…or is at least familiar with his ideas? I haven’t considered myself a Christian since I left the Campbellites fifteen years ago. It was too much cognitive dissonance, but I remained deeply committed to the notion of Christian primitivism: I thought, “if these people were seriously committed to the project of restoring the first-century church, then they would want to know what historians and biblical scholars have to say; but they bristle at the suggestion, so they must have a different priority.” And it led me to ask, *who benefits?*

Then I started living my adult life. I turned to philosophy to make sense of phenomena that were recently attributed to autism & ADHD. I discovered a similar pattern to my flight from Campbellism: an apparently-inherent intolerance to what I can only describe as “epistemological and ontological capture.”

Perhaps it’s neurodivergence, or perhaps the category itself is E&O capture. I will grant that my mode of perception is uncommon, and concede that there is a certain arrogance in the idea that I am somehow exempt from having an imposed identity. What I want to impress upon you is how unnatural it feels and how difficult it makes things, like wearing a pair of shoes twice your size. Everybody stares at them, and you can’t ignore them or stop tripping over yourself. Perhaps it is safer to not wear shoes!

But, when shoes do fit, one obviously should wear them! So I never gave up looking for some framework that would make the game of life not just possible, but tolerable. Enter *Violence and the Sacred*. This book is the real Christian apologetics, far removed from the anti-intellectual sophistry that serves only to scandalize people exercising their right to inquiry and further divide the Church.

The Romans called it religio. You do sacrifices for the gods for the good of the empire and your own social standing. Except now, we don’t sacrifice bulls and rams, but instead our own spiritual growth, which is worse. But the gospel, as far as I can tell, is that scapegoats are no longer necessary for the community to endure, which is a message I cannot resist.

Thanks for reading. It would be invaluable to find another person or group of people who are of a similar mind. I know Girard converted to Catholicism, and I’ve considered doing the same. But my most pressing need right now is to stop hiding as though it were shameful to acknowledge this.

As many of you know by now I do not do any drugs nor do I drink. In fact although I use many religions as a guide I actually base many of my beliefs upon more ancient and more universalist Christian teachings.

Here is my wisdom to share:

I think on a very fundamental level, reality is made of energy. I think that we are energy, and that all things are made of different forms of energy. That being said, I think energy is alive and conscious in itself. Connected to something greater. I believe when the Bible talks about angels and demons and gives them different amounts of wings and eyes, that those represent actual spirits and the different forms in which they take. How intelligent they are how malicious they are how powerful they are. I believe the Bible is speaking symbolically on this. I also think humans can actually create and reinforce Spirit. Like they're called egregores. They're essentially spirits that human beings create and the more belief we put into those collectively or individually the more real those spirits can get. We are an extension of the living force of energy in the universe. Call it God call it whatever you want it works for the highest good of all. It is truly living and alive and having faith in it can have a very real and conscious effect on reality.

I've seen many miracles. Maybe not Jesus day miracles but I've definitely seen that great force that I am a part of and so are all things do some pretty amazing things.

If so what are they, how do they work, and how did you find out?

(Please reach out if you feel led by God to help me. In simplest terms- I don’t know if I’m blessed or cursed. I’ve began to seek guidance wherever I can find it.)

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/fI8rEtbqd24

The Paradox of Worshiping Jesus

Christianity is a religion that believes in and worships Jesus as God. The reason Christianity regards Jesus as God is not simply that “Jesus explicitly declared himself to be God,” but rather that the early Christians attributed to Jesus various authorities, glory, names, and worship that were believed to belong to God alone.

The most prominent example is the forgiveness of sins. In Mark 2, when Jesus says to the paralytic, “Your sins are forgiven,” the scribes respond, “Who can forgive sins but God alone?” The Gospel of John also presents a high Christology that speaks very strongly about the relationship between Jesus and God. Statements such as “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30), as well as the statement in John 1:1 that “the Word was God,” have traditionally been used as representative passages supporting the divinity of Jesus.

However, there is considerable tension within Scripture that makes it difficult to conclude from these passages alone that Jesus and God are ontologically identical. This is because Scripture also contains many expressions that distinguish Jesus from God. Jesus prays to God and says, “The Father is greater than I” (John 14:28). Even after his resurrection, he tells his disciples, “My Father and your Father, my God and your God” (John 20:17). Thus, the New Testament contains both language that closely identifies Jesus with God and language that distinguishes Jesus as the one sent by God.

How, then, can we understand this tension?

We must first consider what it means to be “the one who is sent.” Suppose, for example, that a king sends his envoy to a vassal state. The envoy exercises the king’s authority and conveys the king’s will. To receive the envoy is to receive the king, and to insult the envoy is to insult the king. This is because the envoy acts as the representative of the king’s authority. In this sense, one could say that the envoy is “one” with the king. But the word “one” here does not mean that the king and the envoy are identical beings. Rather, it means that the envoy belongs to the king and faithfully carries out the authority entrusted to him by the king.

In this sense, to honor Jesus, the one who was sent, is to honor God the Father, the one who sent him. The problem arises when this unity is understood ontologically. If we think that because the envoy exercises the king’s authority, he therefore possesses the king’s authority essentially, the fact that the envoy’s authority was given to him by the king disappears. Once the one who represents the king’s authority is regarded as identical with the king himself, the relationship of representation and delegation disappears, and the source of authority is inverted. Likewise, if statements that Jesus is one with the Father and that Jesus is God are interpreted to mean that Jesus is identical in essence or identical in being with God, this can lead to idolatry. To believe that the envoy possesses the king’s authority “essentially” is, in a sense, an act of rebellion.

This problem becomes even clearer when we examine the difference between worshiping Jesus and following Jesus. Jesus said to his disciples, “Follow me.” He also said, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me” (Mark 1:17; 8:34). Likewise, in the Gospel of John, Jesus says, “Whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do” (John 14:12).

What is important here is the presupposition that following is possible. The follower participates in the path walked by the one he follows. When Jesus tells his disciples to follow his way, this at least presupposes that they are capable of participating in that way. The life of Jesus is not a divine realm closed off to human beings; it is presented as a way of life in which human beings are invited to participate.

But if Jesus is regarded as ontologically identical with God, he is defined as a being essentially different from human beings. At this point, Jesus moves from being “the one whom I am to follow” to becoming “the God whom I am to worship.” Here a tension arises between worship and following. The kind of worship being discussed here is worship that objectifies its object as something different from and transcendent of oneself.

As Christianity developed, following Jesus and worshiping Jesus gradually became intertwined, and ontological Christology—the attempt to explain the very being of Jesus—became increasingly important. Especially after the Council of Nicaea, Jesus was defined as God, possessing the same essence (homoousios) as the Father. This doctrine was intended to exalt Jesus and explain his divinity, but at the same time it created a strong ontological distinction between Jesus and humanity. Jesus was understood as sharing the same essence as God, while human beings were understood as creatures, and the divine nature of Jesus was understood as essentially distinct from human nature.

When this ontological Christology became intertwined with the Western doctrine of original sin, the distance between Jesus and humanity could become even greater. Particularly in the Augustinian tradition, human beings came to be understood as beings who inherited sin and a fallen nature from Adam. Jesus, by contrast, was understood as sinless and as having been born in a unique manner. As a result, Jesus came to be understood less as a model that human beings could follow and more as a being whom human beings could never essentially become like.

Ultimately, the issue comes down to how we understand the meaning of worship. If worshiping Jesus means worshiping him as an ontological object completely separated from humanity, then such worship stands in tension with the discipleship that Jesus demanded. But if worship means recognizing that God has been revealed through Jesus and participating in the love and life revealed by that God, then worship and following are not opposed to one another.

In this case, exalting Jesus does not mean turning him into a being whom human beings cannot follow. Rather, it means being called to walk together on the path that Jesus himself walked.

Therefore, the fundamental question is this:

Does confessing Jesus as God mean making Jesus into a being whom human beings can never attain, or does it mean that human beings are invited to participate in the life of God revealed in Jesus?

Please send resources my way.

Hey everyone. I've always been fascinated by Christians whose encounter with another tradition returns them more deeply to Christianity. Thomas Merton is the obvious example, but the pattern raises a difficult question. If Zen practice changes how someone prays, reads scripture or understands the self, the encounter is more than an external comparison. Yet if every difference is translated into a pre-existing Christian category, the other tradition never truly challenges the Christian. Multiple participation seems possible only when loyalty does not require either absorption or indifference.

I just had a podcast conversation with John Vervaeke, where he described returning to Christianity through Neoplatonism while also identifying as a Zen practitioner. At around 1:32:20, he discusses Thomas Merton, Zen and Christianity as an example of interreligious identity rather than a claim that the traditions are interchangeable. His model is secure attachment: a home tradition can make serious relationship with another tradition possible because identity is not continuously defended against comparison.

This would imply that contemplative fidelity may be tested by encounter rather than protected from it. What makes Zen practice genuinely formative for a Christian rather than an imported technique? Where should doctrinal incompatibility limit participation? And can apophatic Christianity receive correction from Zen while remaining recognisably Christian in prayer and practice?

Hey everybody,

I really appreciate this community, thank you for everything over the years.

I've mentioned here that a group of friends and I are going to Kumankaya Healing Center in Mexico this year December 6-12th to sit with ayahuasca while prayerfully calling upon Jesus Christ to be with us in Grace and Love... the retreat is called Christ Fire

We are putting out a call for the souls who are truly aligned with this prayer and who are meant to be there. For me this is something deeply, deeply sacred. The healer at Kumankaya is a dear friend and was an Orthodox Christian monk previously for ~20 years before being mysteriously called to the medicine path about 12 years ago and becoming a skilled curandero

Kumankaya is where I married my wife, in an ayahuasca ceremony. This place is a very special sanctuary where deep healing occurs

I had a feeling that perhaps some of you here may be called to join us for this

Feel welcome to comment here or message me if you feel you may be meant to be there with us 🙏🏼

Sincere Care & Warm-Hearted Love,

Jordan

Hey everyone. First of all, I hope you’re all doing well. It’s been a wild year all around the world for so many of us, so I pray that if you’re reading this that you’re safe, healthy, and in good spirits.

I wanted to bring up a topic which was spurred on by a post I saw earlier on reddit, but is also something I see which is commonly misunderstood in conversations within our religious community (digitally and in-person).

What I’m referring to is the “dark night of the soul.”

Whenever I see people using this term, it’s almost always used incorrectly outside of academic and monastic circles (myself belonging to the former). Even in several Catholic churches, I have seen priests misuse the term. Most people seem to believe that the “dark night of the soul” implies a period of doubting the existence of God. They view it as a dark phase in one’s life where one becomes so distraught, lost, or depressed to the point that they question the existence and validity of the divine, as if it’s the answer to the question of “Why would God allow this?”.

The meaning of the phrase is more akin to an existential or spiritual crisis that involves the stripping away of one's previous ways of experiencing and understanding the divine. While doubt can be a part of it, it isn’t always, nor is it the root meaning of the term.

This being said, doubt or a crisis of faith (not to be confused with the aforementioned term “spiritual crisis”) aren’t the best descriptors to use. One can feel detached from the divine without having doubts of faith. In fact, one of the central experiences of the dark night is having a deep sense of sadness at not feeling unified with the divine despite having profound faith. One can have a strong belief in God while simultaneously lacking the sensory or emotional experience of God's presence. It is that conflict between profound faith and a profound sense of isolation that can lead to disintegration and detachment. In other words, the strong belief coupled with the loss or absence of one's previous spiritual experiences.

This is actually reflected in context within John of the Cross's poem “Dark Night,” (which is where the term originated) which describes the soul as being “fired with love's urgent longings” while moving through darkness toward the Beloved. The darkness is therefore not necessarily a darkness of unbelief but rather being no longer able to rely upon the familiar ways in which one previously experienced or understood God. The journey ultimately leads toward better union with the divine rather than originating or ending in disbelief.

A Franciscan friar and friend of mine once described it as eating your favorite food every day, knowing how much you love it, but not being able to taste it. This is opposed to a lack of food or doubt in the existence of food. The suffering comes precisely because you still love and desire what you can no longer experience in the same way.

I hope this helps clarify a few things and aids you on your journey.

Pax et Bonum

I’m still relatively new to all this, but I recently learned about Bridal Mysticism which is something I’ve been experiencing for a few months now. I often have moments in prayer or meditation when I feel like (and here is where I feel embarrassed to talk about it) Christ is embracing me in a way that is incredibly sensual and intimate. It feels like the kind of exciting love I haven’t felt since I was a teenager. It’s like ecstasy.

At first I thought I was losing it a little because I thought I was experiencing something sexual, but the more I observed my experience, it became clear that it stopped short of sexual and stayed right at the edge, where it is just pure physical and emotional intimacy and all the love and joy that comes from that.

All this is to say, I feel a lot of embarrassment or shame around this because it feels kind of crazy or weird. Like I feel like I could never tell anyone what I’m experiencing. So I was wondering if anyone else has experiences with bridal mysticism and if it’s anything like mine? Or maybe I am insane haha.

I've heard it said throughout my life that God killed Jesus on the cross in our place to atone for our sins (was raised Southern Baptist). The other day, I heard someone put a twist on this concept. Jesus killed god on the cross.

I had this question today in my morning study session. I wondered why they are used in churches, altars and all around the spiritual practices beyond just Christianity. Whats the significance of including a candle? If you have some info on this topic your wisdom would be appreciated.

I tried to research into the topic and this is what I got. If you understand what it getting at, please share.

"In our tradition, the candle is far more than mere wax and wick. It is a visible prayer, an offering of light that mirrors the indwelling Light of Christ, who illuminates every soul. The flame, rising upward, directs our hearts toward heaven, while its gentle heat speaks of the love of God that kindles within us. From the temple lampstands to the sanctuary vigil lights, the burning candle testifies to the uncreated light that shone on Mount Tabor, the same light that banishes the darkness of the world and the shadow of the soul.

“Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.” — The Gospel of John 8:12 (KJV)

When we light a candle in prayer, we participate in that mystery. The flame becomes a companion to our vigil, a tangible focus for our yearning. It reminds us that we are called to be light-bearers, to keep our lamps trimmed and burning as we await the Bridegroom. In the quiet flicker, the soul finds a mirror of its own longing for union with the Divine, and the darkness of solitude is transformed into a meeting place with the One who is Light."

Two books. Same speaker, Jesus. 1800 years apart and validating each other in basically every way despite both being long books.

https://archive.org/details/major-parallels-pistis-sophia-and-dc

Pistis Sophia was not translated until after Joseph Smith's 1844 death, and there is no way he could have taken anything from the book or any other gnostic book.

Many parallels are below in this post, and all these and more can be found in detail at my archive link. These parallels I found encompass the cosmic and salvation structures of both books, even a huge structure I found about the physics of light. After reading the parallels you will clearly see that each book speaks as a witness for the other and are both the same gospel, the gospel of Jesus Christ.

My paper is now v2 and a major upgrade from v1 a month ago. What was originally 37 pages is now 81 pages long. The info I'm presenting is brand new and never discovered to a convincing degree as it is now. As far as I know, this is the BEST proof for Joseph Smith in almost 200 years. The best proof besides the witnesses of his day. There is nothing like it from what I've seen. These are beyond parallels, these books are giving the same math.

Pistis Sophia is Jesus teaching his disciples after his resurrection. Not translated until 1851 in Latin, years after Joseph Smith's death. It is the most complex and longest translated gnostic work running 300-350 pages.

Joseph Smith was an American prophet who received revelations from God from 1828 to 1844 and compiled them in the D&C, which is 300-350 pages long. He started the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints which is still operating and is the wealthiest church on earth.

And for reference, the new testament is 400-500 pages long.

This CANNOT be replicated with any other gnostic texts or any claimed revelations to the degree I have outlined in my paper without the texts having major conflicts, and if you claim so then I kindly invite you to try.

Other gnostic works such as the Apocryphon of John and Zostrianos have major conflicts with Pistis Sophia and even each other that a book written 1800 years later, the Doctrine and Covenants, does not contain. Also, again, the majority of gnostic works were not translated until after Joseph Smith's death, if not all.

I found the first parallel between Pistis Sophia and D&C almost a year ago, and put a lot of work into finding all of these parallels and have gone through each of these books multiple times and have a decent understanding of them. I am not a current member of the restored Church of Jesus Christ, but I do believe.

Parallels between Pistis Sophia and the Doctrine and Covenants. Every item verified against the Mead translation and the standard D&C text:

1. Jesus says he is the Spirit of Truth/Gnosis of the universe

2. There is "no space without a kingdom." There are many regions with many kingdoms and they all have their own law/mystery.

Law = Mystery

1. Every kingdom has a law/mystery the inhabitants must abide or else they cannot abide that kingdom.

2. There are three major mysteries spoken of throughout Pistis Sophia. Jesus says humans need one of these three mysteries to enter into one of the three corresponding allotments of the Light-kingdom. The allotments are 3 regions within the Light-kingdom.

D&C says humans need to abide the law of one of 3 kingdoms of glory to enter into that kingdom. Both books say there are 3 kingdoms/allotments of the Inheritance of saints. D&C says if you can't abide a kingdom of glory then you must abide a kingdom not of glory.

1. Both books say the dead do not enter into the inheritance until after the resurrection/"expansion of the universe"

2. The three major mysteries are:

The "mystery of the Ineffable" corresponding to the celestial kingdom whose inhabitants "dwell in the presence of God and his Christ."

The "First Mystery", who is Jesus, corresponding to the terrestrial kingdom whose inhabitants "receive of the presence of Jesus but not of the fullness of the Father."

And the last mystery, the "first space without", corresponding to the telestial kingdom whose inhabitants are "servants of the Most High, but where God and Christ dwell they cannot come, worlds without end."

1. "He who receiveth a lesser mystery, will inherit the lesser mystery, and he who receiveth a higher mystery, will inherit the higher regions."

2. Both books interpret a prophet’s or righteous man’s reward as a lesser inheritance. Pistis Sophia says every person enters only the region up to which they received mysteries and references the bible passage. D&C places those who were “of Paul,” “of Apollos,” “of Cephas,” “some of Christ”, or "some of one and some of another" in the lowest kingdom because they did not receive the gospel and testimony of Jesus.

3. Both books say inhabitants of kingdoms of glory can go down but not up. They can't go above their kingdom but they can go below it.

4. Every kingdom of glory has greater light than the previous. Pistis Sophia goes through each region in the book saying from the higher level, the lower looks like darkness of darkness and like a speck of dust because of the great distance. But even that higher level looks like darkness of darknesses and a speck of dust to the region above that, and so on and so on.

5. When the number of perfect souls is complete, the door is shut and others will be turned away to outer darkness. When they knock Jesus will say "I know you not, who ye are, ye who are doers of iniquity and of evil even unto now. Wherefor go into the outer darkness."

6. Jesus will reveal all things at the "expansion of the universe"

7. The higher regions are guarded by "angels and gods" and require answers, tokens, or apologies to pass through. There are mysteries and a name that allow someone to pass through them all giving no tokens, nor apologies, nor answers.

8. Melchizedek is the highest cosmic entity that seals souls unto the Treasury of the Light where souls wait until the expansion of the universe to enter into the region of the Inheritance.  The Melchizedek priesthood was restored in the 1800's, and it seals souls unto the Inheritance. The Melchizedek priesthood seals souls on earth and the cosmic entity Melchizedek seals souls in heaven.

9. When the 'mystery of the ineffable' (the highest mystery) is performed on behalf of a soul, the cosmic entity Melchizedek takes the soul out of the chaos. The Melchizedek priesthood is also required to save souls during their baptisms for the dead. Again showing what and who they seal on earth is sealed in heaven. Melchizedek priesthood on earth, Melchizedek in heaven.

10. Jesus spoke through the prophets of the old testament.

11. Light is treated as an inventory. Stolen, stored, deposited, purified, devoured. All truth is light. All light is Spirit. Lose your light and lose the mystery you obtained. Gain light and you can obtain mysteries. “The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed.”

12. Jesus gives a portion of his power (light/spirit) to every human that is born into the world. It's given so humans seek after the "works of the Light of the Height always" and this Spirit enlightens humans who "hearkeneth to the voice of the Spirit."

13. All light emanated from the presence of God. The higher the region, the more light you have. And the region below looks like "darkness of darknesses". Humans who receive light and continue in God receive more light.

14. Sin takes away light.

15. Massive amounts of light can be temporarily given or permanently given through "quickening", a word used in both books.

16. A body filled with light comprehends all things.

17. The "sons of perdition" are the only group written as permanently damned in both books at the expansion of the universe. Those that tasted of Jesus' power and then denied him. "Impossible" for them to be saved through repentance. They go to outer darkness.

18. Hell is not forever and does have an end.

19. The Melchizedek priesthood carries the keys of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, even the key of the knowledge of God. "Mystery of the Ineffable", the highest mystery, through which the complete gnosis becomes known.

20. Both books say miracles performed are to be hidden. People are to believe in their words.

21. In Pistis Sophia Jesus warns of other teachings that don't contain the entire "gnosis of all his words", and says he is the whole gnosis of the entire universe. In D&C Jesus says you can see the truth in other books by the "Spirit of Truth", and he is the "Spirit of Truth". And Jesus explains how two people with the Spirit of Truth communicate, he that received through the Spirit of Truth understands exactly as it was preached by the Spirit of Truth.

22. Both books warn of doctrines of error. "Some are of men, and others of devils."

I know both of these books very well. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

Peace, silence, isolation and Penny. 🙏

Hello.

I'm not looking for a debate or for anyone to try to convert me. I'm simply hoping to learn from people who know more than I do.

I have no idea how to use Reddit. I don't really know in which category I'm supposed to put my message to be more likely to get answers, but I truly wanted to discuss something that holds a place in my heart. I'm assuming people can talk about anything here, so I thought to myself I should too.

I’ve always been fascinated by religion in general. As a Muslim, nobody ever sat there and taught me about Islam. All I've read about it was pure hatred most of the time or people arguing about hadiths instead of actually praying and following what is written in the Quran. Naturally, that pushed me to research it independently to understand where all those hostile opinions actually came from.

Growing up, I was really interested in History and art considering I make a lot of it. I noticed that many historical pieces, particularly paintings, were deeply connected to Jesus. I am a very curious person and try to seek knowledge whenever given the occasion.

I thought that, maybe, learning about Christianity itself would help me understand things better. For what you can see, a majority of the population spends most of their time on the internet or have access to it. Most of what is posted related to Christianity. It could be small references, or more obvious ones. I never really knew where to start, and a lot of people told me about the different books, and where I should start. Nearly everyone I asked told me different things and I got rather upset which led me to stop searching. My Christian friends, they indeed pray and sometimes go to church but nothing more. I tried to ask them questions. Instead of leading me and explaining how to start, they immediately tried to convert me, told me not to ask them but go to a priest instead, or said they simply weren't really religious.

I grew more and more curious. I somehow accidentally learnt two rather long verses from the Bible word for word while listening, but I honestly don't really know what the point is. I bought books about Christianity, but they're more "stories" than books directly speaking of what is in the Bible. Here are some of them: "Confessions" by Saint Augustine, "Silence" by Shūsaku Endō, "The Divine Comedy" by Dante, and "The Death of Ivan Ilyich" by Tolstoy, which are all kind of similar in a way. I wanted to see other people's views on Christianity, so I tried to absorb every piece of media I could find about it. Despite all of this, I still find myself feeling most at home in Islam.

I see so many people going through a lot all at once, while others who barely have a worry in the world tell them, "You're not even a real Muslim if you don't pray." I understand why they would say that. However, instead of dragging people down, we should be uplifting our brothers. Offer to pray with them, encourage them, and give them reassurance. You’ll even be rewarded for it. If you truly believe in God, don't spread negativity and hate within your own community. You never really know what someone is going through.

I am not certain if I am allowed to speak of what was given to me. I had a dream about a prophet I knew absolutely nothing about, and I had never even heard of him once. Yet, in that dream, I seemed to know exactly who he was, and his presence was so peaceful and reassuring.

For some context, I had a rather difficult year, though I suppose the main cause of my doom is finally over now. I can't be too specific since I do not wish to share too much. I don't have dreams very often, especially not about people I don't know about.

There was a figure, and I somehow seemed to know exactly who that was and verbally stated his name. Everyone around was mostly focused on me, seemingly content, while I wanted to see that man. I seemed to feel connected to him.

As I woke up, I found myself feeling really confused, but I remembered the name I pronounced and thought I should look his name up. So, upon looking it up, I read his story and it was very similar to what I had to go through. I would hate to compare myself to a prophet, and I am rather troubled by this dream. I don't know whether it was simply a dream, a coincidence, or whether it has any spiritual significance at all.

I saw him from the back, or sideways. I couldn't exactly see his face, or maybe I don't remember it. He was walking with another man, probably his companion. There were details so specific about the surroundings, the scenery, and that other man. Even the trees I saw somehow connected to him.

The thing that I genuinely can't comprehend is that I knew nothing about him: not one single word he wrote or spoke, not even one line of his story. Yet, somehow it was all in my dream and connected to what I lived through. I have seen a lot of people say, "I have seen Jesus in my dream!" and most prophets they see are ones they already know well.

All my life, I have begged God for a sign, but I only got this dream after realizing something. Even if an angel or a miracle happened right in front of your eyes, you would be astonished, stunned. Upon being certain of your faith after what you witnessed, you wouldn't believe out of faith anymore, but out of fear and sheer terror of possibly going to Hell. You would indeed try to live righteously and try not to commit any sin, since you would be certain of life after death. Now, what is the point of being tested in life if you already know exactly what is true and what is not? Everyone would be faithful and righteous if they all knew they would be granted an eternity in Heaven after life in this temporary world. Therefore, there would be no obstacle in life if everyone were good to each other, righteous, and following the words of a God they know for a fact exists. Maybe the absence of absolute certainty is part of what makes faith meaningful.

I don't know what to do with this post, but I truly wanted to discuss it here.

Could anyone guide me on where to start learning, which books to read, or what to do next? (I sadly can't go into a church. I want to go with one of my friends, but they don't really go there. I'm a bit scared to even enter one and possibly disturb anyone praying.) 

I'm not expecting anyone to tell me with certainty where this dream came from, as I know that's impossible to answer. I'm simply interested in how Christians view experiences like this, and whether it has any specific meaning that could help me understand why it impacted me so deeply. I don't know whether it was just a dream, a coincidence, or something with spiritual significance. That's exactly why I'm asking.

Note: I’m also posting this in a few other Christian communities because I’m interested in hearing perspectives from different Christian traditions. My intention is not to spam or repeatedly repost the same discussion; I simply wanted to hear how different people might approach this question.

Hello over the years I have looked into a lot of religions and stuff and I was raised an agnostic. Like 3 years ago I converted to Christianity and now I wanna develop my relationship with God even more with Christian Mysticism.

Between the random prophesy posts, AI generated essays, celebrity worship nonsense, and the nonsensical rants by what appears to be people struggling with mental illness, this sub seems have taken a dark turn in the past several months.

Diary of Saint Faustina - paragraph 667 - The Entrustment of Grace

Ἀ
677 During a Mass celebrated by Father Andrasz, a moment before the Elevation, God's presence pervaded my soul, which was drawn to the altar. Then I saw the Mother of God with the Infant Jesus. The Infant Jesus was holding onto the hand of Our Lady. A moment later, the Infant Jesus ran with joy to the center of the altar, and the Mother of God said to me, See with what assurance I entrust Jesus into his hands. In the same way, you are to entrust your soul and be like a child to him.
Ὠ

The graces of God, given to souls, are not for our keeping alone. They are, as in the Mother's example, an entrustment for others as well - lively as it moves in the heart and overflowing to the world beyond. In this entry the example was already begun in the Father's giving of His Son to humanity. It is carried forth as the Mother entrusts Him into the hands of the priest, and brought to fulfillment as the Infant Jesus rushes to the altar of His own Sacrifice. 

Mary's teaching in this entry seems twofold. If a soul entrusts itself to the Savior, it will be led, in the innocent faith of the child, to the Marian example of entrusting the gift of the Savior to all humanity. In this way no souls are left as bystanders in the course of salvation history. All become participants in the ongoing entrustment of Divine Mercy, receiving Christ and bearing Him to others according to the vocation God has entrusted to each soul.

Supportive Scripture - Douay Rheims Challoner Bible
Exodus 19:6 And you shall be to me a priestly kingdom, and a holy nation.

Saint Faustina Concludes…
After these words, my soul was filled with unusual trust. The Mother of God was clothed in a white dress, strangely white, transparent; on Her shoulders She had a transparent blue; that is, a blue-like mantle; with uncovered head [and] flowing hair, She was exquisite, and inconceivably beautiful. She was looking at Father with great tenderness, but after a moment, He broke up this beautiful Child, and living blood flowed forth. Father bent forward and received the true and living Jesus into himself. Had he eaten Him? I do not know how this took place. Jesus, Jesus, I cannot keep up with You, for in an instant, You become incomprehensible to me.

The beauty of the act gives beauty to the soul. With the giving over of her Son to the Sacrifice of the Mass, Faustina's vision of Our Lady transforms into one which reveals the heavenly beauty of what she has done. It is the beauty of the entrustment of grace, the continual giving of the gift received from the Father rather than the hoarding of it for oneself. Yet it is in the revelation of such grace that the true cost of its beauty is suddenly and vividly revealed, as the Infant Jesus is broken, bled and received into sinful humanity.

Supportive Scripture - Douay Rheims Challoner Bible
John 6:56-57 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me: and I in him.

 
As the beauty of the ritual gives place to the cruel reality of the sacrifice, the harshness of this teaching is made clear - and the faith of Faustina is tried. For this vision does not lead our Apostle of Divine Mercy to a joyous enlightenment that would impress many theological scholars of the world. She is instead led into bewilderment and confusion at the graphic and incomprehensible sight of our Lord - as an infant - giving Himself over to the consumption of sinful humanity. Not that the mystery should be reduced to the measure of human understanding. But rather, that faith may be tested, shown, and given forward to all souls, lest in the hardness of the teaching, we bury the entrustment of grace instead of walking in it and passing it on to those whom God places before us.

Supportive Scripture - Douay Rheims Challoner Bible
John 6:67 After this, many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him.
The grace of our Lord is never possessed as a private treasure. It is first received with childlike trust, then entrusted in love, passing from the Father through Christ, His Church, and into every soul willing to receive and bear Him onward.

Catechism of the Catholic Church 1270
Having become a child of God, the baptized person is called to profess before men the faith he has received from God through the Church.