing culture in their geographical area. For instance, Muslims predominantly reside in regions where Islam is prevalent, Buddhists in areas where Buddhism holds sway, and Christians in societies where Christianity is dominant. However, the mere circumstance of birthplace lacks persuasive power in determining the validity of a worldview. Hence, we can disregard this option. Option 2 shares similarities with Option 1, yet it might appear somewhat more appealing, particularly on a psychological level, due to the perceived advantages of belonging to a supportive community. However, skeptics can readily question this option, as we can find people joining all sorts of religions around the world for similar psychological and sociological reasons. Relying on a worldview solely because the associated community offers a sense of belonging and support lacks convincing force. Therefore, we can discount this option. Option 3 is known in philosophy as *[direct doxastic voluntarism](https://iep.utm.edu/doxastic-voluntarism/)* . It's a highly contested view and I'm personally extremely skeptical of its existence. Option 4 stands as a huge philosophical battleground, characterized by a vast array of debates, arguments, and counter-arguments, along with an abundance of literature exploring every major claim of the Christian faith, from the existence of God to the resurrection of Jesus. Notable examples include debates such as: - [Ehrman vs Craig: Evidence for Resurrection](https://youtu.be/MW5_nJYSKyk) - [Is belief in the Resurrection reasonable? Trent Horn Vs Matt Dillahunty Debate](https://youtu.be/7V6UNSvHVDM) - [Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? (William Lane Craig vs Richard Carrier)](https://youtu.be/akd6qzFYzX8) - [Is the Kalam Sound? Graham Oppy vs. Andrew Loke](https://youtu.be/a8NrTv-Durc) - [Can We "Prove" that God Exists? | Graham Oppy vs Ed Feser](https://youtu.be/XoVDutpB4Cw) - [Are There Any Good Arguments for God? Ed Feser vs Graham Oppy](https://youtu.be/m-80lQOlNOs) - [Does Math Point to God? William Lane Craig + Graham Oppy](https://youtu.be/8WE1y00bwCU) - [William Lane Craig and Sean Carroll | "God and Cosmology" | 2014 Greer Heard Forum](https://youtu.be/X0qKZqPy9T8) - [DEBATE: Theism vs Atheism | Jonathan McLatchie vs Alex O’Connor](https://youtu.be/rnIQFI1pYLM) - [Free Will, Souls, and the Problem of Evil | Richard Swinburne and Alex O'Connor](https://youtu.be/8Y3PtkyhOiU) - [Dave Farina vs. James Tour Debate (Are We Clueless About the Origin of Life?)](https://youtu.be/KvGdllx9pJU) - [REBUTTING atheist objections to the fine-tuning argument](https://youtu.be/bGbbWyd4l7Q) - [Why is God hidden? Cosmic Skeptic & Lukas Ruegger at Oxford University with Max Baker-Hytch](https://youtu.be/9nc0YT-WTnQ) - [Why I Am/Am Not a Christian, @CosmicSkeptic vs. @TheCounselofTrent // CCx22 Session 2](https://youtu.be/dFYrfKHSV2k) - etc. These discussions involve highly intelligent individuals representing various viewpoints. Some argue that evidence, reason, and arguments can prove the existence of God, while others disagree. Option 4 presents a double-edged sword. Some individuals may find certain philosophical arguments compelling, sufficient to ground their faith. Conversely, others may find arguments to the contrary more convincing. As an outsider, discerning which side holds the upper hand is challenging. The ongoing nature of these debates, spanning millennia, may suggest an epistemological stalemate where neither side manages to sway the other convincingly. This impasse might lead one to consider agnosticism as a more intellectually honest and humble stance ([Why Am I Agnostic?](https://youtu.be/YTsSW7UeZpY) by the *Majesty of Reason* YouTube Channel provides further insights). If we dismiss Options 1 and 2 due to their lack of persuasiveness, and Option 3 due to its profound philosophical controversies, we're left with Options 4 and 5. However, Option 4, despite being a fervent philosophical battleground, offers no clear path to resolution. Therefore, we'll also set it aside. This leaves us only with Option 5, which, in my humble opinion, appears to be the most promising avenue. After all, what better foundation for one's faith in God than a direct encounter with God? What better basis for faith in Christ than a personal encounter with Christ? The Apostle Paul's experience, vividly depicted in the ninth chapter of the Book of Acts, echoes this sentiment perfectly well. Which Christian theological perspectives would agree to a significant extent with this reasoning? Which Christian theological frameworks support anchoring one's faith in a direct encounter with God? --- **Clarifications on Option #5** The five options I have enumerated and described above have been criticized in the comments due to (purportedly) lacking "love". Quote: > What is completely absent from all of this is any trace of love whatsoever. We love him, because he first loved us. 1 John 4:19. Down-voted and voted to closure for lack of focus. The question has no heart. – NigelJ > The reason @NigelJ's comment is important is that all Christian religions embrace the idea of being touched by the love of Christ. If you're willing to include that in your option #5, then the question is trivial. You seemed to imply a "direct encounter with God," which would suggest standing face-to-face and talking to one another or (since you mention Paul) at least physically hearing a voice - which is a LOT different. Do you also include experiencing the Gifts of the Spirit (1 Cor 12)? In which case we're back to everybody agrees. BTW, having been a proselytizing missionary myself, options 1-4 make for a poor conversion (see Matt 13:3-8). My option #5 includes everything from standing in the presence of the Father, Jesus and/or the Holy Ghost to experiencing the Gifts of the Spirit to personal revelation - all of which, when combined with experience actually repenting and choosing to follow Christ, makes for a strong conversion. You don't seem to be interested in any of that as an option, however. – JBH If God pours out his love over a human being, and that human being experiences such supernatural love, that's a religious/spiritual/mystical experience by my lights. So experiencing God's love is definitely encapsulated by Option 5, and thus this specific critique is misplaced in my opinion. The same goes for experiencing the Gifts of the Spirit and receiving personal revelation, as suggested by @JBH. These are all examples of spiritual experiences. However, Cessationists would take issue with the suggestion that one can experience (certain) spiritual gifts today, thus challenging @JBH's assertion that "everybody agrees".

Does the Catholic Church recognize Protestant baptism? What if one wants to convert to Catholicism, but can't get baptized, or they originally were part of a protestant church and were baptized and wish to convert. How exactly would that work?

Without offending I'd like to sway another without having them totally shut me down I'm just looking for any suggestions

Related Holy Ghost revealing truth privately and personally in an absolute and unmistakable manner In recent posts I have seen many statements that seem to indicate spiritual experience as secondary/lesser/untrusted sources of truth: >Truth must be determined by something not so much apart from a personal subjective experience but in addition to it. That brings us to the realm of empirical evidence and rational thought.1 >the Bible warns against emotional 'feelings' and 'spiritual experiences' that are not utterly rooted in following the Jesus of the Bible ... I am a sceptic when it comes to people enthusing about an experience they had after prayer...Especially if it ... does not square with what my Bible tells me Jesus Christ is.2 >any personal private revelation which contradicts something that has already been written or does not deepen understanding of who Jesus is and what Jesus does (according to what is already written) is to be held as highly suspect at best.3 >However, they may acknowledge varying degrees of clarity in these revelations, and the possibility of deception (as in false dreams, false visions, or false prophecies), which is why discernment of spirits is an important subject matter.4 From Wikipedia of discerning spirits 5: >Judgment of discernment can be made in two ways. The first is by a charism or spiritual gift, held as divinely granted to certain individuals for the discerning of spirits by intuition (1 Corinthians 12:10). The second way to discern spirits is by reflection and **theological study. This second method is by acquired human knowledge** While my own opinions are closer to the fourth statement, what is the biblical basis that spiritual experiences are the first step in conversion (are to be trusted)? Is anything else necessary in knowing Jesus is the Christ (Savior of man), is theological study necessary? Is anything else more important to conversion/following Jesus than feelings/heart/faith (is data, reasoning, evidence, etc)? Bonus: How does one discern that which is good/evil (deceiving spirits and false prophets vs truth)? ***** I do realize these statements include caveats such as ...are not utterly rooted in following the Jesus of the Bible and ...which contradicts something that has already been written or does not deepen understanding of who Jesus..(according to what is already written) but both of these emphasize relying on one's understanding of the written word of which there are many interpretations. We know the bible doesn't contain everything (Jesus' teenage years, John 20:30 to quickly name a few as this is laying quick basis). As many parts of the bible were written after they happened things could have been missed or changed in the mind (not nefariously/purpose). This isn't to say the bible isn't important or doesn't contain truth (I am asking for biblical basis to answer this question), just that relying on it as singular/primary source has inherent flaws 1 https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/100625/22319 2 https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/100617/22319 3 https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/100652/22319 4 https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/100647/22319 5 Gen 3:22 , 1 king 3:9 , Isa 5:20 , Eze 44:23 , John 1:9 , 1 Cor 2:14 , 1 Cor 12:10 , 1 John 4:2,6

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?

While contemplating answers to several related questions ([link 1](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/99969/61679) , [link 2](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/99954/61679) , [link 3](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/99687/61679)) , I've started to have second thoughts on my original impression about the concept of conversion, perhaps wrongly understanding it as an inherently evident experience or event, rather than a more subtle, gradual, and maybe subconscious process. When I say an experience or event, I'm not necessarily referring to a dramatic Damascus road encounter, but perhaps some form of an 'aha' moment of enlightenment. For instance, Latter-day Saints have the concept of ['gaining a testimony'](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/99578/61679) , which appears to involve an experiential aspect, yet I'm uncertain if they distinguish it from the moment of conversion. Which faith traditions posit that the moment of conversion is an unmistakable and self-evident spiritual event or experience?

I posted a question on Philosophy Stack Exchange titled [*Is the Skeptic's Prayer a legitimate scientific experiment?*](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/108053/66156) . Please review it for contextual information. Numerous responses, predominantly from non-believers and skeptics, present various objections to the scientific validity of the *Skeptic's Prayer*. However, let's consider a scenario where a skeptic, intrigued by the possibility of God's existence and the truth of Christianity, decides to earnestly give it a try. This individual prays with the hopeful expectation of a divine response, but despite genuine effort, experiences no discernible outcome, and no conversion experience takes place. Eventually, the skeptic abandons their exploratory pursuit. From a Christian standpoint, what conceivable explanations exist for why a truth-seeking skeptic, in the specific endeavor of seeking an encounter with or a response from the Christian God, might perceive a lack of "results" in their pursuit?