Some Christians reject the doctrine that the punishment of hell is everlasting, instead holding views such as annihilationism or conditional immortality. However, this raises questions about how these views are reconciled with Jesus’ own words. In Mark 9:48, Jesus describes hell as a place “where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched,” language that appears to suggest ongoing, unending punishment. Similarly, in Matthew 25:46, Jesus contrasts “eternal punishment” with “eternal life,” using the same Greek adjective (aiōnios) to describe both outcomes. For those who deny that hell is everlasting: - How are these passages interpreted in a way that avoids an eternal duration? - Is aiōnios understood differently when applied to punishment versus life, and on what linguistic or theological basis? - How do these interpretations remain consistent with Jesus’ teaching as recorded in the Gospels?

**Which Churches or denominations agree that from birth to thirty years old Jesus was "Super Jesus"?** There are no passages in the Bible of a ***"Super Jesus***", who have supernatural powers from birth, and who also displayed divine powers before he was 30 years old. St. Paul's teaching described Jesus this way: >**The Attitude of Christ** 5Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus: 6Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to death—even death on a cross. - Ephesians 2:5-7 St. Paul teaches that Jesus emptied Himself of divine majesty and powers and took the form of a servant. What is a servant or servanthood according to the bible? >**Biblical Concepts of Servanthood** >**Sacrifice:** The true currency of God's kingdom is sacrificial service to others, rather than pursuing greatness. In fact in one incident in the Bible it would normally appear that Jesus who went to the Temple all by Himself and did not even took the time to inform His beloved Mother and Father, is in all honesty, not a good attitude. In my own experienced conversing and exchanging Biblical ideas and studies about Jesus, most Protestant and denominations esp. the Bible Alone Believers thinks that Jesus is a "Super Jesus" even before the Holy Spirit descended upon Him. **I am looking for Protestant and Bible Alone Believers who teach that Jesus is a *"Super Jesus"* from birth to thirty years old, even though the Bible never show Him to be that, except to have wisdom above the elders. But the Bible says he still needs to grow in wisdom again, through submission and obedience to His parents.** >**The Boy Jesus at the Temple** > > …51Then He went down to Nazareth with them and was obedient to them. But His mother treasured up all these things in her heart. 52And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.-Luke2:51-52

In light of ongoing global events—such as wars (e.g., the conflict involving Russia), geopolitical instability, and widespread moral and social upheaval—many Christians interpret these as signs that the “end times” are approaching. My questions are twofold: Imminence of Christ’s return: Within mainstream Christian theology, do these kinds of events meaningfully support the belief that Christ’s return is near? How have passages such as Matthew 24; Luke 21; 1 Thessalonians 5:1–6; and Revelation 6–16 traditionally been understood in relation to historical events versus recurring patterns throughout history? Christ’s presence before the Parousia: Is there any biblical basis for the idea that Christ is presently “walking the earth” prior to His return, possibly until all believe in Him as the Christ? How do texts like Matthew 28:20 (“I am with you always”), John 14–16 (the coming of the Holy Spirit), Acts 1:9–11, and Revelation 1:12–18 inform orthodox interpretations of Christ’s presence now versus His future, visible return? I am seeking answers grounded in Scripture and recognized Christian interpretive traditions (e.g., patristic, Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant), rather than speculative or purely contemporary prophetic claims.

> The Spirit immediately drove him out into the wilderness. And he > was in the wilderness forty days, being tempted by Satan. And he was > with the wild animals, and the angels were ministering to him. (ESV) > > Mark 1:12–13 In this verse, the Holy Spirit sent Jesus into the wilderness to be tempted by Satan. Given that Jesus was the Son of God, the Holy Spirit must have known that Jesus could withstand the temptation. Why did the Holy Spirit do that then?

In John 20:27, after His resurrection, Jesus invites Thomas to touch the wounds in His hands and side. That detail has always struck me — if Jesus was raised in a glorified body, why were the wounds from His crucifixion still visible? Paul describes the resurrection body in 1 Corinthians 15 as imperishable and glorious, which makes me wonder: shouldn’t that mean it would be healed or perfected, without any remaining scars? I’m curious how Christians understand this. Is there a theological reason why Jesus kept the marks of His suffering? And what does that say about the nature of the resurrection body, or about His mission?

In Trinitarian theology, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are considered co-eternal, meaning none was created or came into existence at a different time. However, in John 3:16, Jesus is described as **“the only begotten Son,”** which seems to imply that He had a beginning. How do Trinitarians reconcile this idea of Jesus being begotten with the belief that He is co-eternal with the Father? I’m looking for theological explanations or interpretations that address this apparent tension in Scripture.

With ascension day coming up so quickly, I have a question: According to the Bible, why did Jesus leave? I've read some ideas but few have any actual Biblical backing. Could anyone point me in the direction of this?

This is an honest question and I would just like to know why "Jesus". "God sent his Son as Redeemer and Savior. In his Son and through him, he invites men to become, in the Holy Spirit, his adopted children and thus heirs of his blessed life." (CCC-1) Weren't we always his children and heirs? It does not make sense that He had to send Jesus. This is what I found in the Gospel: Matthew 5:17 >Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. But why, it does not seem like a good enough reason to be crucified for. Luke 12:51 >Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division. Between good and evil, God knew already who is good and who is evil. Why did he need to send Jesus to divide? Matthew 10:34 >Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. Okay, this I get to come and punish the people physically on earth, but God can do that from anywhere and have done it before. Why send Jesus to do it? Mark 2:17 >Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners. All the prophets before him did the same thing, why send Jesus? Luke 5:32 >I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance. All the prophets before him did the same thing, why send Jesus? Mark 10:45 >For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. To give His life in exchange for ours, so we might be saved. This doesn't make sense because just believing in Jesus and repenting is the same as believing in God and repenting why introduce an extra step? Why make it more complicated and divide even people more? Luke 4:18-19 >The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor. This made the most sense to me, people at that time did not understand what God wanted. God sent Jesus to explain to the people that it's not just about following rules but cultivating a relationship and that everything that you do matters. You cannot say that you are a Christian but you value money or other things more than Me. You cannot say you are Christian but there are more important things in your life than God. He sends Jesus to make the people understand what is it to believe and to be Christian. He sent Him as an example. That is what I think, and I think this scripture relates to my own thoughts. Many of the previous prophets did the same, what I don't get is why sent Jesus to do this task if John or some of the other prophets could have done it also. Luke 19:10 >For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost. Same thoughts as Luke 4:18-19. John 3:17 >For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Same thoughts as Luke 4:18-19. John 6:38-40 >For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. I don't understand this. John 9:39 >Jesus said, “For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind.” Same thoughts as Luke 4:18-19. John 10:10 >The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly. Same thoughts as Luke 4:18-19. John 12:46 >I have come into the world as light, so that whoever believes in me may not remain in darkness. Same thoughts as Luke 4:18-19. John 18:37 >Then Pilate said to him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world—to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.” I don't understand.

For a while, I have had thoughts on areas of scripture that suggest different degrees of punishments and rewards for different kinds of people both for and against Christ. Starting with Christians, we see Jesus making a statement in Mathew 5:19 where he says: > 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Note how Jesus doesn't say they won't be saved but rather, they will be of a lower status in heaven than those who actively put their faith to action. Paul repeatedly echoes this point in multiple places such as: (2 Corinthians 5:10 ) > 10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may **receive what is due us for the things done** while in the body, whether good or bad. (1 Corinthians 3:11-15 ) > 11 **For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ**. 12 If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13 **their work will be shown for what it is**, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and **the fire will test the quality of each person’s work.** 14 **If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward**. 15 **If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved**—even though only as one escaping through the flames. Paul here also implies that all those who are in Christ will be saved because he is a strong foundation even if the work they build in that foundation is poor. However they will be at a loss when it comes to receiving whatever inheritance (possibly other than eternal life which will be given to all Christians) God has prepared for us. The same also goes for the other side where Jesus mentions the punishment given to the pharisees and those towns that reject his disciples being worse than the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah on judgment day.(Matthew 10:15, Matthew 11:24, Luke 10:12 ) or his parable in Luke 12:47-48 : > 47 “**The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48 But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows**. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked. Considering all these (and more), is it safe to assume (and why) that there will be varying levels of punishment and reward within both hell and heaven respectively? If not, kindly explain how and why these verses do not support that idea. Appreciated.

> Mark 6 4-6: > > > 4 Then Jesus said to them, “People everywhere give honor to a prophet, > except in his own town, with his own people, or in his home.” 5 **Jesus > was not able** to do any miracles there except the healing of some sick > people by laying his hands on them. 6 He was surprised that the people > there had no faith. Then he went to other villages in that area and > taught. Like above, there are several examples where He can't heal people because of their unbelief. However, there is a difference: He **won't** vs. He **cannot** - heal someone because of their unbelief and this concept is usually overlooked. Is there anyway to determine if His power was drained or weakened by others and what does that mean for a believer today? Does this mean my level of faith (or vice versa) is analogous to this phenomenon described above? Here we see Jesus only recognizes and heals certain people based on their faith or to demonstrate God's will: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/10192/why-does-jesus-feel-only-certain-people-that-come-into-physical-contact-with-him Any studies, papers, speeches on this?

This is an odd question I know and I'm not very hopeful I'll find a good answer. But has it ever stricken you odd that in Luke 7, the woman who comes to see Jesus just straight walks into the Pharisee's house unannounced? I'm an American, and I could never imagine a random stranger walking into anyone's house and it be acceptable. So, was this a normal thing in Jewish culture at this time period?

We read in Mtt 4:1-4, of the Temptation of Jesus in the wilderness : > Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. He fasted forty days and forty nights, and afterwards he was famished. The tempter came and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread.” Here, we see the Devil using calculated words, i.e. "IF you are the Son of God......"In other words, the Devil was asking Jesus to disclose his divinity, as if he was not sure of whom he was tempting. Elsewhere, we see Jesus forbidding his own disciples from telling others that he is the Messiah ( Mtt 16:20; Mk 8:30). That said, the Devil was presumably tempting Jesus to disclose his divinity much before the appointed time. But, the motifs of the First Temptation we have, are of stone and bread . My question therefore, is: According to Catholic teachings, what was the First Temptation of Christ basically about ?

Mainstream Christians believe that Jesus was the son of God the Father and Mary, a virgin. So my question is, have any Christian theologians discussed whether Jesus only resemble his mother Mary, or whether he also resembled his adopted father Joseph? God could easily have arranged it so that Jesus resembled Joseph, even if Joseph played no role in the conception of Jesus.

There's a variety of perspectives about the use of terminology such as "Jesus took our illnesses upon himself on the cross" (from perhaps "sickness is something that shouldn't affect Christians" to perhaps a focus on the full-application being in the future kingdom) that this statement could cover. What are the background texts to support such a statement (one would not have to agree with the exegesis to present the texts used to support the doctrine). One commonly referenced text would be Isa 53:4-5 which concludes > and with his wounds we are healed What is the range of ideas that "Jesus took our illnesses" covers and what key texts are used to build up that argument.

The word 'Saviour' (σωτήρ, *soter*) is used twenty-four times in the Greek New Testament scriptures. Eight times, this refers to 'God'. Sixteen times it refers to 'Jesus', 'Christ', 'Jesus Christ', 'Lord Jesus Christ', and 'The Son'. One notable time, the wording used is 'the great God and Saviour of us, Jesus Christ', Titus 2:13, and here I am quoting the original, literal, in which the Greek idiom known as 'Sharp's rule' should be noted. No other person is called a 'saviour' in the Greek New Testament. Moses is referred to as a 'deliverer', the proper translation for λυτρωτῆς, *lutrotes*, in Acts 7:35, in regard to a national, not a spiritual, deliverance: and Noah is said to have 'saved' his household (from a flood, not a spiritual salvation) in Hebrews 11:7 when God was the Saviour by his warning Noah of the future flood. The salvation of one's own soul ; the salvation from one's own, personal sins; the salvation of oneself in regard to the sin which entered into the world and humanity in general; the salvation of one's body in resurrection: all are the province, solely, of 'God our Saviour' and of 'the God and Saviour of us, Jesus Christ.' In the light of this evidence, why do some suggest that Jesus Christ is not 'God' when the evidence appears to be, very substantially, in favour of the opposite conclusion? The list of eight references to 'God our Saviour': Lk 1:47, 1 Ti 1:1, 2:3, 4:10, Titus 1:3, 2:10, 3:4, Jude 25. The list of sixteen references to Christ as Saviour: Lk 2:11, Jn 4:42, Ac 5:31, 13:23, Eph 5:23, Phil 3:20, 2 Ti 1:10, Titus 1:4, 2:13, 3:6, 2 Pe 1:1, 1:11, 2:20, 3:2, 3:18, 1 Jo 4:14. -------------------------------------- All references and quotations relate to the TR Greek text and to the KJV translation of that text.

Master Jesus was crucified on a tree, according to Apostle Peter. >**Acts 5:30** 30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and **hanged on a tree**. >**Acts 10:39** 39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and **hanged on a tree**: >**Acts 13:29** 29 And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, **they took him down from the tree**, and laid him in a sepulchre. >**1 Peter 2:24** 24 Who his own self bare our sins in **his own body on the tree**, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. On some accounts, He was crucified on the cross. >**Matthew 27:40** 40 And saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come down **from the cross.** >**Matthew 27:42** 42 He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down **from the cross**, and we will believe him. >**Mark 15:30** 30 Save thyself, and come down **from the cross.** >**Mark 15:32** 32 Let Christ the King of Israel descend now **from the cross**, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him reviled him. >**Luke 23:26** 26 And as they led him away, they laid hold upon one Simon, a Cyrenian, coming out of the country, and **on him they laid the cross**, that he might bear it after Jesus. >**John 19:19** 19 And Pilate wrote a title, and put it **on the cross**. And the writing was JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.

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.

### Introduction The Hebrew Bible contains commands for several types of sacrifices. The sacrificial system encompasses a variety of offerings (Hebrew: korbanot) that serve different purposes. These sacrifices, described primarily in Leviticus and Numbers, includes animal sacrifices (bulls, goats, sheep, birds) as well as grain, oil, and wine offerings, all carried out by the priests at the altar of the Tabernacle/Temple. Each type of offering had specific requirements and a distinct purpose. Some were for atonement of sin, others for thanksgiving or purification: | **Sacrifice (Hebrew / English Name)** | **What Was Offered** | **Who Offered / Performed** | **Purpose of Sacrifice** | **How the Sacrifice Was Carried Out** | | ------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | **Olah (עולה) – Burnt Offering** | A male animal without blemish – could be a bull, ram, goat, or for the poor, a turtledove or pigeon. | Voluntarily by an individual, performed by a priest. | This is a general sacrifice, performed daily. It is also used as a sin sacrifice on the appointment of a priest. | The animal is slaughtered and its blood splashed on the altar by the priest. The entire carcass was completely **burned on the altar** (nothing eaten by anyone, symbolizing total surrender to God). The hide went to the priests. | | **Minchah (מנחה) – Grain / Meal Offering** | Fine flour or unleavened baked goods (loaves or cakes) made from wheat or barley, mixed with olive oil and frankincense, and seasoned with salt. No yeast or honey was used. | Usually a **voluntary** offering by an individual (often accompanying burnt or peace offerings); a priest handled it on the altar and ate the remainder. (If the priest himself offered it, it was entirely burned.) | **Thanksgiving and dedication** of one’s labor and produce to God. A non-blood offering symbolizing the dedication of daily sustenance and work. | A **handful** (with all the frankincense) was **burned on the altar** as a memorial portion. The rest was **eaten by the priests** in a holy place, unless it was a priest’s own offering, in which case it was fully burned. | | **Nesekh (נסך) – Drink Offering** | A libation of **wine** (usually undiluted) poured out on the altar; sometimes water (during festivals). | Performed by the **priest** as part of a larger sacrifice. The wine was brought by the offerer and poured out by the priest. | **Worship and devotion** – honoring God with the “fruit of the vine.” Symbolized joyful self-offering and blessing. | The priest **poured the wine** onto the altar (into special receptacles at its corners). Drink offerings were never offered alone but always alongside burnt and grain offerings. | | **Zevach Shelamim (זבח שלמים) – Peace / Fellowship Offering** | An unblemished animal from the herd or flock (male or female), often with **grains or breads** (both leavened and unleavened). | Offered **voluntarily** by an individual or family (as **thanksgiving**, **vow**, or **freewill** offering). The offerer slaughtered it; **priests** handled the blood and altar portions and received a share of the meat. | **Thanksgiving, fellowship, and celebration** of peace and blessing from God. Expressed gratitude and communion with Him. | The priest **splashed the blood on the altar**; the **fat portions** were **burned** as God’s share. The priest received the **breast** and **right thigh**; the rest was **eaten joyfully** by the offerer and family in a holy place. Leftovers were eaten within 1–2 days. | | **Chatat (חטאת) – Sin / Purification Offering** | Different animals based on the sinner’s status: **bull** (high priest/community), **male goat** (leader), **female goat or lamb** (individual), or **birds/flour** (poor). | **Mandatory** for unintentional sins or ritual impurities (e.g. after childbirth). The sinner laid hands on the animal; the **priest** performed the ritual and blood rites. | **Atonement for unintentional sin** and **purification from impurity**, reconciling the sinner with God. | The offerer **laid hands** on the animal, which was **slaughtered**. The priest **applied blood** to the altar (and sometimes within the Holy Place). The **fat** was burned; **priests ate** the remainder unless it was for the high priest/community, which was **burned outside the camp**. | | **Asham (אשם) – Guilt / Trespass Offering** | A **ram** without blemish (sometimes a lamb), often with a specified value in silver to ensure worthiness. | **Mandatory** for offenses involving **misuse of holy things**, **breach of trust**, **uncertainty of guilt**, or **restitution cases**. The **priest** sacrificed it after confession and repayment by the guilty party. | **Atonement for specific guilt** involving harm to others or desecration of holy things; emphasized **repentance and restitution**. | The offender **confessed and made restitution** (plus 20%) before the sacrifice. The **ram** was slaughtered, its **blood** splashed on the altar, **fat** burned, and the **meat eaten by priests**. Forgiveness was granted after restitution and offering. | | **Korban Pesach (קרבן פסח) – Passover Sacrifice** | A one-year-old **male lamb or goat**, without blemish. | **Mandatory** annual sacrifice for each household on the 14th of Nisan. The **head of household** slaughtered it; **priests** collected and sprinkled the blood. | **Commemoration of Israel’s deliverance from Egypt and the death of the first born**. | The **blood** was splashed on the altar. The lamb was **roasted whole** and **eaten that night** with **unleavened bread and bitter herbs**. Nothing left until morning; no bones broken. All leftovers were **burned**. | | **Parah Adumah (פרה אדומה) – Red Heifer Offering** | A **red heifer** without defect, never yoked. | Performed by a **priest** (e.g. Eleazar) **outside the camp**, on behalf of the whole community. | **Ritual purification from corpse defilement**; not for sin but to produce ashes for the **“water of purification.”** | The **heifer** was **slaughtered outside the camp**; the **priest sprinkled its blood** toward the Tabernacle seven times. The whole carcass was **burned to ashes** with **cedar wood, hyssop, and scarlet wool**. The ashes were stored and later mixed with water and **sprinkled** on those made unclean by contact with the dead. | | **Minchat Kena’ot (מנחת קנאות) – Jealousy / Ordeal Offering** | 1/10 ephah of **barley flour**, no oil or incense (plain). | Brought by a **husband** for a wife suspected of adultery (*sotah*); the **priest** conducted the ordeal and offering. | To **reveal hidden guilt or prove innocence** in suspected adultery; a **judgment ritual**, not atonement. | The priest prepared **bitter water** (holy water, dust, and ink of curses). The woman swore innocence, held the offering, and drank the water. The priest **waved the offering**, burned a **handful** on the altar, and disposed of the rest. If guilty, she was cursed; if innocent, she was unharmed and could conceive. | ### Question Each of these sacrifices has its own purpose and ritual in the Hebrew Bible (atonement for sin, thanksgiving, purification, etc.). Given this background, which specific sacrifice or offering does Jesus’s death on the cross correspond to or fulfill?

I recently found references that suggest both Baptists and Methodists used to believe that Jesus and Michael the Archangel are one and the same. This surprised me because both Baptists and Methodists are Trinitarian and understand Jesus to be the eternal Word of God who was never created. The Bible says that angels are created beings, hence my confusion. Here are some of the references I found: From my Morning and Evening devotionals of Baptist preacher Charles H. Spurgeon (1834-1892) I found this quote (morning October 3) regarding angels, based on Hebrews 1:14, and speaking of the Lord Jesus Christ: >“He it is whose camp is round about them that fear Him; He is the true Michael whose foot is upon the dragon. All hail, Jesus! thou Angel of Jehovah’s presence, to Thee this family offers its morning vows.” From a Spurgeon sermon ‘The Angelic Life’ (22 November 1868) comes this partial quote: >“Our Lord is called an angel. He is the angel of the covenant... We read that Michael and his angels fought against the dragon and his angels, and the dragon was cast down. The fight is going on every day. Michael is the Lord Jesus, the only Archangel.” John Gill, a Baptist pastor (circa 1750) wrote this about Michael the Archangel based on Jude 1:9: >"Yet Michael the Archangel.... By whom is meant, not a created angel, but an eternal one, the Lord Jesus Christ;” I know that Jehovah’s Witnesses believe Jesus, as the Word of God, was created by Jehovah as the mighty spirit creature who was known in heaven as Michael before he came to earth, and that he is still known in heaven as Michael since his resurrection. However, this question is not about the beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses, although I welcome any modern, up to date insights they might have about the beliefs of Baptists and Methodists regarding Jesus and Michael. This question is specifically about the beliefs of Baptists and Methodists NOW, as to whether they believe that Jesus and Michael are one and the same, and, if so, how can this be explained in light of the Trinity doctrine. I’m not looking for more old quotes, but for up to date information about Baptist and Methodist beliefs on the person of Jesus and if he is also Michael the archangel. The article 'Who do mainline Protestants believe an “archangel” (such as Michael) to be?' is not specific with regard to what Baptists and Methodists believe about Jesus being Michael the Archangel (or not).

I wonder what the significance is of Jesus having died for our sins, considering that he is God, or at least having known to be God's son. To me right now, that act would have been more significant if Jesus did not believe in an afterlife, let alone believe that he had a significant position in heaven. I am imagining a boss of a company, that decided to also start an internship in that same company. He then lets himself be fired from the internship in order to cover for workers in that department. In the end, he is still the boss and could start another internship, or even fire the person that fired him, or undo the firing entirely. I hope my point is clear, and hope for insight.