Of course, we have many indications to that truth in the Old Testament, but it was only with the coming of Jesus Christ that it was spoken to humans in plain language that God has the Only-begotten Son. How is this matter explained in the Catholicism, the Eastern Orthodoxy and main-stream Protestant Christianity?

If there are unmistakable events or experiences that prove "true" salvation, how would we then be able to discern a deceptive event or experience that was administered by Satan? Isn't this why faith is required instead of visible proof? I believe it protects us from the power of Satan, "the god of this world" and master of deception, along with his false "ministers of righteousness". **2 Corinthians 4:3-4** >But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: 4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. **2 Corinthians 11:13-15** >For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. 14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works. Please provide actual scripture from our apostle Paul's epistles (Romans through Philemon) that states where we will experience an immediate event or experience that would confirm our eternal salvation aside from having faith alone in Jesus Christ and the work that He completed on the cross on our behalf.

I live in a place where I can't find anyone to baptize me. Can I become a Christian on my own?

I understand that most scholars think that book of Daniel is a forgery and definitely not written in the 6th century BC and not written by Daniel. What strikes me is why Christians traditionally think that the book was written by Daniel ? In the book itself, first 1-6 chapters, it's written in 3rd person and not 1st which definitely don't mean at all that book was written by Daniel. For sure, 7-12 sometimes talk about in 1st person but what solid argument does this give that book was written by Daniel ? Would you be able to shed lights about why Christians think that it was written by Daniel ? what's their reasoning ?

What renowned atheist Richard Dawkins has claimed to be is looked at on this blog site, with the link to the video where he says it at the end of this question: https://possil.wordpress.com/2024/05/09/without-foundations-the-building-falls/ Renowned atheist Richard Dawkins has now declared himself to be a ‘cultural Christian’. He cherishes the cultural artifacts and traditions of Christianity, from hymns and Christmas carols to beautiful parish churches and old-fashioned liberalism. He ‘feels the Christian ethos’, and considers the UK a Christian country and that ‘to substitute any alternative religion would be truly dreadful’. How very nice of him to say so. But has the emergence of ‘Cultural Christianity’ muddied the once-clear waters as to what Christianity really is? How did we get from the martyrdom of 10 of Jesus’ Apostles for refusing to renounce belief in Christ, to atheists today saying they are cultural Christians? And could it be argued that the one word in their claim that should not be allowed is ‘Christian’? They could call themselves cultural atheists supporting the cultural side of Christianity, perhaps, but we all know that in this sound-bite era, a two-word designation goes down without question, while an exact designation has many people fast asleep halfway through reading it. All right. That’s not very nice of me to say so. Those questions still remain important, though: What have Christian artifacts and traditions got to do with claiming to be any kind of a Christian? Can an atheist ever claim to be any kind of a Christian? Does such a claim show the atheist has no real understanding of what it is to be a Christian? Has the emergence of ‘Cultural Christianity’ muddied the once-clear waters as to what it is to be a Christian? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COHgEFUFWyg Question addressed to atheists and Christians who have examined the logic behind such a claim.

All my life, I've been massively confused about how there exists separate, seemingly incompatible and separate, "branches" of Christianity. I know about "protestant", "catholic" and then there's something else in the "main three" which I probably "should know" by heart but I simply don't. And then there's also things like Mormons ("Latter Day Saints") and many other minor "variants". I find Wikipedia and all other websites to be utterly exhausting to try to browse. They seem to always assume that you know most of what you're reading about, instead of having basically no knowledge and wanting to hear the most important elements of each "flavour" and preferably a short summary of why they are separate in the first place. It would be much simpler if there were just "Christians", "Muslims", "Jews", etc., but it's apparently not enough to be "Christian", because all the different groups of Christians will not approve of you unless you use their "variant". At least that's how I perceive things and how they must logically be if they are different branches. I mean, why would they exist if they all agreed to the same stuff anyway? Some (a lot, in fact) even say that Jesus was a Jew and thus Christianity in itself is branched out from Judaism? That seems like an important fact if true. It makes Christianity as a whole just some kind of "expansion pack" to the "main software product", to speak in computer jargon. I'm really just trying to get an overview by asking this question. If such a thing can be had. I find that the more basic my questions are, the more vague are the answers. In fact, I have never heard of any Christians who refer to the "protestant Bible" or "catholic Bible" -- it's always just "the Bible" (by which they mean the old and the new testaments combined, I assume) or "the good book" or "the holy word". Does the Bible in itself talk about and name these branches, or were they created much later, long after the Bible had been finished and spread? I also know that the Mormons have another "testament" added to the first two, but that's just about it. And I know there's a stereotype about Catholics making a lot of children, but that also seems to be a common cliché for Mormons as well. That's just about all I know, amazingly. (It's why I ask.)

I was reading 12:3 and I started to wonder whether or not that blessing was for Palestinians too, as descendants of Abraham. Thank you.

It is said that there are more Anglicans attending Sunday morning services in Nigeria alone than in all the United Kingdom. Recently the archbishop of Lagos has effectively excommunicated the archbishop of Canterbury for gross heresy; other communions such as Baptists, Methodists and even Roman Catholics have been seeing similar patterns in different stages. Philip Jenkins thinks this is but the beginning of a new cycle according to a pattern that repeats itself again and again since the early days of the church. The question is, while we have influential examples in Global South bishops and preachers, how influential are them in the Old World and North America?

Part of Christianity seems to be one's perpetual increase of love for other people. Jesus loved so perfectly that he was able to perform astonishing miracles, even by today's standards with all our technological advancements, and give us an example of what it looks like to do God's will. Now that many billions are following his example, I'd like to think that we have gotten increasingly better at loving one another in the last 2000 years. So, is there anything commonplace we do today that would have been seen as miraculous or rare in ancient times?

Concerning the end of the world and when this will happen Mark 13:10 says: > And the gospel must first be preached to all nations. (NIV) Has the gospel been preached to all nations?

Deut 34:5-7 say that when Moses died at the age of 120 years, his eyesight or strength had not diminished. That implies that he did not die of age-related ailments. One is left to assume that Moses died a sudden death for reasons like heart failure, or in an accident. Anyway, the Old Testament is silent on the cause of his death. My question therefore: **Is there a traditional belief in Christianity or Judaism on the cause of death of Moses?**

If my interpretation of the ultimate purpose of human existence according to the Bible is correct, humanity exists to glorify the existence of God. In Isaiah 43:7, it is stated "everyone who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made.” This outlines humanity's purpose as a device to glorify God. But if God is a perfect being, why does he desire to be glorified? Normally, this characteristic would be associated with a being that is insecure or narcissistic, which are not to my understanding perfect traits. Surely this is a pretty fundamental attribute of God for which Christianity surely has a doctrine. In there a specific theological term used for this topic? And what do different Christian theological traditions teach about this issue? Is there there a general explanation that is broadly agreed on explaining this attribute of God or are there different explanations?

The case has been made regarding Jesus and Lazarus, that the fact that a person of substance (Jesus) should take an interest of a person such as Lazarus is perhaps a greater miracle than Lazarus’ health issues, that such an interest of the poor was not seen thousands of years before -including the Pharaohs - and thousands of years later. One theory has been offered, that Jesus’ actions should all be seen in a political perspective, where his concern was to keep his followers united under the Roman threat. Be that as it may. There is however a similar contradiction well known and documented of the same type on an almost-global scale, which certainly took place, well documented in many details: the transition to Christianity of the Roman Empire. Seen from an angle, It is strange that such an unequal society world embrace the message of equality, love and care between all individuals in a society. In The Decline and fall of the Roman Empire, Edward Gibbon mentions 5 reasons for the Roman acceptance of Christianity: "I. The inflexible, and, if we may use the expression, the intolerant zeal of the Christians, derived, it is true, from the Jewish religion, but purified from the narrow and unsocial spirit which, instead of inviting, had deterred the Gentiles from embracing the law of Moses, II. The doctrine of a future life, improved by every additional circumstance which could give weight and efficacy to that important truth, III. The miraculous powers ascribed to the primitive church. IV. The pure and austere morals of the Christians, and V. The union and discipline of the Christian republic, which gradually formed an independent and increasing state in the heart of the Roman empire." It is clear that the message of love for one another is not at the center in Gibbon’s notes. Still, the conversion of Constantine the Great is very close in time to the first council of Nicaea, where Trinity is mentioned as a doctrine, i.e. the importance of Jesus and his views cannot be overlooked in Constantine’s belief so that, for example, the monotheistic property in Christianity cannot be the dominant reason. One can make the case that things are similar today, but there is a difference between keeping a tradition and creating one. The contradiction has become validated and visible in the case of slavery from time to time during the ages, but doesn’t explain the acceptance of the contradiction. Could the political values for Constantine the Great have shadowed what has become a more central message today?

These are some verses where Jesus says that giving all your earthly riches, you will earn eternal life:
Matthew 19:16-30: When the rich man asks about the eternal life and Jesus replies with Moses' commandments and the rich man says that he obeyed the commandments very carefully and Jesus told that to achive eternal life the man must sell everything and give to poor people and then follow Jesus.

Luke 12:13-21: The parable of the rich fool: But God said to him, "You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?"

Luke 19:7: Zacchaeus promises Jesus that he will give half of the riches to poor people and Jesus says that the Salvation entered Zacchaeus's house.

A few questions related to those verses:

**Why Jesus told the rich man he needs to give *all* he has, and Zacchaeus can earn the eternal life by giving only *half*?**

**What if someone wants to give all the riches to the poor people, but he has kids. Does Jesus want us to leave our sons and daughters without anything? The parable of the fool rich man says that God asked the man whom are your riches to after you die. Maybe he wanted to ensure a wealthy life for his descendents?**

**Does God really wants us to give all our earnings to poor people? For instance, someone with salary should give all the money he receives after a month of work to poor people?** I don't ask these questions to blame Jesus, I'm trying to understand what Jesus meant, because I'm 100% sure that He doesn't want us to starve to death and give everything to poor people.

Wikipedia has a List of Christian Nobel laureates, but I can't find a list of great medical discoveries made by or even medical drugs created by religious people (or by Christian people) I am not looking for some sort of exhaustive list of minor medical discoveries and inventions. I am looking for a some sort of list of major medical discoveries, inventions, innovations, as one can not seem to be found! I mean discoveries that are more or less on the level of these discoveries: [Timeline of medicine and medical technology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_medicine_and_medical_technology) .

I have commonly come across the belief that "newer" religions integrate existing customs and traditions into their own. So what traditions and customs in Christianity can be traced back (with the help of proper references) to Paganism?

Which set of doctrines is accepted and believed by the vast majority of Christians? To get started, I think the doctrine "God exists" must surely be the least controversial of all. **Note**: This is essentially the polar opposite to my recently asked (and closed) question https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/86318/50422 **EDIT**: a probably more on-topic polar opposite question: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/86324/50422

What is the bible such that contains the intersection, of agreement in the word, between Jews and Christians? It seems that it's the Torah, is this correct? Are there more books? I said intersection because AFAIK, Christianity have its roots in Jewish religion. If there's no such bible, what is the approximate bible or bibles that have this? Thank you in advance. PD. I don't know much about this yet, so correct if I said something wrong.

In the time of Christ, were there mystics, Jewish or otherwise, with whom Christ consorted before or during the time of His ministry? By "mystics" is meant those comparable to Sufi mystics, who seek hidden spiritual truths by various means, and not those who perform acts the results of which are unexplained by temporal science ("magicians".)

This question isn't about a specific situation but was brought on when I read about a few "prophecies" in the US claiming that Trump would win the 2020 election - a prophecy we now know to be false. They claim that God is telling them these things - there are many people that follow these speakers and are led astray by them. Is there any responsibility on others within a Church (of any denomination) to denounce these people using the Lord's name to further their own goals? i.e. if a Catholic Priest were to make such claims and so publicly should the Pope step in to separate this view from that of the Catholic faith to minimise the damage done to that congregation?