Does anyone remember prophecy of beast with thousand names or possible Mandela effect? I have a memory of reading about end times prophecy that talks about beast with thousand names and at that time I thought that now when people have lot of nicknames and usernames on internet, maybe somebody can have thousand usernames.
But now when I try to Google this with different search words, I cannot find it. Is this a Mandela effect or do I just remember incorrectly or is the prophecy so obscure that it cannot be found on the internet?

Does anyone else remember this prophecy about the beast or antichrist?

I've heard the phrase before.  There is no reference in the Bible that states it or that can even construe it.  However, the idea is popular in some end-times circles.  It almost always refers to Nimrod of the Old testament.  For example:

The book, The Beast Who Once Was: New Insight into End Times Prophecy
by Chris Relitz refers to Revelation 17:8 to identify the beast that "once was, now is not, and yet will come," identifying the "beast that once was" as Nimrod from the Old Testament and describing him as "the god with a thousand names."

This association is made because many associate Nimrod with various nationa/ethnic/religious gods of ancient times, inevitably ending with the Egyptian Osiris/Isis story.

Whether this is considered prophecy or not depends on which Christian denomination or tradition you adhere to.


Does the Popes Prophecy of St. Malachy indicate that the end times are imminent? I am a young Christian and at times I fall into traps that I read one thing that isn't written in the Bible then I believe it.

I read the Prophecy of St. Malachy and now I am convincing myself that its 100% real and that after the next pope that is the end.  I understand that Jesus said that 'No one will know the time or the season' but I still wonder.

Should I understand this prophecy this way? Does the Bible contradict my understanding of it?

I also found the prophechies of Saint Malachy to be very interesting.

While it is always quite easy to to make a prophecy sound like the person, the prophecies associated with:

John Paul I - "From the midst of the moon" who only lived just one lunar cycle after his election
John Paul II - "Laboring under the Sun,"  - and indeed, one weighed down by the job
Benedict XVI - "the Greening of the Olive" - and indeed, the Benedictines are associated with the Olive

These things were interesting to me.  Furthermore, the idea of "Petrus Romanus" - Peter the Roman, sounded like an antichirst to me too.

That said, two things should be considered:

Confirmation Bias suggests that humans look for patterns in anything.  Most of the "accuracies" of Malachy are ex post facto justifications.
Malachy himself never said that every Pope would be listed. Just as many Christians see Daniel's "final week" as separated from the 69 previous, so to there is nothing to demand that the successor is clearly Petrus Romanus.

Beyond this, there is an incongruency that is hard to overlook:

  In the extreme persecution of the Holy Roman Church, there will sit ... Peter the Roman, who will pasture his sheep in many tribulations: and when these things are finished, the city of seven hills will be destroyed, and the terrible judge will judge his people. The End.

Now, even as an Evangelical whose own confirmation bias sees persecution, the truth is that it would be a stretch to call the persecution of the Church in the West "extreme."  (Indonesia, Nigeria, Iraq, Egypt, China, and countless other places in the emerging world, yes, but not in Rome.)  As such, one should carefully consider this incongruency before leaping to conclusions.

As others have said, eschatology can be problemmatic, especially when pinning down a date so definately.  If Jesus didn't know, there is nothing to suggest that Malachy did either.

That said, the one thing to remember about "the last days" is this, from Romans 13:11:

  Besides this you know the time, that the hour has come for you to wake from sleep. For salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed.

Many, many of Jesus' parables (The Wheat and the Tares, The Foolish Virgins, The Wedding Feast, the Parable of the Vineyard, the Cursing of the Fig Tree, etcera, etcera, etcera) all make the same point: Be Ready! As such, it is just as good to continue with Paul:

  12 The night is far gone; the day is at hand. So then let us cast off the works of darkness and put on the armor of light. 13 Let us walk properly as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and sensuality, not in quarreling and jealousy. 14 But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires.

Live like that, and it doesn't matter who sits on the Papal Throne.

Update:

Just so you know, you aren't alone in being afraid anti-Christ is right around the corner. In Paul's day, the believers in Thessalonica had the same concerns. Paul gently wrote in 2 Thessaloanians 2 that they shouldn't worry:

  Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers,1 2 not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that fthe day of the Lord has come. 3 Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and ithe man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,3 4 who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God. 5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? 6 And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time

In other words, when the time does come, you'll know.


What is the earliest appearance of the expression "swallowed up in God"? Jonathan Edwards, John Wesley and other Great Awakening writers often use the expression "swallowed up in God". It also appears in the writings of Bernard of Clairvaux.

Does it have a scriptural or other early origin?

I believe you are looking for 2 Corinthians 5:4 "mortality might be swallowed up of life.", as further elaborated and interpreted by Irenaeus of Lyons, who said

  For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must
  put on immortality. So, when this mortal shall have put on
  immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying which is
  written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy
  sting? O death, where is thy victory?” Now these words shall be
  appropriately said at the time when this mortal and corruptible flesh,
  which is subject to death, which also is pressed down by a certain
  dominion of death, rising up into life, shall put on incorruption... becomes immortal and incorruptible, not after its own proper substance, but after the mighty working of the Lord, who is able to invest the mortal with immortality, and the corruptible with incorruption. And therefore he says,[9] “that mortality may be swallowed up of life. He who has perfected us for this very thing is God, who also has given unto us the earnest of the Spirit.” ... Now, what is mortal shall be swallowed up of life, when the flesh is dead no longer, but remains living and incorruptible
  Against Heresies 5.13

  For by no other means could we have attained to incorruptibility and
  immortality, unless we had been united to incorruptibility and
  immortality. But how could we be joined to incorruptibility and
  immortality, unless, first, incorruptibility and immortality had
  become that which we also are, so that the corruptible might be
  swallowed up by incorruptibility, and the mortal by immortality, that
  we might receive the adoption of sons?
  Against Heresies 3.19

I realize this has a bit of a different cast than "swallowed up in God", but I think the line of thought is evident. Irenaeus actually comes closest to referring to being swallowed up in God in reference to Christ, saying "the human nature [of Christ] being swallowed up in it (the divine)" Against Heresies 3.19

I appear to have largely retraced your steps in looking for the phrase "swallowed up in God" itself in later texts, which appears in:

Bernard of Clairvaux "On Loving God" (ca. 1115) Chapter 10
Isaac Ambrose "The first things, in reference to the middle and last
things, or, the doctine of regeneration, the new birth" (1674)
"Meditation" Chapter 8, section 7, page 203
George Whitefield, letter to Lord R., (28 September 1741)
John Wesley, Letter is to Miss Loxdale, (9 March 1782)

Similar thoughts, although not this phrase, are expressed in, eg. Angela of Foligno. (see McGinn, Bernard. "Lost in the Abyss: The Function of Abyss Language in Medieval Mysticism." Franciscan Studies 72.1 (2014): 433-452.)


Why were the Israelites not circumcised in the desert? Genesis 21:4 (NIV) When his son Isaac was eight days old, Abraham
  circumcised him, as God commanded him.

Starting with Abraham, the Israelite men were circumcised, and boys at the eighth day after birth. It was commanded again in the desert through Moses:

  Leviticus 12:3 (NIV) On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised.

But the children born in the desert were not circumcised:

  Joshua 5:5 (NIV) All the people that came out had been circumcised,
  but all the people born in the wilderness during the journey from
  Egypt had not.

How is this possible? Did they disobey God and not circumcise their children in the desert?

Keil explains it well:

  The sentence upon the fathers, that their bodies should fall in the desert, was unquestionably a rejection of them on the part of God, an abrogation of the covenant with them. This punishment was also to be borne by their sons; and hence the reason why those who were born in the desert by the way were not circumcised. (Commentary on the Old Testament by C. F. Keil)

As the covenant of the Lord with the fathers was broken, the sons of the rejected generation were not to receive the covenant sign of circumcision. This curse upon the fathers, casting some shame upon the children for a period seems more like probation.  As far as the nation as a whole was concerned the covenant was not fully collapsed.
Only until the generation of men that were capable of bearing arms when they came out of Egypt were all dead would the younger generation which had grown up in the desert be under the shame. When the  time of punishment was over and the temporary suspension of the covenant passed, it was a good time to renew the terms of the covenant with a new generation.


Why did Lot's daughters seduce their father? According to the Genesis 19:30-38, when Lot escaped out of Zoar, he went up to the mountains and settled in a cave. While in there, his daughters seduced him while he was drunk so that they could bear children and save their family line.

Does this mean saving one's family line is/was so important that you could have sex with your own offspring? Was Lot really drunk to a point that he didn't know what he was doing? Were the daughters wrong to do it? If so, why didn't Lot take any action afterward?

There is no denomination or teaching that I'm aware of that approves of this.  Your question shows a lack of understanding of the basic nature of that the Bible is.

It is not a collection of stories, showing heroes in a positive light.

It is a collection of books including teachings, but also, largely in the Old Testament in the Pentateuch and the Books of History, a book of history.  In a historical book, at least one that is honest and accurate, the failures, frailties, and sins of the people chronicled are not covered up.

Lot's daughters are not the  only ones whose sin is shown.  Adam and Eve eating the apple, David's sin with Bathsheba, Solomon's pride, lust, and disobedience, and hundreds of others.  The Bible includes these sins because they happened, not because they are somehow approved of.

Far from it, in most of the cases, there are repercussions.  Perhaps not immediate, but they happen.  This is in line with God's nature.  He often gives people the chance to repent of their sins.

  2 Peter 3:9 (KJV)

  The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count
  slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any
  should perish, but that all should come to repentance.


Where did the belief that Saul fell from a horse come from? Many people (especially Catholics; I don't know about others, but some say that Protestants usually don't believe this) think that Saul/Paul fell from a horse at the moment of his conversion, perhaps influenced by Caravaggio. As far as I know, there's no notion Saul did travel on a horse or fall from it in the Bible. In fact, the Bible suggests that Saul fell on the ground while standing and praying.

How old is the "fall from a horse" tradition (if it's less accurate than a century, tell why we don't know)? Can it be traced to a single author or a group? Is there any reason for it deeper than "everyone travels on a horse, so Saul must have been on a horse at the moment"?

EDIT: to be clear, this is NOT "Did Paul fall from a horse?" I consider further arguments against Paul falling from a horse off-topic and will downvote them unless they also answer the question of the origin of the believe they argument against. Even if those arguments are as good as Dick Harfield's links proving that only the rich could afford horses.

There are art references that cause many to think Paul fell from his horse.  One of the most famous of these is Caravaggio’s famous painting titled “Conversion on the Way to Damascus”.(1)  Wikipedia (2) suggests the Golden Legend (3) may have framed the event for Caravaggio.
In doing some online research on this question, I discovered some interesting information related to this question.
Dr. Taylor Marshall points out "Pharisees prayed regularly throughout the day in obedience to Psalm 55:16-17, “But I call upon God, and the LORD will save me. Evening and morning and at noon.”"(4)
Mr. Hector Molina, refers to the significance of this happening in daylight, "It was midday ... Some commentators point out that this was to show that there was no delusion from nightly appearances." He also refers to Dr. Marshall's statement about midday being a prayer time for the Pharisees. (5)
There is no mention of Paul riding any animal to Damascus, but this fact in no way can be used to assert he was not. That would be an argument from silence which is an error in reason.  Further, it cannot be successfully argued that because it is not explicitly stated it did not happen. One example should suffice: Scripture rarely refers to Joseph, Mary & Jesus eating, but that does not mean they fasted their entire lives. The Catholic Church does not accept the belief that unless something is explicitly stated in Scripture it cannot have happened. The Church accepts and teaches the four senses of Scripture (CCC 115-119), among other information such as "In order to reveal himself to men, in the condescension of his goodness God speaks to them in human words" (CCC 101).
Since Damascus was about 135 miles from Jerusalem, it seems reasonable that Paul was riding on an animal, perhaps a horse or a camel, particularly since he was sent on the very important mission of weeding out all those in "the way".  He could have also been walking with his companions, it just seems like a long journey on foot when he was so impassioned about this mission.  The prayer time referenced by Dr. Marshall in no way would indicate Paul couldn't have been riding an animal and dismounted to pray. I would expect this of the "Pharisee of Pharisees" as he referred to himself (Phil 3:5).

(1) http://allart.biz/up/photos/album/B-C/Caravaggio/michelangelo_caravaggio_18_conversion_on_the_way_to_damascus_1601l.jpg,
accessed 5/2/2015.
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_on_the_Way_to_Damascus,
accessed 5/5/2015.
(3) https://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/JACOBUS.HTM,
accessed 5/5/2015.
(4) http://taylormarshall.com/2012/01/was-paul-knocked-off-his-high-horse-on.html,
accessed 5/1/2015.
(5) http://www.catholic.com/blog/hector-molina/did-saul-actually-fall-off-his-horse-on-the-road-to-damascus, accessed 5/1/2015.


What is the name given to Jesus? At his birth he was called JESUS! After his exaltation he was given a NAME!
Phillipians 2:9

  Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name

What is that name?

Complementing Kris's and Nigel's answer, I'd like to add 2 resources; one is an answer to a similar question from gotquestions.org.  Another is from an exegetical commentary on Philippians by Dr. Bob Utley.  Commentary on the phrase "and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name" of Phil 2:9-11

  “and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name” This special exalted name is “Lord” (cf. v. 11). The verb (echarisato) in v. 9 means “graciously given” as in 1:29. The term “Lord” is an allusion to the OT covenant name for God, YHWH (cf. Exod. 3:14; 6:3), which the Jews were afraid to pronounce lest they break one of the Ten Commandments (cf. Exod. 20:7; Deut. 5:11). Therefore, they substituted the name Adon, which meant Lord, owner, husband. Jesus, who came in the form of a servant, was returned to His cosmic Lordship (cf. John 17:5; Col. 1:15–20). “Jesus is Lord” was the public, personal confession of faith for the early Church (cf. Rom. 10:9; 1 Cor. 8:6; 12:3). Jesus of Nazareth is given the supreme title of deity (cf. Eph. 1:21 and Heb. 1:4).

In both of the above resources as well as in Kris's & Nigel's answer, the name is Lord (Greek Adon), which in the Old Testament as well as the New Testament signifies the God of Israel (there are countless texts where the same word is used for God).

This is the highest name (a.k.a title) that a being can have.  God the Father gave this title & honor to Jesus because he was obedient to death, and not only raised him from the dead but also places him at his right hand side (another sign of honor; no other being is honored thus, higher than angels, see Heb 1).

Within the book of Philippians, the above phrase is part of an early Christian hymn that Paul quoted in his letter to the Philippian church (which he founded) to encourage them (and us) as Christians to emulate (see the larger context of Phil 2:1-11).


What does the phrase " saved as by fire" in 1 Corinthians 3:15 mean? What does the phrase "saved as by fire" in 1 Corinthians 3:15 mean?

  If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

A Catholic Sacred Scripture Interpretation

bruisedreed's answer has the gist of it.

  1 Cor 3:11-15
  (RSVCE)
  11 For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid,
  which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if any one builds on the foundation with
  gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble— 13 each man’s work
  will become manifest; for the Day[a] will disclose it,
  because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what
  sort of work each one has done. 14 If the work which any man has built
  on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. 15 If any man’s
  work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be
  saved, but only as through fire.

  a. 3.13 the Day: i.e., the day of the Lord: God’s searching
  judgment.

The Navarre Bible New Testament Compact Edition has, in part, the following note on vv. 4-23:

The root of all apostolic work is God who gives growth (v.7). Man is God's instrument - servant, minister (v.5), or fellow-worker (v.9) - in that task, which can only be carried through if Jesus Christ is its foundation (v.11). Paul develops these ideas with the help of two similes - God's field (vv.6-9) and his building (vv.9-17). If Christ is the foundation, then Christians must not only be linked to Jesus Christ: they must, as it were, be glued to him [...]. He is the foundation and we are the building; he is the trunk of the vine and we are the branches; he is the husband and we are the wife; he is the shepherd and we are the flock (St. John Chrysostom, Hom. on 1 Cor 8:4). Extending the building metaphor, Paul appeals to ministers to act responsibly, reminding them that a Day of Judgment will come, the day of the LORD (vv.10-17).

Paul uses two biblical quotations (Job 5:13; Ps 94:11; cf. vv.19-20) to show that an unspiritual approach is doomed to failure; whereas a person who has Christ has all things [.]

Catholic Holy Tradition Perspective

From scripture, 'fire' is the means by which God tests and purifies his elect [cf.Hello's answer] and also the means he executes his searching judgment (see above). From Catholic Tradition, in this passage, the person has passed on, and that person is gold but impure, therefore they undergo purification by fire before admittance to the Beatific Vision. It is a cleansing fire.

We know the worst for a person and their achievements is when they gain the whole world and forfeit their life. The works in the OP's question that get burned up, are those that did not profit one as regards eternal life.

cf. This answer to According to Catholicism, in what cases is Purgatory necessary?

Please see:

  CCC
  1031
  The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the
  elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the
  damned.1 The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on
  Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The
  tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture,
  speaks of a cleansing fire:2

  As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final
  Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever
  utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in
  this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that
  certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in
  the age to come.3

  1. cf. Council of Florence (1439):DS 1304; Council of Trent
  (1563):DS 1820; (1547):1580; see also Benedict XII, Benedictus Deus
  (1336):DS 1000.
  2. cf. 1 Cor 3:15; 1 Pet 1:7.
  3. St. Gregory the Great, Dial. 4,39:PL 77,396; cf. Mt
  12:31.

cf. Wis 3:5-7 (RSVCE) 5 Having been disciplined a little, they will receive great good, because God tested them and found them worthy of himself; 6 like gold in the furnace he tried them, and like a sacrificial burnt offering he accepted them. 7 In the time of their visitation they will shine forth, and will run like sparks through the stubble.


To what extent did BC gentiles have access to the Old Testament? In Matthew 2:5-6 we see the wise men from the East telling Herod of the king who was to be born in Bethlehem, and they seem to be quoting from Micah 5:2.

Did gentiles have access to the Old Testament before Christ? Could they have known what Micah said without having the book of Micah?

During the Jewish exile in Babylon, Daniel (Belteshazzar) was appointed as the "chief of the magicians" (Daniel 2:48; 4:9). This was probably the same group as the magi (source). During Daniel's time in Babylon, he interpreted many dreams both for the king and for himself. One such vision foretold the year of the crucifixion of the Messiah, or "Anointed One".

In Daniel 9:24-27, he is told of a period of 70 weeks (which are understood to be weeks of years) that are fixed for the Jewish people. There are seven weeks, then sixty-two weeks, with the final week being a subject of controversy among Christians. However, the first sixty-nine weeks point to the year of Jesus' crucifixion.

The magi were no doubt familiar with Daniel's prophecies since he was such an important figure in Babylon and Persia during Judah's seventy-year exile. Thus they likely were expecting something to occur in their lifetimes.

Regarding the star, the magi might have been looking for it because of the prophecy of Balaam, the sinful prophet in Numbers 24. In verse 17, he said, "A star shall come forth from Jacob, a scepter shall rise from Israel." Some have speculated that Balaam was an early magi since he lived in the general vicinity of Persia, so the magi might have known about this prophecy through him.


Does the Evangelical Free Church allow women elders? I'm a member of an Evangelical Free church and one of the members of my Sunday school class made an impassioned plea for us to nominate several women to be elders.  Currently our church has no women elders and never has as far as I know.  I also am certain that the denomination does not allow women in pastoral or board of directors positions.  But the only statement I can find is from Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE):

  Evangelical Free Church of America (EFCA) www.ecfa.org

  Women may not serve as pastors, elders, or deacons. Men who are not ordained and women who would like to be involved in ministry may be
  granted the "Christian Ministry License."

  —"US Denominations and Their Stances on
  Women in Leadership" [PDF]

The trouble with this is that I our church does have women deacons.  I'd like to know what the official policy is and what arguments are made for the denomination's position.

Error: When I wrote this up I, I had misread the question and focused my answer on the office of Deacon. I will need to revise this to focus on the office of Elder. It won't be substantially different but there are a few extra considerations.

There is not a very clear answer to this question, but the statement on the CBE seems to beyond the scope of documentation coming from the EFCA itself.

The terminology used in the EFCA is a little bit confusing. You have the common monikers of "Ordination", "Elder" and "Deacon", but you also have the terminology of "Credentialing" (not at all the same as "Licensure" in Reformed circles) and various forms of "ministry" that have qualifications but do not require ordination.

Relevant to this issue is something the EFCA calls a Certificate of Christian Ministry:

  The primary purpose of the Certificate of Christian Ministry (CCM) is to identify theological proficiency. (This expands on the License, which focuses on theological competency and alignment with the EFCA, and is distinguished from the Certificate of Ordination, which focuses on theological mastery.)

(source: Certificate of Christian Ministry, 2008 EFCA Statement of Faith)

This so called CCM can be issued to both men and women:

  Who can be credentialed? Can a woman be credentialed?
  Any who are in a qualifying ministry and fulfill the requirements as stated in “Steps” can be credentialed. This means women serving in local church staff positions can receive the Certificate of Christian Ministry. (The Certificate of Ordination is reserved for men who are qualified, as the EFCA Conference determined our national credentialing process would be complementarian.) Because of the importance of credentialing to the local church ministry and the EFCA, all women serving in qualifying ministries ought to be encouraged to be credentialed.

(source: EFCA Credentialing FAQ)

This is distinct from a Certificate of Ordination which only men may hold:

  The ordination credential may be issued to candidates who:

  Are male in gender;

(source: Credentialing: Certificate of Ordination)

So far those procedures are pretty standardized. The remaining question is what kind of certification is necessary to hold the office of deacon. This is where things get foggy. Is a Certificate of Christian Ministry enough or must one be Ordained?

The answer is, unfortunately, you don't actually need either, although the former is highly encouraged. EFCA churches are considered to be somewhat autonomous and each have their own constitution. You can see in the sample constitution that what offices a local church even consists of is something that a local church could amend. They are encouraged to change as little as possible here, but that doesn't mean that all local churches will have the same church governance structure. The exact role of Deacons is notably not well defined by the denomination.

The EFCA lumps Deacons in as part of the "Church Board" responsible for governance of the church (along with the Pastor and Elders), but they also draw a distinction between them, often citing "Elders/Overseers/Pastors" as one thing and "Deacons" as something different (along with different verses used to define their qualifications).

Likewise strange to me, EFCA churches often allow non credentialed people into ministry roles (including holding titles of Pastor and Elder) before having completed (or even without) their credentialing process.

One hint can be found in the Credentialing FAQ cited above (emphasis mine):

  Scripture clearly teaches that each believer has been given a grace-gift in order to serve our Lord and His Church. In addition, some believers have received the call of God upon their lives for vocational ministry and have been given grace-gifts for the task of preparing God’s people to carry out the works of service which build up the body of Christ. It is those in vocational
  ministry which God Himself has chosen and appointed and which the local church affirms, and is subsequently recognized by the EFCA by the act of the laying on of hands and the granting of an EFCA credential.

In other words the credentialing process can be done post hoc in recognition of those already called to vocational ministry. This may or may not include Elders, much less Deacons. Local churches are encouraged to have their ministry staff pursue the credentialing process, but it is not necessarily a given. In particular, the requirements for credentialing define vocational ministry as at least 30 hours a week of compensated ministry time. Exceptions are made particularly for bi-vocational ministers because the importance of the credentialing process is stressed over other particulars, but the fact remains that it is not a strict requirement at all unless the local church makes it so.

In short, you cannot learn whether a woman may serve as a deacon in an EFCA church based on any ordination or certification requirements. The certification requirements are valid for woman, and neither ordination or certification is actually required. The ordination process is for men only, but according to denomination minimum standards a woman could serve with the title of "youth pastor" and receive a Certificate of Christian Ministry rather than a Certificate of Ordination.

It seems quite likely to me that any given local congregation might be confused on the exact difference between ordination and certification. A deacon might be hold a certificate of ministry and installed by the local church but that isn't actually the formal definition of ordination.

Conclusion

One can definitely say that according to EFCA standards those ordained for Ministry of the Word, especially to include lead Pastors, must be of the male persuasion. This is traditionally understood to also include Elders (who may be ordained if ministry roles call for it but are at least encouraged to hold a Certificate of Christian Ministry). On the other hand woman are clearly allowed to hold a CCM and participate in staff positions including vocational ministry, even hold the title of Pastor (in the context or Youth Pastor, Counseling Pastor or other administrative roles) but not that of a Lead Pastor. Whether the office of Deacon is seen as part of a Ministry of the Word and thus limited to men or whether it includes other acts of ministry is something decided on by the local church and hence their gender requirements may vary.


How could Jacob wrestle with God if no one can see God and live? Is this a contradiction? Or am I missing something. It seems strange to think one can "wrestle" with God.

Genesis 32:30 (NIV):

  30 So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, “It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared.”

Exodus 33:18-20 (NIV):

  18 Then Moses said, “Now show me your glory.”
  19 And the LORD said, “I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the LORD, in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 20 But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.”

So first off, this story of Jacob "struggling with God" (in Hebrew Isra - el) is one that has puzzled people for years.  There is little agreement amongst scholars about what this means.  Some interpret this is a vision, others as a theophany, and still others suggest that it was simply a metaphor for the striving and struggling that Jacob had been doing all along.

Beyond that, however, the exact question is, 'Why didn't Jacob die after seeing the face of God (the Pen - el)?'  After all, as you pointed out, when Moses asked to see God's face 430 years later, he was told that if he did, he would die.

Two theories:

God was disguised

What is different, however, is that Moses wanted to see God's full Shekinah Glory. He wanted the unmediated experience of seeing God in his fullness.

In contrast, here God is clearly not revealed in his full glory.  Remember that when the three visitors came to see Abraham, they were disguised. When the angel came to visit Samson's father, he was disguised.  When there was the fourth in the furnace, shining brightly as a 'son of God,' he too could have been considered to be disguised.

For a trickster who had disguised himself once to fool his own father, Jacob would have understood a disguise.  There's nothing supernatural here in being able to realize that someone is way more than he looks like on the surface.
It was a miracle.

Jacob himself is shocked that he saw God and lived. He was in fact, left crippled by the experience, it was that powerful.  Remember, he was blessed, though its hard to understand how being crippled is a "blessing," unless if compared to the certainty of death for seeing God face to face.  That his life was preserved and he still got to be with God in the same way Adam once talked to him is an amazing gift.


Reference request about St. John Vianney and the Miraculous Medal? I have come across on a couple of websites (one a blog), but never in a book, the following conversation between the Cure d'Ars and one of his penitents:
``Do you remember that you went to a ball on such-and-such occasion?
``Yes, I remember.
``Do you remember that at a certain moment a handsome young man entered the ballroom? He was quite elegant, appeared very upright and danced with several young ladies?
``Yes, I do.
``Do you recall that you had a great desire to dance with him?
``I recall that.
``Do you recollect that you became sad because he didn’t ask you to dance?
``Yes, I do.
``Do you remember that by chance you looked down at his feet and saw a strange blue light coming from them?
``Yes. I remember.
``That young man was none other than the devil who had taken that shape to tempt several of the young women there. He was unable to approach you because you are a Daughter of Mary protected by her, and you were wearing the Miraculous Medal.
I have never come across a legitimate reference for this conversation.
The two sites that I have seen this conversation recounted are:

St. John Baptist Vianney, August 9
St. John Vianney

My Question is: Can anyone who may be familiar with St. John Vianney and the Miraculous Medal provide me with a valid citation for this conversation? The aforementioned sites provide no reference. Thank you.

Question Pertaining to St. John Vianney and the Miraculous Medal
I have a great devotion to St. John Vianney and have read the works on the Curé D'Ars by Mgr. Francis Trochu, the procurator of his cause in French.
If you can locate one of the first published works that were written by him for the beatification and/or canonization of Jean-Marie Baptiste Vianney you would find your references desired. Possibly later works could include the references you desire.
The procurators must publish the written works of his investigation which are heavily annotated with notes and sources, for the Sacred Congregation for the Causes of Saints.
If you are lucky, you may possibly find a biography about the Curé D'Ars: St. Jean-Marie Baptiste Vianney in English by the same author. Do not look at the abridged biographies of him. The greater number of pages, the greater the possibility that the notes you are looking for with be in that particular biographical works!
I know to be certain of what I am saying because I have personally read this original work on Curé D'Ars, with the very notes and references you are desiring because I read this work some 30 years ago in French. If fact, at times I found the notes more interesting than the actual biography itself.

The Curé D'Ars: St. Jean-Marie Baptiste Vianney by Mgr. Francis Trochu. This image is given as an example of Mgr. Trochu’s works only!


The effect of poison on Christians Can someone explain me these passages about the effect of poison?

Who is immune to poison?
Why do they have this trait?
Why isn't anyone today immune to poison?

Mark 16:17-18

  17And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.

Luke 10:19

  I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome all the power of the enemy; nothing will harm you.

Acts 28:3-6

  3 Paul gathered a pile of brushwood and, as he put it on the fire, a viper, driven out by the heat, fastened itself on his hand. 4 When the islanders saw the snake hanging from his hand, they said to each other, “This man must be a murderer; for though he escaped from the sea, the goddess Justice has not allowed him to live.” 5 But Paul shook the snake off into the fire and suffered no ill effects. 6 The people expected him to swell up or suddenly fall dead; but after waiting a long time and seeing nothing unusual happen to him, they changed their minds and said he was a god.

I can't answer this definitively, but I can tell you what I've come to as a conclusion. The community can vote as to whether or not they agree, and I'm sure someone else would have a different answer, but here goes.

Looking at how God's method of communication has changed over time, it should not be surprising that such "gifts" are not as common as they were.  When it came to the Apostles and the early Church, God was specifically working  to establish His Church. These signs and wonders were accompanied by preaching of the Gospel.

In fact, if you look at the miracles performed by Jesus Himself, you'll see that He performed them as a demonstration of His authority, and if you look at them in total, they display that He is God. http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/miracles.htm  In other words, He didn't perform them merely to amaze people, He did them to support His teaching, authority, and claims about Himself.

With the Apostolic miracles, and those of the early Church, the pattern is similar.  The miracles accompany the preaching of the Gospel, or serve to establish the authority of the Apostles, and early Church.  Once the authority has been established, there is no further need for God to "prove Himself".  He's already done so.  He had already revealed Himself, and He did say specifically that if we don't believe in the Scriptures, why would we believe Him. (John 5:46).  How many times does He have to prove Himself before we believe?

A similar pattern can be seen throughout Scripture.  In the beginning, He walked with Adam and Eve and spoke to them personally.  With Moses, He spoke from a burning bush.  Later, He spoke to the people through Moses, and then through the prophets.

Also, God had shown anger several times throughout Scripture towards them that seek after signs, when He had already revealed Himself.  He tolerates it at first, even though He recognizes it for what it is (temping God) (Exodus 17:7) but He is still angered by it.  (Psalm 78:18-20)

Jesus also rebuked the Pharisees and Sadducees for the same thing.  (Matthew 16:4)

That said, there are still those around today who believe that these verses are to be taken literally, and that they still apply today.  These would be the snake handlers in a few Pentecostal denominations and sub-groups that so many people love to make fun of.

As for me, personally, I don't dare practice these rituals.  It's not that I don't think that God could protect me from snakes and poisons.  It's more that I know that this would be, to me, a test of whether or not He truly would.  In other words, my actions would be a deliberate tempting of God.  I fully believe that He could do it, but I don't want to make Him angry because He could just as well let me die simply because I had the audacity to test Him.  Who am I to test Him?


All the references where Jesus is offered worship What are all the references to the instances where where Jesus is offered worship in the Bible?

I am raising this question because some of my friends from some specific denomintations believe only Jehavah as the only God. Quoting references where Jesus is being worshipped in the Bible can help me prove that Jesus is God and will help me partially in explaining trinity.

First of all - Jesus Christ is Jehovah. He states about him "I am" and when He pronouces it it makes his captors fall to the ground. So the name of God "I am" is the name of Jesus, not only of Father.

At least two fragments I can come up with now:

That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; (Philippians 2, 10)

And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last (Revelation 1, 17, note that unlike angel from the same book, Christ doesn't forbid falling at His feet)


Is the “Dome of the Rock” the “Abomination of Desolation” spoken of by the prophet Daniel? The Abomination of Desolation spoken of in both Matthew and Mark is specifically in reference to “End Time” perspectives.  Are there any Christian teachings that the Dome of the Rock is the “Abomination of Desolation”?

I'm not sure I'd limit the application "abomination of desolation" to a single event/place/thing.  Many scholars believe that the references in the book of Daniel (Dan. 9:27; 11:31; 12:11) refer to the time of Antiochus IV Ephiphanes who made an unclean sacrifice in the Jewish temple (among other terrible things) in the 2nd century BC.

However, in the New Testament (Matt. 24:15; Mk. 13:14) this would be a past event, so would be applied to something else.  If you look at the parallel passage in Luke you'll find something interesting:

  Mk. 13:14 - "So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken by
  Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, then let those who
  are in Judea flee to the mountains."

  Lk. 21:20-21 - "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then
  know that its desolation is near.  Then let those who are in Judea
  flee to the mountains..."

And then notice Mk. 13:30:

  "Assuredly I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away
  until all these things take place."

So if you take "generation" to mean the people living at that time, then the application here would refer to the time when Jerusalem was surrounded by armies sometime in the first century.  And in fact, we find that the Roman armies did so and destroyed the entire city and temple (70 AD).  The Romans were an abomination that made the city desolate.

Multiple applications seem to make sense because Antiochus IV Epiphanes matches so remarkably well to the descriptions in Daniel, yet Jesus' application had to be different because Antiochus was already past.  They were both abominations of desolation.

Now, as to the "Dome of the Rock" theory.  It is interesting that the Dome of the Rock only exists because the Romans destroyed the temple in 70 AD, so perhaps, in a sense an application of "abomination of desolation" could be made here.

The Scriptures in Daniel and Matthew/Mark/Luke seem to specifically point to the applications I've cited above, but certainly a Jew would view the mosque as "an" abomination of desolation due to its location.


What might the Bible mean by "marital unfaithfulness," other than adultery? I know that divorce is frowned upon by God. There are exceptions to this, abuse being one of them, along with adultery.

However, when one reads through the Bible, "marital unfaithfulness" gets thrown into the mix. I have run across items referring to this aspect from Matthew here: "What is the exception clause?" Another with several translations is on biblehub.com. So it looks like there are two separate entries: Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9.

Would "marital unfaithfulness" encompass emotional abandonment? I do not refer to one of the partners having an emotional affair, but more along the lines of just not being there for their spouse emotionally.

Or does this fall more along the lines of abuse, and does God see emotional abuse as he does physical abuse, as wrong?

"Marriage unfaithfulness" is not a term used in the Bible, so one would have to define it in order to determine a biblical answer. Where did you get the words from, and how were they used?

Since you ask "What MIGHT the Bible refer to as marital unfaithfulness," then I would consider what the husband is supposed to do for the wife and fails to do it as unfaithfulness. Eph. 5:25 tells the husband to love his wife as Christ loved the church. No one can do that perfectly, but at least we can aim our (husbands') love in that direction. To point his love away from his wife would be "unfaithfulness" to God's command here.

1 Peter 3:7 tells the husband to dwell with the wife, giving her honor. He should make an effort to understand who she is and deal with her in her weaknesses (the "weaker vessel"). Is it honorable treatment to treat her as a slave, to place greater burdens on her than she should bear, to demean her with controlling commands that turn her into a slave instead of a person made in the image of God? To deliberately treat the wife with dishonor or with less than chivalrous motives is to act in "unfaithfulness" to commands in the scriptures.

These are areas the Bible might consider actions as marital unfaithfulness to the scriptural role the husband is called to uphold. I do not mean to imply that these are the same as sexual sins and worthy of divorce. I do mean to state that these are potential areas of abuse (emotional or physical) that would be considered wrong if they are practiced against the wife with evil intent.


Is there a difference between Scripture and inspired writings? Take these two questions and their answers for consideration to this question:

What does "scripture" mean in NT writing?

What does it mean that all scripture is God-Breathed?

I am having a small discussion in the comments on this post (I know I shouldn't but I think they add to the answer). I want to see if my current understanding of scripture and inspired works is Biblically supported and also come up with a useful, working definition for 'inspired works.'

Here is how I would summarize what I think they are: All scripture is God breathed; all scripture is inspired. Scripture comes as a direct result from writing the direct messages from God (prophecy, etc.). When Paul wrote that in 2 Tim 3:16 he was referring exclusively to the Old Testament, in whole (never mind the Catholic/Protestant argument here). Paul did not consider his own writings to be scripture, however, he did consider them inspired by God because he saw the risen Christ and was commanded to build up His church. Writing the epistles was a direct effect of Paul obeying God's command. It is clear that the epistles add little to nothing of what can be found in the Old Testament. All that is in the epistles can be read in the Old Testament (read my comments on the third post).

So this is the question: Is my reasoning biblical and is there a difference between inspired writings and Scripture?

The New Testament is just as much 'scripture' as the Old Testament, and in some sense we believe the Old Testament is scripture because the New Testament records our Lord's full attestation of its authority as such. Inspired works are nothing in comparison. Even my post could be inspired by God as Christians often have inspired thoughts.
I think when people try to trace the overall idea of how scripture came to be believed as 'scripture' we forget the basic idea. God sent Prophets and, later on, Apostles to be his messengers, to deliver his word. Apostles were even greater 'messengers' of the oracles of God than Prophets. A greater covenant was under their instruction as infallible guides to the church. In the Old Testament, prophets, once established as credible, were not to be trusted blindly. Only but by testing the truthfulness of their words and prophecies as they continued to make them, would they be received.  If they declared something as 'the word of the Lord' which was not true, they were to be stoned. (Deuteronomy 13:1-5)
There was great seriousness in someone saying 'Thus saith the Lord' or speaking as though they were bringing the 'very words of God' (and rightly so). Any misrepresentation was deadly.  So we must start with this understanding that there was an idea of a Prophet, who was a messenger.  He would speak in an authoritative manner as though his words were God's (because they were) and God gave such a person unusual certainty and assurance with these words, removing all doubt. Not that every word they spoke (like 'pass the butter please') was God's word, but every word they delivered to the church as a guide and message was of God.
At the highest level:

The scriptures alone have the authority to declare themselves to be so. No church council can determine what is scripture, they can only admit after careful investigation what is self evidently declared within the scriptures themselves. These are tested and confessed to having the authoritative and infallible revelation of God's mind with no contrary evidence to maintain reasonable dispute.

No matter what we canonize, the scripture will insert itself into our view and demand our obedience as it truly is the word of the Lord. God will not leave us without all that is necessary for life and salvation. I have read portions of letters claiming to own a right into the Protestant Bible, but have never sensed the pure authority of God in them.  In fact it really puzzles me how many people fail to see the poor attitudes and doctrinal imperfections in so many 'inspired' books that are proposed as additions to our canon.
Now for those books that the church has received (I am speaking from a Protestant view and canon) a few things had to occur for the church to receive them as scripture. First, somebody claimed to be a Prophet or an Apostle, and their words were recorded by themselves or by others. Second, these words were sent out with an air of extreme importance and ultimate infallible authority. There are not many candidates meeting the first two criteria. Third, fake ones were tossed.  They did not have the divine purity, power and truth in them as attested by the conscience of the church and which could be proven to others by contradicting something in scriptures already received.  The three progressions occurred for all books in our Bible, and no other writings, however 'inspired', are included due to their obvious imperfections or lack of claim to be prophetic or apostolic in origin.
The notion that the Old Testament is the only scripture is absolutely inconsistent with the notion of an Apostle. It is like saying Prophets are great and God would have us collect their words and call them scripture, but those messengers even greater than Apostles, no, even the words of the Lord Jesus Christ himself, they are just 'inspired'? Nothing could be more ludicrous and in opposition to the concept of an Apostle.  All scripture is equally scripture but if we had to rank different books, the New Testament would be more so simply from the height of the authority of the messengers and the level of brilliance and progression of the revelation.
On a more technical nature, one can trace the assumption of the New Testament being 'obvious scripture' and expect a direct argument never to be made.  There was no direct argument in the Old Testament to receive the words of a prophet as scripture canonized in a little book called the Bible. It was common sense that the words of a prophet came from God and also common sense that the words of an Apostle was from God. This is spiritual common sense which requires no proof. It is like asking for proof that there is a God. He just is and his word says so.
For example in Acts we see the gospel is just assumed to be God's word, not just inspiration. The gospel as preached by the Apostles was always considered 'the word of the Lord', when written this became scripture by default. All one has to do is search the phrase and many passages in Acts appear:

The next Sabbath almost the whole city gathered to hear the word of the Lord.
(Acts 13:44, NIV)

The word of the Lord is scripture as provided by Prophets or Apostles, or the Lord himself.  Paul considered the message he delivered in his letters as 'the word of the Lord' also. (1 Thessalonians 4:15, Galatians 1:11). In fact everything he said was assumed to be the Lord's word so that if on a rare occasion he offered his own opinion, he clarified as much.  (1 Corinthians 7:12).
Some New Testament books were not yet written by the time 1 Timothy was written, so that they were not referred to as the 'scriptures' in a final sense, as the Old Testament version was. (The Old Testament canon was not collected and 'canonized' as such but these were known to be complete by the Apostles as the New Testament was being written and still incomplete. Therefore they were not referred to as a set). However, even already in Timothy the 'Spirit expressly saying' is agreed by most commentators to be referring not to just the Hebrew scriptures but prophecies made by Jesus and others more recently in New Testament letters. (1 Timothy 4:1)
A fairly standard verse that people use on the technical side is 2 Peter 3:15-16:

And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

Clearly Peter 'assumes the writings of Paul are scripture' otherwise he would be guilty of gross miscommunication on a very important matter. Some think Peter is arguing directly that Paul's writings are scripture. I am in the camp of thinking he just assumes it as obvious due to his Apostleship and assumes the reader to understand it obvious as well.
Note: I take for granted that it is understood that an Apostle is greater than a Prophet.  If one needed support for this argument I would present 1 Corinthians 12:28, the fact that the Lord himself called the twelve Apostles, the fact that the writings of the Apostolic age contain greater revelations than those of the Prophets and that the gospel is so much superior that every believer is considered greater than the greatest prophet, John the Baptist.  His greatness only occurs from his nearness in time to the Messiah. (Matthew 11:11)
Inspired works are nothing in comparison to scripture as only scripture can test the truthfulness of their claimed inspiration. Scripture is the word of God the church has received from Prophets or Apostles. The 'greatest of these', if such a word can be used to compare scripture with scripture due to the weight of the revelation contained in them, is the New Testament.


What is the biblical basis for Open Theism? Open theism, in a nutshell, asserts that the future free choices of agents endowed with free will are unknowable, and therefore that God, though omniscient, is not capable of knowing in advance what we will freely choose in any particular future situation because future free choices are unknowable things, as I just said.
What is the biblical basis for Open Theism?

“Open theism” is an attempt to explain the foreknowledge of God in relationship to the free will of man. The argument of open theism is essentially this: human beings are truly free; if God absolutely knew the future, human beings could not truly be free. Therefore, God does not know absolutely everything about the future.
Open theism holds that the future is not knowable. Therefore, God knows everything that can be known, but He does not know the future.  Open theism bases these beliefs on Scripture passages which describe God “changing His mind” or “being surprised” or “seeming to gain knowledge.”
For example, in the book of Job it seems that God didn’t know what the outcome would be and so he changes his mind.  Through his prophet, God had told Nineveh He would destroy the city in forty days (Jonah 3:4). However, Nineveh repented of their sin (verses 5–9). In response to the Assyrians’ repentance, God relented:

When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil way, God relented of the disaster that he had said he would do to them, and he did not do it. (Jonah 3:10).

Prior to the flood, it seems like the wickedness of humanity caught God out and he felt regret.  His disappointment is used to suggest that God was not aware of how things would turn out:

And the Lord regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. (Genesis 6:6).

Another instance where it looks like God didn’t know how things would turn out is when Abraham was prepared to sacrifice his only son, Isaac.  God had to test Abraham’s faith:

He said, “Do not lay your hand on the boy or do anything to him, for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me.” (Genesis 22:12).

After the Israelites offended God by making an image of a golden calf, God’s anger burned against them to the extent he was going to destroy them.  But God changed his mind:

And the Lord relented from the disaster that he had spoken of bringing on his people. (Exodus 32:14).

There may be other Bible verses that the proponents of Open Theism use to support their views but I’ve run out of time for today and must sign off.  You have not asked for a Christian rebuttal so I will simply refer you to a section in the Wikipedia article which criticises open theism and presents a few verses that support the immutability of God: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_theism#Criticism


Pre-flood Rock Monsters? Modern Noah Mythology? How did the "Noah" movie decide to include rock monsters depicted as fallen angels? (helping him, nonetheless!)

This is one of many, many biblical deviations the movie makes, but I'm curious what traditional sources are bastardizing the story so badly? Or is it just the creativity of modern man gone unrestrained?

As the producer of the movie said when asked about inaccuracies in the movie "It is entertainment and not a documentary."

Biblical movies, down through their history, have injected some parts for entertainment into their story line. Even the best made Biblical movies, such Charlton Heston's great movie about Moses, included a love triangle involving Joshua that is not a part of the Bible.

It appears that whether wittingly or unwittingly, Hollywood has deviated from known Scripture in increasingly greater ways, that the Stories from the Bible have been altered in the mind of the public.

Whether intentional or not this process has slowly had a negative impact on the public's perception of the veracity of the Bible.

Many devout Christians have attributed this process to Satan, and there may be more truth to that than meets the eye. However, it must be assumed that it was not a conscious effort on the part of the movie makers to distort the perceptions of the Bible but to satisfy the hunger of the public for increasingly exciting entertainment.

That process is not just reserved for Biblical interpretation in movies, but extends to all movies. Beginning back in the 70's with movies, such as where the girl's head spun around on her body, to as you remarked, the depiction of fallen Angels as Rock monsters. Christianity has been rapidly denigrated by Hollywood.

Sadly the depiction of fallen Angels helping Noah, (I have to take your word for that, since I have not seen this movie and never will because I am blind); will give some the idea that Fallen Angels can be good, which is contradictory to the Bible, since the fallen Angels are Satan's demons, and are evil.

One of the first Bible epics, which I still occasionally watch, deviated from the Biblical account of Jesus' crucifixion in that in the Bible Roman soldiers cast lots for Jesus' garments, but in the movie that was not shown.

You can make your own determination as to whether or not this is the work of Satan or not, for myself I can only say that it has had a negative effect on Christianity.


According to Baptist when were names added to The Book of Life? According to Baptist of all stripes, are names added to the Book of Life anywhere in the Bible (after Creation)?

I see only examples of names remaining in or being wiped out. I don’t see names being added.

  “The one who conquers will be clothed thus in white garments, and I will never blot his name out of the book of life. I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels.” Revelation 3:5 ESV

In order to never be blotted out it’s implied you were already written in. When was it written in?

What is the Baptist view?

As far as I have been able to find out, according to Baptists, the names of the Elect were written in the Book of Life “from the foundation of the world.”  This is because Baptists believe in God’s sovereign right to predestine some to salvation.  Below are extracts from sermons by Charles Spurgeon, one of the foremost of Baptist preachers:

  A sermon by C. H. Spurgeon 1876: “Notwithstanding in this do not rejoice, that the spirits are subject to you; but rather rejoice because your names are written in heaven.” Luke 10:20:

  This joy consists in knowing our election; “knowing, dearly beloved, your election of God,” knowing that your names were written in heaven from before the foundation of the world.
  To be written in heaven means that you claim the right of citizenship in the New Jerusalem, “the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven.” Just as there is a roll kept by great cities in which they inscribe the names of citizens, so we rejoice that our names are written in the roll of the city above, and that henceforth our citizenship is in heaven, from where we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus. This is a broad subject for rejoicing, for it includes priceless privileges and honours more than royal.
  We also rejoice that our names are written, that is, known and published in heaven. Paul mentioned certain of his fellow servants of whom he said, “whose names are written in heaven”: as much as to say though they have neither fame nor honour here they have a perpetual record where honour is worth receiving, namely, before the throne of God. The heavenly writing indicates that we are part and parcel of Christ’s new kingdom, we are inscribed among his soldiers, we are commissioned to bear hardness for his sake. We are written in heaven among the friends of Jesus, we are considered members of the sacred brotherhood. In the great book of the divine Fatherhood, we are numbered among the children, and henceforth we shall be regarded and treated as belonging to the one family in heaven and in earth. This is the matter concerning which we are called to rejoice. “Rejoice that your names are written in heaven.”
  “He who overcomes, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name from the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.” There stands your name still recorded in the Lamb’s book of life, though many a tear of yours might well fall upon it to think what grace it is which keeps it there and will keep it there for ever.
  If you are forgiven, your name is written among the forgiven. If you are indeed quickened and made alive, your name is written among the living in Zion... The Lord does not give to any soul dead in sin the least right to believe that it is written among the living, neither does he give to any ungodly man the liberty to hope that he is written among the elect of God. We must have evidence, not dreams and airy suppositions; and the evidence of being written in heaven is that a man has been called by grace out of the world to follow Jesus. We see our election by our calling, and not in any other way. We may know what is written about us in heaven by what is written within us on earth. If grace has written upon your heart until you are “an epistle of Christ, known and read by all men,” your name is in his secret book. If you are trusting in the Lord Jesus Christ you are his, and the Lord knows those who are his, and has written them down in his own private tablets which he carries near his heart. If your name is among true believers on earth it is among the redeemed in heaven: you need not question that, for the declarations of Scripture put it beyond a doubt.
  Source: https://answersingenesis.org/education/spurgeon-sermons/1312-why-may-i-rejoice/

Other sources provided these insights:

  17th Article Predestination and Election: "Predestination to life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hast continually decreed by his counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour. Wherefore they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God be called according to God's purpose by his Spirit working in due season: they through grace obey the calling: they be justified freely: they be made sons of God by adoption: they be made like the image of his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ: they walk religiously in good works, and at length, by God's mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity."

  Waldensian Articles of Faith: "That God saves from corruption and damnation those whom he has chosen from the foundations of the world, not for any disposition, faith, or holiness that he foresaw in them, but of his mere mercy in Christ Jesus his Son, passing by all the rest according to the irreprehensible reason of his own free-will and justice."

  The Baptist Confession of Faith (1689)- 3rd Article: "By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated, or foreordained to eternal life through Jesus Christ to the praise of his glorious grace; others being left to act in their sin to their just condemnation, to the praise of his glorious justice. These angels and men thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished. Those of mankind that are predestinated to life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen in Christ unto everlasting glory out of his mere free grace and love, without any other thing in the creature as a condition or cause moving him thereunto."
  Sources: http://www.romans45.org/spurgeon/sermons/0041.htm
  The Baptist Confession of Faith (1689):  http://www.romans45.org/creeds/bcof.htm

My only comment about the expression "before the foundation of the world" is that I take this to mean before God created Adam and Eve and placed them in the Garden of Eden.


Do Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that God equips humans today with the gift of prophecy? On a number of occasions, God revealed information about future events that were to take place by giving humans the gift of prophecy. Do Jehovah’s Witnesses believe God still does this today, or has that means of communication ceased to be used?

No Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe that the gift of prophecy is given in our day.

We believe that the gifts given to early Christians served a special purpose in establishing that Gods favor had shifted away from the nation of Israel and was upon the followers of Jesus Christ the Messiah.

However those gifts like healing ,speaking in tongues, prophesying etc came to an end not long after the death of the apostles.  Insight on the Scriptures says

  Gifts of the Spirit. In the first century C.E. miraculous gifts attended the baptism with holy spirit. These served as signs that God was no longer using the Jewish congregation in his service but that his approval rested on the Christian congregation established by his Son. (Heb 2:2-4) On the day of Pentecost, miraculous gifts accompanied the outpouring of the holy spirit, and in each case mentioned thereafter in the Scriptures where the miraculous gifts of the spirit were transmitted, at least one of the 12 apostles or Paul, who was directly chosen by Jesus, was present. (Ac 2:1, 4, 14; 8:9-20; 10:44-46; 19:6) Evidently, with the death of the apostles, the transmittal of the gifts of the spirit ended, and the miraculous gifts of the spirit ceased altogether as those who had received these gifts passed off the earthly scene.


What is the current relevance of Arianism? Is there an active sect by this name? Are there any particular Christian denominations which might be described as 'Arian'?

To answer this, one must first define what Arianism is. Any denomination which holds that Jesus Christ is a subordinate entity to God. He is not one with the Father. Christ is not truly divine but a created being can be considered as 'Arian'. In Arius's words, "there was [a time] when he (the Son) was not."

Holy Arian Catholic and Apostolic Church in claims to proclaim Arius's teachings, even "canonizing" him in 2006. However, they differ with several major points. AFAIK this is the only known church to explicitly call themselves as Arian.

The Jehovah's Witnesses is often accused of being Arian. JWs even regard Arius as a forerunner of Charles Taze Russell, the founder of their movement. But they do not call themselves Arian.src The main difference is that they claim that the "Archangel Michael transformed into human Jesus, then after dying transformed back to Archangel Michael again" teaching. That is not in with the historic Arian doctrine.

Some sects like Unitarianism, Mormonism (Latter Day Saint movement), Iglesia ni Cristo etc., hold a form of Arianism, but they all differ with each other and with traditional Arianism in many doctrinal issues.

No remnant of any of the Arian sects established in early days is known to exist today.


Hallelujah vs Alleluia What's the difference between these two words other than obviously the spelling. I've seen some songs write Alleluia which sounds very similar to Hallelujah when sung.

Both spellings have come into English from the same origin but via different routes.

"Hallelujah" is from the Hebrew via the Greek transliteration and is close to the original Hebrew
"Alleluia" is from the Hebrew via the Latin.

Both transliterations began with the Hebrew.  The original Hebrew word means to "Praise the LORD/YHWH"


What is the basis for the belief that the name of the Messiah is יָהוּשׁוּעַ (Yahushua)? There are some1 who assert that the name of the Messiah is יָהוּשׁוּעַ (which would be transliterated into English as Yahushua). What is the basis for this assertion?

Note: The question is not asking about the name יְהוֹשׁוּעַ but a slight variation of that name, viz. יָהוּשׁוּעַ, which certain people believe is the actual name of the Messiah, as opposed to יְהוֹשׁוּעַ.

1 See Google search for the word "Yahushua."

It stems back to Leah calling her 4th son "Judah".  Well, there are no "J's" in Hebrew, which would then bring Judah to Yudah[their letter Yod/Y was converted to J in modern translations].  This Yod/Y is represented as a little apostrophe[the smallest of the Hebrew letters]; you'll notice it above to the right of that Hebrew word for Yahushua. Well Yudah is actually a shortened down form/word that was originally Yahudah.  If we break down Yudah or Yahudah, we get[basically] Yah and dah.   Yah is what He was called according to Psalm 68:4; and dah means praise...We see this in Gen 29:35.  If we take just the Yah or Yahu portion of Judah, and add "shuah", we end up with Yahushua.  Why do we add shuah?  Shuah is Hebrew for Salvation/Saviour.  Jesus could not possibly be enunciated with a "J" sound in Israel 30AD because their alphabet wouldn't allow it.  We look at the scriptural renditions of His appellation and attempt to more closely render an English spelling to a Hebraic word uttered years ago; this is called transliteration.  Additionally, there is a reliance upon the veracity of the Grecian copies of the original scripts, thus assertion is made that "Yahushua" is the gem.


Does the Roman-Catholic Church recognize the Quinisext Council? Does the Roman-Catholic Church recognize the Quinisext Council and admit its proceedings and canons nowadays?

I know that it was rejected by Pope Sergius I. But at the same time this Council was accepted by the East for a long time before the East–West Schism. And nowadays the Catholic Church has made a lot of steps towards reunion with Eastern Orthodox Churches, so perhaps the Church's entire attitude to this Council has changed?

This article gives much more detail on the historical context of the council and what was discussed there, but the answer to your question lies in the last few paragraphs:

  The patristic Church never accepted the idea of a sexually active
  priesthood, and the Quinisext Council in Trullo certainly does not
  represent apostolic teaching.

And this Q&A seems to indicate that the canons were integrated into the Byzantine Rite, but no others in the Catholic Church.


What was the general opinion of the Early Church Fathers concerning the giants/nephilims? What was the general opinion of the Early Church Fathers concerning the giants/nephilims, described in the following verses?

Genesis 6:4
4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also
after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men,
and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were
of old, men of renown.
Numbers 13:33
33 And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which
come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and
so we were in their sight.
Deuteronomy 9:1–3
1 Hear, O Israel: Thou art to pass over Jordan this
day, to go in to possess nations greater and mightier than thyself,
cities great and fenced up to heaven,
2 A people great and tall, the children of the Anakims, whom thou
knowest, and of whom thou hast heard say, Who can stand before the
children of Anak!
3 Understand therefore this day, that the Lord thy God is he which
goeth over before thee; as a consuming fire he shall destroy them, and
he shall bring them down before thy face: so shalt thou drive them
out, and destroy them quickly, as the Lord hath said unto thee.

There's some consternation about this issue, but it's clear that the Jewish writers (Philo and Josephus) confirm their existence and reason (Gen. 6:4).  As well, there is some early Christian literature that confirms same.

Here's Athenagoras on the issue:

  Some, free agents [angels], you will observe, such as they were created by God, continued in those things for which God had made and over which He had ordained them; but some outraged both the constitution of their nature and the government entrusted to them: namely, this ruler of matter and its various forms, and others of those who were placed about this first firmament (you know that we say nothing without witnesses, but state the things which have been declared by the prophets); these fell into impure love of virgins, and were subjugated by the flesh, and he became negligent and wicked in the management of the things entrusted to him. Of these lovers of virgins, therefore, were begotten those who are called giants.788 And if something has been said by the poets, too, about the giants, be not surprised at this: worldly wisdom and divine differ as much from each other as truth and plausibility: the one is of heaven and the other of earth; and indeed, according to the prince of matter,—
  “We know we oft speak lies that look like truths.”
  http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.v.ii.xxiv.html

Another early mention was in the Clementine literature:

  “But from their unhallowed intercourse spurious men sprang, much greater in stature than ordinary men, whom they afterwards called giants; not those dragon-footed giants who waged war against God, as those blasphemous myths of the Greeks do sing, but wild in manners, and greater than men in size, inasmuch as they were sprung of angels; yet less than angels, as they were born of women.
  http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf08.vi.iv.xi.xv.html

Philo had this to say:

  Therefore he [God] utters no fable whatever respecting the giants; but he wishes to set this fact before your eyes, that some men are born of the earth, and some are born of heaven, and some are born of God
  http://www.ccel.org/ccel/philo/works.xi.xiii.html

And Josephus mentions giants as well:

  For many angels of God accompanied with women, and begat sons that proved unjust, and despisers of all that was good, on account of the confidence they had in their own strength; for the tradition is, that these men did what resembled the acts of those whom the Grecians call giants.
  http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.v.ii.xxiv.html

Commodianus wrote this about 275 CE:

  Then the Highest uttered His judgment against them [angels]; and from their seed giants are said to have been born.
  http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.v.ii.iv.html

So, the idea of angels procreating was fairly widespread and believed early on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenagoras_of_Athens
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04165a.htm


Did Martin Luther take exception to the gospels in any way? I was watching a video* that was about the "heresy" of Protestantism. It briefly discussed Martin Luther and his exceptions with certain books. He removed the so called "apocrypha" and also took exception with Esther, James, Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation source.

This video, however, claimed that Martin Luther "had his eyes" on the gospels before his peers told him to stop.

So is there evidence that Martin Luther took exception to any of the gospels, in whole or in part?

* I would rather not link to it because its overall tone was hateful and they do not deserve the views

Yes and no. He preferred the gospel of John over the synoptic gospels, under his somewhat unusual view of revelational clarity within the canonical books. i.e. some books are more clear and powerful then others. For example, many would agree that Romans is more useful than proverbs in terms of communicating the message of salvation, but Luther was much more adamant about this kind of idea.
Luther was somewhat critical of the canon (in the modern biblical sense) partly because he distrusted the apocryphal additions made by the Catholic church and partly because of his suspicion of any book in the Bible that seemed in any sense to support what he understood as the Catholic teaching of works based righteousness. Therefore although Luther included James, Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation in his Bible (he even included the non canonical apocryphal books) he placed his own views of them in his ‘introductions’. In his introductions we find most of his canonical views.
Luther did not seem to have any objections to Esther, only to some portions not found in the original:

Six additions to the book of Esther, comprising 107 verses not in the Hebrew text, were inserted into the text in the Greek Version, added on at the end in the Vulgate. Oesterley, An Introduction to the Books of the Apocrypha, p. 183. The ancient Greek and Latin versions of the book of Daniel contain three principal additions not found in the original Hebrew and Aramaic text; these are included among the Apocrypha as separate “books”: The Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Young Men, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon. Metzger, An Introduction to the Apocrypha (New York: Oxford, 1957), p. 99 (uther, M. (1999). Luther's works, vol. 35: Word and Sacrament I (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.)

Regarding Luther’s preference of books that clearly outlined the gospel over and above those that were less clear in terms of justification, Luther thought of the clearer ones as ‘noblest books’. He did not imply that the other writings were not canonical juts that they were less massive in their depth of revelation into what was ‘core’.

[Which are the true and noblest books of the New Testament]
[From all this you can now judge all the books and decide among them which are the best. John’s Gospel and St. Paul’s epistles, especially that to the Romans, and St. Peter’s first epistle are the true kernel and marrow of all the books. They ought properly to be the foremost books, and it would be advisable for every Christian to read them first and most, and by daily reading to make them as much his own as his daily bread. For in them you do not find many works and miracles of Christ described, but you do find depicted in masterly fashion how faith in Christ overcomes sin, death, and hell, and gives life, righteousness, and salvation. This is the real nature of the gospel, as you have heard.

If I had to do without one or the other—either the works or the preaching of Christ—I would rather do without the works than without his preaching. For the works do not help me, but his words give life, as he himself says [John 6:63]. Now John writes very little about the works of Christ, but very much about his preaching, while the other evangelists write much about his works and little about his preaching. Therefore John’s Gospel is the one, fine, true, and chief gospel, and is far, far to be preferred over the other three and placed high above them. So, too, the epistles of St. Paul and St. Peter far surpass the other three gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
In a word St. John’s Gospel and his first epistle, St. Paul’s epistles, especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and St. Peter’s first epistle are the books that show you Christ and teach you all that is necessary and salvatory for you to know, even if you were never to see or hear any other book or doctrine. Therefore St. James’ epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it. But more of this in the other prefaces.]( Luther, M. (1999). Vol. 35: Luther's works, vol. 35: Word and Sacrament I (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.) (361–362). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.)
Thus we see that although the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke were scripture to Luther, they were not as clear as some other books, like the Gospel of John.
Regarding a book like Revelation, Luther has an odd freedom (and should I add confusion). One on hand he seems so unrestrained to be so bold as to deny its canonicity, partly because he was critical of anything not clear to his own understanding amidst the corruptions at the church at the time and partly due to its slow recognition into the canon within church history. On the other hand, one has to wonder why was he confused about its clarity of the gospel?  To confuse the issue more he later changed his view and accepted it as canonical! (For the preface of 1522 his opinion was it was not canonical, volume 35 pp. 398–399 then from the preface from 1530 p. 411 he accepted that it was).
Also Luther was not so dogmatic about ‘his opinion’ as it was changing amidst the dramatic theological revolutions in which he seems to be at a center place. He was very ‘free’ in having a non-dogmatic opinion and willingness to express it without fear of being put to death. In his earlier introduction of Revelation he shows his 'opinion' approach while granting others free opinion as well:

About this book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own opinions. I would not have anyone bound to my opinion or judgment. I say what I feel.( Luther, M. (1999). Vol. 35: Luther's works, vol. 35: Word and Sacrament I (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.) (398). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
)

This example really shows what Luther was all about. He was a leader whose vision was changing and adapting as he went along transforming Christianity into a more Christ centered establishment that answers the question 'What about me?' He was not the type of theologian that writes a few things, never changing his mind like Calvin's institutes built upon the groundwork of Luther. Rather as a true pioneer and leader of a populace he, recognizing many errors at the time and while leading a new understanding of what the Bible was really saying, steered away from anything that would get in the way of that vision, even distrusting (temporarily) a few Epistles he did not have a confident understanding about. Most likely the final protestant canon that is used today would have been Luther’s view if he lived a bit longer.


Does Jesus have a last name? I heard "Christ" isn't the last name He got from His parents. Is that true? Does He have a last name?

If He does not have a last name, then how does that work? If that wasn't His last name, and there were other people named Jesus, then how could people even know which Jesus people were talking about?

Please explain this to me in an easy to understand way, like if I am young.

Surnames didn't exist in Jesus' day.

People typically referred to somebody by referring to their parentage.  So Jesus would have most likely been referred to as "Jesus son of Joseph" or "Jesus son of Mary", much in the same way as Peter was referred to as "Simon, son of Jonah" in Matthew 16:17 and "James son of Zebedee" in Mark 3:17.

While nobody is entirely sure when the concept of the proper surname began, one guess, at least for English speakers, is around the 13th or 14th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_name#Modern_era


How does Dietrich Bonhoeffer's theology relate to salvation by faith alone? Bonhoeffer was a Lutheran pastor. However, in his book, "The Cost of discipleship", he refers to this term called "cheap grace", just to give a quote:

  Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring
  repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without
  confession, absolution without personal confession. Cheap grace is
  grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without
  Jesus Christ, living and incarnate.

How does this relate to the doctrine of salvation by grace alone, in Lutheranism? There doesn't seem to be any tension between what Bonhoeffer calls "cheap grace" and Martin Luther's "sola fide"?

My answer is a bit long, but I hope it helps.

There are a number of tensions in Lutheranism (Lutherans tend to like theological tensions), some of which I think are pertinent here.  Mainly: Law/Gospel and Justification/Sanctification.

The Law is God's Word which demands; summarized by Christ as Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind, and your neighbor as yourself.  The Gospel is God's Word which forgives on account of Christ; i.e. God's forgiveness for our failure to fulfill His Law.

The Law also has three functions: (1) restrain outward sin, (2) drive us to seek God's forgiveness through the Gospel, and (3) show us what is pleasing to God.

Related to this is the concept of Justification and Sanctification.  God justifies us freely in His sight through Christ; we receive his righteousness as a gift through faith.  Then, once justified, God works through us to sanctify us to conform us more and more to Christ's image. Ephesians 2:8-10 provides a nice summary; verses 8 and 9 basically cover Justification, while 10 covers Sanctification.

The point, then, is that if we are made Christ's people (i.e. we receive Christ's righteousness through faith), then we will want to do the things which please God (i.e. the Law).  We do them not to "earn" our salvation/justification (because salvation is a gift), but rather because that's just "what we do" as Christ's people (i.e. we're being Sanctified).

Jesus' image of himself as the vine and his disciples as the branches is relevant here (John 15): we produce good fruit as Jesus' disciples, because we are grafted onto the vine through faith.

So, that brings us to Bonhoeffer: "cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession, absolution without personal confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate."

To receive the Gospel as Good News, I must first realize that I am a sinner.  That is, the Law must be preached to me in order to call me to repentance.  Otherwise, the Gospel is not "Good News," but simply reaffirms my sinful behavior; i.e. it's "cheap grace."  That is, if I believe that I am not a sinner, then being told that I am forgiven means nothing to me; I need the Law in order to appreciate the Gospel.  I need to know that my forgiveness actually cost something; it cost Christ's life.  God has already forgiven me through Christ, but in order to know and really understand what this means, I need to know that I actually need this forgiveness.

To be Baptized means to be re-born into the image of Christ and to begin the process of sanctification.  Luther called this a daily dying and rising, though; that is, I will not be perfect in this life, so my entire life is one of repentance.  At times I need someone to point out my sin and rebuke me (e.g. church discipline) so that I do not fall away from the faith.

To receive Communion (i.e. to commune with Christ and his people at the altar), I need to recognize that I go to the altar not because I am worthy to be there, but because Christ has brought me there and reconciled me to him and to the rest of the Church.  I confess my sins and my unworthiness (i.e. I feel the effect of the Law) and I receive forgiveness and reconciliation (i.e. the Gospel).

To receive absolution as the forgiveness that it is, I need to confess that I am a sinner (similar to what I said above).

Finally, if I truly have faith, then I will want to do things which are pleasing to my Heavenly Father and be with Christ and his people.

I've read Bonhoeffer's works and his emphasis tends to be on getting the Church to actually "be the Church."  That is, if we truly believe, then we ought to live as Christ has called us to live.


What does it mean that Jesus was tempted in every way like us (yet without sin)? Hebrews 4:15 says that Jesus was tempted in every respect as we are.  What does it mean that He was tempted "in every respect" as we are?

  For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our
  weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are,
  yet without sin.  Hebrews 4:15 ESV

Being the nerdy type, I sought out a more technical answer. Apparently the word used for "in every respect" (or as the KJV puts it, "in all points") is κατα παντα, (kata panta). That latter word, πᾶς, (pas) means

1) individually
  a) each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything
2) collectively
  a) some of all types

[source: BLB]

It's the same word used to refer to "all the world" or "the whole world" - passages that we don't necessarily take 100% literally. That is, it could mean he was tempted with 100% all the same temptations we undergo, or, more likely, that he has experienced the same class of temptation and experiences we have, so he is able to sympathize with us.

Additionally, as was implied in RiverC's answer, Christ's "temptations" weren't limited to the showdown with the Devil in the wilderness.

For thirty years, Jesus lived a pretty normal life. He was a carpenter's son. Pure speculation, but I suspect the kinds of people he'd work with wouldn't have the purest of mouths. He was exposed to everything we are exposed to; he both

endured the trials of the human life that we do, and
resisted the temptations that we are exposed to and fail to resist

Ultimately, the point is, he didn't give in. We don't know what other temptations Adam underwent, but the one in the garden was the significant one. Same with Jesus, the second Adam. He was exposed to a nasty temptation like Adam and Eve, and resisted. He was subjected to the same things we were, regardless of what technically "in every respect" means, and he can identify us, but more importantly represent us as a perfect Adam.


Is the Patriarch of Alexandria an Eastern Orthodox or an Oriental Orthodox? I see Eastern Orthodox keyboard warriors commonly posting memes, bite size apologetics and propaganda against Catholicism which make some variation on the claim "4 out of 5 Patriarchs choose Eastern Orthodoxy. You should too".

I was wondering how much veracity is behind this claim. I was under the impression that the Patriarch of Alexandria wasn't even in communion with the Eastern Orthodox church at all. I thought he was a Copt and a member of the Oriental Orthodox communion instead? Likewise for Jerusalem and Antioch. I thought that the only Patriarch of the original Pentarchy that is an actual Eastern Orthodox is the Patriarch of Constantinople?

My understanding is that 1 out of 5 Patriarchs chooses Catholicism, 1 out of 5 Patriarchs chooses Eastern Orthodoxy, and 3 out of 5 Patriarchs choose Oriental Orthodoxy. Please help me understand this situation further?

St Mark the Evangelist is recognised as the first Patriarch of Alexandria. The twenty-fifth was Dioscorus. In 449 he presided over the Second Council of Ephesus. Two years later another Council, regarded by Rome and Constantinople as the Fourth Ecumenical Council, was held at Chalcedon. The Council of Chalcedon repudiated the Second Council of Ephesus, known as the Robber Synod, and deposed Dioscorus, sending him into exile, where he died in 454.

Proterius was chosen to replace Dioscorus but not widely accepted by many Alexandrians who still regarded Dioscorus as their patriarch. When Dioscorus died Timothy Aelurus (the cat) was chosen as non-Chalcedonian patriarch of Alexandria and is said to have arranged the murder of Proterius on Easter Day 457. The final split came in 536 since when there have been two separate patriarchs of Alexandria, the Coptic one (oriental Orthodox) supported by most Egyptian Christians, and the Eastern Orthodox one supported by Constantinople. (This is somewhat similar to Armagh in the UK where both C of I and RC primates of Armagh clain continuity from St Patrick.)

From the thirteenth century there was also a titular Latin Patriarch, and in recent centuries a "Coptic Catholic" patriarch leading an Oriental Rite Catholic Church in communion with Rome. The Latin patriarchate was abolished after Vatican II.

The only two in a continuous line from St Mark are the Coptic patriarch  and the Eastern Orthodox patriarch. The Coptic Patriarch, Pope Tawadros II, is recognised by over 90% of Egyptian Christians. His name was picked at random from a chalice containing three names by a blindfolded boy in 2012.

There is, then, an Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria of ancient lineage,  but the great  majority of Egyptian Christians, now and across the centuries, have accepted  the Oriental Orthodox Coptic Patriarch, also of ancient lineage, as head of the African Church.