Are there any records of animal-like behaviors outside the "Toronto Blessing"?

There are ample videos on this phenomenon, like this one. Since 65% of Americans identify as Christian, it's reasonable to assume some of the subjects are Christian.
This phenomenon is not unique to Christianity. The oldest written record of such behavior is in the Egyptian Ebers Papyrus, as part of Ancient Egyptian healing techniques, dating to 1550 BCE. Another Egyptian papyrus (Pap. A. Nr. 65) from around the 3rd century C.E. describes the laying of hands on the patient, hand passes, and eye-fixation.
Practically all ancient cultures, including the Sumerian, Persian, Chinese, Indian, Egyptian, Greek, and Roman, used self-suggestion or hypnosis in some form. In Egypt and Greece, the sick often went to healing places known as sleep temples or dream temples to be cured. In ancient India, the Sanskrit book known as The Law of Manu described the techniques used in great detail.
For many centuries, especially during the Middle Ages, kings and princes were believed to have the power of healing through the “Royal Touch.” This was attributed to divine powers. Before hypnosis was well understood, the terms “magnetism” and “mesmerism” were used to describe these phenomena.
The "Toronto Blessing" has been investigated by Andrew Newton, who had this to say about it:

the phenomena so closely resembled mass hysteria that most observers –
scientists and laymen alike – deduced that it was indeed a text book
case of mass hysteria. Those who took part in it were all emotionally
very suggestible and there is no doubt that expectancy and wish
fulfillment played a major part in the experience.

He then examines the testimonial of two of the participants.  The first is a man called Mick Brown. He went to Toronto and attended a meeting led by John Arnott, pastor of the Toronto Airport Vineyard. Here is Mick Brown’s testimony:

“A body came falling towards me. I rested it on the ground and moved
on. I found myself beside John Arnott, who was moving through the
crowd, blessing people, who fell like ninepins. I didn’t even see his
hand coming as it arched through the air and touched me gently –
hardly at all – on the forehead. “And bless this one, Lord….” I could
feel a palpable shock running through me, then I was falling
backwards, as if my legs had been kicked away from underneath me. I
hit the floor – I swear this is the truth – laughing like a drain.”

Newton's analysis:

The interesting thing about that testimony is that Mick Brown is not a
Christian. He is an unconverted Daily Telegraph journalist who went to
Toronto to write a report on the Toronto Blessing for the Daily
Telegraph magazine, from which the above quotation is taken. Yet when
Pastor Arnott touched him, Mick Brown experiences exactly the same
phenomena as all the professing believers. He becomes “slain in the
Spirit” and laughs hysterically. Later he told a Christian newspaper
that his experience had made no difference to his unbelief in
Christianity. He was and still is a non-believer. So we are left with
the same physical and emotional experience, the same Toronto Blessing,
the same hysterical reaction but without the religiosity.
This forces us to ask two very important and searching questions:
First, how can this be the Holy Spirit at work? and second, does the
Holy Spirit bestow the same emotional and physical experience on
believer and non-believer alike – ‘slaying in the Spirit,’
uncontrollable laughter, a state of euphoria?
If these things had no spiritual or religious meaning or significance
in the life of atheist Mick Brown, how can precisely the same things
have any authentic spiritual meaning or significance in the lives of
professing Christians? Clearly we are dealing with an experience that
is not truly spiritual in nature, but can be happily shared by
believers and non-believers alike. Obviously it must be up to the
individual to interpret the associated emotions and find meaning… or
not.
Another obvious question is, what is the power that John Arnott has to
induce this experience in a non-Christian who has absolutely no belief
that the Toronto Blessing is a work of God, since he does not even
believe in God? Is it possible that this is nothing more that
hypnotism working on a suggestible mind? Mick Brown had not
participated in any of the warm-up techniques of the worship, and had
no expectation that anything would happen to him. Yet when John Arnott
touched him, quite by accident, down he goes, gibbering away and
laughing hysterically. This seems to point us in the direction of John
Arnott and others like him actually possessing or at least channeling
some kind of supernatural power. Or not…
Stage hypnosis employs the same mental sleight of hand, as do the
industrial scale antics of American TV evangelists, such as the market
leader, Benny Hinn. Once a participant has seen other volunteers
collapsing and falling into what appears to be a trance-like state,
that participant also becomes suggestible. This happens quite
unconsciously and is as reliable as clockwork. One does not have to
take part in the warm up tests and exercises to be affected by it –
merely watching it work with others is enough to increase
suggestibility.

The second testimony is that of Glenda Waddell, a member of staff at Holy Trinity Brompton, the Anglican church in London which acts as the British headquarters of the Toronto Blessing. Here is Ms. Waddell’s testimony of how she first received the Toronto Blessing:

“To my absolute horror I just knew beyond any shadow of doubt my hands
were doing strange things and I was going to roar. I said, “Oh Lord,
I’d do anything but please, please, don’t make me roar. Only the men
roar and the women don’t roar.” But it came and I did roar quite
loudly and I made a lot of awful noise and I was crawling around the
floor doing terrible things and half of me was thinking, ‘This cannot
be me.’ But another part of me knew that it was.”

Newton's analysis:

The disturbing thing about Ms Waddell’s testimony is that it presents
us with a picture of the Holy Spirit supposedly at work. And yet her
experience makes it painfully obvious it was not the Holy Spirit at
work.
By her own account, Ms Waddell was invaded and possessed by a power
which reduced her to bestial behavior, crawling around and roaring
like a wild animal – all against her conscious will. She was simply
taken over, physically and spiritually, by a controlling force. That
is not how the Holy Spirit operates in a believer’s life. He does not
sanctify individuals by possessing them like a demon and forcing them
to do weird, sub-human things. He is supposed to work through the Word
of God, bringing truth to bear upon our minds, enlightening our
understanding. Anyone with any spiritual discernment must see that
this darker force was not the Holy Spirit.
An important thing to understand about mass hysteria is that it can
creep up even on those who are on their guard against it. From the
accounts of the two people in the extract above, it seems to me this
is what happened.


What is the scholarly biblical argument against theistic evolution?

Last week I heard this argument, again. According to theistic evolution, millions of years took place and animals died all the time. But Genesis 1 says that after each day God pronounced it as good, therefore there must not have been death, because death is bad. And if there was no death, then millions of years of dead animals is wrong too.

Sure my simplification doesn't sound scholarly, but I'm cutting to the chase.


What does 'ages of ages' mean, specifically?

The phrase comes from the Bible. It’s a fairly wooden translation of the Greek idiom εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. Many English translations instead use “forever and ever” or something along those lines, which is more in line with English idiom.

As for precisely where it originated, I haven’t been able to find any uses in classical Greek, though perhaps someone with better searching abilities can help with that.  Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek-English Lexicon (a lexicon including classical Greek) discusses several related idiomatic phrases using a double αἰών with various prepositions. Interestingly, all of the examples given there are within the LXX. 1

Εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων itself appears just once in the Greek translation of Hebrew scriptures,3  in Psalm 83[84]:5[4]2 where it translates really nothing (עוֹד ≈ still or yet), so the idiom appears to be native to Greek. It shows up 18 times in the New Testament (NA-28, including bracketed):

Galatians 1:5, Philippians 4:20, 1 Timothy 1:17, 2 Timothy 4:18
Hebrews 13:21
1 Peter 4:11
Revelation 1:6, 1:18, 4:9, 4:10, 5:13, 7:12, 10:6, 11:15, 15:7, 19:3, 20:10, 22:5

All of the examples from the epistles are contained within a doxology, a fitting term because all of them ascribe δόξα (doxa ≈ “glory") to one or more persons of the Godhead, with the basic structure: ᾧ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων (“to whom be the glory forever and ever”).

The phrase appears to have been pulled from these Biblical doxologies into Orthodox Liturgies. You’ll also run across the Latin version of the same: in saecula saeculorum.

1. Koine Greek witnessed increased laxity in the meaning of prepositions and tended to add them in where classical Greek found the naked cases sufficient, so it’s not especially surprising that the development would go in this direction.

2. Numbering is according to LXX with English in brackets.

3. And once additionally in the Greek 4 Macc 18:4.


Why do most translations say "Servant of Christ" rather than "Slave of Christ"?

In America at least, the word "slave" has a connotative meaning that conjures up images of slavery prior to the Civil War, where people were beaten, mistreated, sold indiscriminately, and many other horrors.

In the Bible, slavery was much different.  For one thing, a slave would only be a slave for six years and then had to be set free.  When he was set free, the master had to provide him with a means to live on his own.  There was also a provision that at the end of the sixth year, the slave could say, "I love my master and do not wish to go free."  If he did so, he could remain with his master.  This type of slavery must have been extremely different than slavery in America to end up with slaves volunteering to remain slaves.

So, the word slave may be appropriate if we didn't have the images of people being beaten, mistreated, killed, and all sorts of things like that.  The word servant seems to lend itself more accurately to the actual situation of slavery in the Old Testament, and therefore the likely intent of Paul and others who wrote the New Testament and referred to be a slave/servant of Christ.

With Jesus as our Masters, who, out of His love, laid down His own life for us, our response to Him would most certainly be that of the Jewish slave who says, "I love my master and do not want to leave" rather than a slave from an American plantation who would have run away at any opportunity that arose.

So, servant seems to convey the Jewish idea much better than the word slave because of our cultural context.


When did the idea start that divine revelation is "finished"?

Here is a good overview on how the canon of the Tanakh and the canon of the New Testament came to be. It is by Dr. K. Wheeler of Carson-Newman University. Dr. Wheeler's web site is found here.

The "Old Testament"

In brief, the three-fold division of the Tanakh (i.e., the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings) were likely "canonized" at different times in Judaism's history. According to Dr. Wheeler,

  (1) The Torah (Law) appeared as a collection possibly as early as the Babylonian captivity. It was probably accepted as authoritative sometime after the Babylonian exile, perhaps during the time of Ezra (5th century BCE). For the Sadducees and the Samaritans, the canonization process stopped here. They argued that none of the later additions to the Hebrew Bible were legitimate.

  (2) The Prophets, for the Hebrew editors, existed as a collection by at least the second century BCE. The apocryphal book of Ecclesiasticus, the Wisdom of Jesus, the Son of Sirach, had a prologue attached to the work. Sirach's grandson probably did this about 132 BCE. He refers to the "the law and the prophets" and the "others" or the "other books." (See "Prologue," Sirach, RSV Apocrypha, p. 128). This is the earliest evidence we have that the first two parts of the Old Testament Canon had been linked together and anthologized and that the first half of the Canon was on its way to becoming accepted as authoritative.

  (3) The Writings . . . [at] the time of Jesus and the early church . . . [were seen by] the Jews . . . as authoritative. Luke 24:44 and Matthew 23:35 contain statements strongly indicating the authors already had some vague idea of an authoritative collection--one covering the range from Genesis to Chronicles, the entire range of Old Testament Scripture. Hence, the Old Testament or the Hebrew Bible had gained recognition as official by 90 CE, and it would receive official sanction in the Council of Jamnia . . . sometime around 95 CE, perhaps twenty years after the Romans destroyed Jerusalem during the Jewish-Roman War. [This] council of exiled Jewish rabbis met in Western Palestine. The leader of this council was Rabbi Akiba (Jaroslav Pelikan. Whose Bible Is It?: A History of the Scriptures Through the Ages. New York: Penguin Books, 2005, p.46). The council officially "closed" the canon of the Hebrew Bible, intending for no new works to be added.

The New Testament

Dr. Wheeler cites Metzger and Coogan's four stages in the completion of the New Testament canon (The Oxford Companion to the Bible. Oxford, Oxford U P, 1993. pp. 101-04), which are as follows:

  (1) During the first phase (c. 90 CE-96 CE), the young Christian church discovered that Christ had not yet returned as predicted, but the generation of the apostles and those who had directly encountered Christ was rapidly dying out. Originally, knowledge of Christ had been transmitted orally. At this point, the church fathers wrote down the early Gospels and preserved the Pauline letters as ways to give pastoral guidance to new churches.

  (2) From 96 CE until about 150 CE, the written gospels gradually replace the oral traditions. Initially, early Christians relied on oral tradition alongside (and even in preference to) the written Gospels, but as the reliability of the former declined, the four Gospels replaced them. . . . In Polycarp's letter to the Philippians (c. 135 CE), for the first time we see the argument made that the Gospel texts are more reliable than word of mouth, and more to be trusted. In 2 Clement (c. 140 CE), twice as many quotations come from the written Gospels than from any other source . . ..

  After 150 CE, the written Gospels have clearly become predominant over word-of-mouth transmission. By the time of the Apocryphal Gospel of Truth, the author clearly knows all four of the Orthodox Gospels, but only uncertain, faded remnants persist of alternative oral traditions. About this time, the Pauline correspondence begins to appear in a collected form rather than as scattered, independent letters. The fact that these texts all have Paul's name attached to them by tradition help them survive as a group when anonymous texts tend to fall by the wayside.

  (3) From 150 CE to 190 CE, the canon wars begin in earnest. The earliest attempt at a canonical collection (or at least the first writer to actually visualize the idea of a New Testament collection to match the canonicity of the old Testament) actually comes from a heretical author. The Gnostic Christian, Marcion, creates an "official" canon. This new Bible deliberately excludes the Old Testament, and the New Testament is limited to Luke and ten Pauline letters (from which Marcion removed certain Jewish traits). In reaction, the orthodox church emphasized the normative qualities of all four Gospels and all thirteen letters ascribed to Paul, but their version did not include . . . Revelation . . .. Bishop Irenaeus reflects this stance in his writings by excluding Revelation, but he broadens his idea of the Canon to include all of the other current New Testament books and he also includes the Wisdom of Hermas as an additional text. Irenaeus also reacts positively to 1 Clement and the Wisdom of Solomon, but it is not clear if he regarded them as "holy Scripture." Clearly, the idea of the canon has appeared, but the church cannot yet agree as to what parts should go into this canon. What is holy Scripture? What is not? A broad base of consensus exists for a core collection (Luke, certain Pauline epistles), but the peripheral works remain contested.

  (4) The period from about 190-400 CE is the time Andrie Du Tott calls "The Closing of the Canon." During these centuries, many heretical groups had prophets who declared they had received new revelations from God. The Montanists, in particular, called for a clear limitation of the canon since their sect stressed apocalyptic and prophetic movements. Origin and Eusebius in the Eastern church and an anonymous author of the Canon of Muratori together argued that the scriptures should be classed into the three groups: 1) the texts nearly all Christians accept; 2) the uncertain texts about which Christians are mostly undecided; and 3) works that should definitely be excluded because only small, isolated groups of often heretical Christians hold them to be scripture.

  It is during this time that readers appear to start thinking of the "Bible" as a single work. Note that the title Biblia in Greek is originally neuter plural, meaning "little books." That very title harkens back to the older time period when Christians thought of their text as the Scriptures (plural--multiple independent entities) rather than the Scripture (singular--one unified entity).


There are a number of passages that suggest that Paul preached the same message as the first eleven apostles.

Paul says so:

  I went up because of a revelation and set before [the Jerusalem church] (though privately before those who seemed influential) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain.—Galatians 2:2 (ESV)

Luke implies that the Jerusalem church approved of Paul's message:

  Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. —Acts 15:22a (ESV)

And later:

  On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. After greeting them, he related one by one the things that God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. And when they heard it, they glorified God.—Acts 21:18-20a (ESV)

The author of 2nd Peter put Paul's letters under the banner of Scripture:

  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.—2nd Peter 3:15-16 (ESV)

According to Paul, he got the gospel directly from God by revelation:

  But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone; nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.—Galatians 1:15-17 (ESV)

Acts 9, 22 and 26 detail Paul's conversion and show us that he spoke directly to the resurrected Jesus.  We read in various places (e.g., Acts 13:4-12) that Paul was filled with the Holy Spirit.  And, of course, he did spend time with the Jerusalem church, Peter and the other apostles.  Perhaps Barnabas, John Mark, Silas, and others traveled with Paul was so that they bare witness to the events of Jesus' earthly ministry and repeat His teachings.

As to why Jesus didn't preach more about the Gospel of Grace, I think that stems from a greater mystery: for some reason God wants us to be part of His grand story.  God was surprisingly "hands-off" in the Old Testament period.  Sure, He brought down fire on wicked cities and rescued His people miraculously on occasion.  But for the most part, God expected His people to be faithful and remember His provision for them without intervention.

In the same way, Jesus did surprisingly little to establish His Kingdom while on earth.  And the bulk of the church's work to reach the gentile world fell on their shoulders only after He ascended to heaven.  Jesus spoke the language of the Jewish peasant, fisherman, merchant, rabbi, and priest, but He didn't have much to say to gentiles.  Paul was the right man at the right time for the job of translating that message into a philosophical framework that a Greek-educated person would understand.  His struggle for the church was primarily in helping the gentiles see why a provincial Jew's teaching mattered to them.


Numbers in the three current Personal Ordinariates are the easy part of the question:

UK (Our Lady of Walsingham): about 90 clergy and 1300 lay people;
US (Chair of S Peter): about 100 clergy and 1400 lay people;
Australia (Our Lady of the Southern Cross): single figures.

The Australian Ordinariate was only set up a month ago. It appears not even to have a website of its own yet.

As DJClayworth has written, gauging the number of Anglo-Catholics is not really possible. The TAC doesn't have an enormous membership in England, for example.

As far as the Church of England is concerned, which has fairly well-defined metrics such as membership of Forward in Faith or the adoption of various Resolutions, even there those metrics double-count some and leave out others. And while one might count the 100-strong congregation of an "Anglo-Catholic" church as Anglo-Catholics, only 14 adults (and seven children) from mine joined the Ordinariate.


From a Fundamentalist viewpoint, what does it mean to "take the Bible literally"?

Disclaimer - I'm not saying that you have to be a fundamentalist to be a Christian.  I'm simply explaining the Fundamentalist perspective on this issue.  it's likely to offend someone.  That's not my intent.

Biblical Literalism, from a Fundamentalist perspective dies not mean hyper-literalism. Instead, we tend toward historical-grammatical method of interpretation, which provides guidelines for determining what content is  to be taken literally, and where a non-literal interpretation is warranted.  Teaching the Word Ministries gives a fairly good set of principles and rules behind the historical-grammatical method.  Rather than quoting directly, I'll summarize:

Because the Bible is inspired, it is inerrant, infallible, and authoritative.  No word of fallible man can stand in authority over Scripture.
Scripture is intelligible. God meant for us to understand it.
Because it is infallible, the Bible is internally consistent. it can't contradict itself.
Because God meant to communicate truth, and because Scripture is internally consistent, the words of Scripture have only one meaning in context. There may be multiple legitimate applications of a passage of Scripture, but a passage has only one meaning in context. This is what it means to interpret Scripture according to its literal, or normal, sense.
We are to employ passages in Scripture that are more clear on a particular subject to interpret those that are less clear, never vice-versa.
Remember that the Bible we are using is a translation, and inerrancy is not applicable, except to the extent that it has been transmitted accurately through time.  Therefore, it is important for ministers of the church to examine the words of Scripture in the original languages (Hebrew and Greek) and in their historical and cultural setting in order to accurately understand their meaning in context and to properly translate them into other languages, thus accurately communicating God's truth
Extra-Biblical resources, such as language helps, commentaries, the writings of the so-called church fathers, and archaeological and scientific evidences, can be useful resources in correctly interpreting Scripture. But since they are the words and works of fallible men they are not authoritative.

Dr. David L. Cooper, the founder of The Biblical Research Society out it much more simply.  Dr. Cooper is known for his “Golden Rule of Interpretation” which is as follows:

  When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense,seek no other
  sense;

  Therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal
  meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the
  light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths
  indicate clearly otherwise.

So, from this quote, from Dr. Cooper's perspective,  we see that we are to take Scripture at face value (literally) unless...

The immediate context makes it clear that the passage is not to be taken literally.
Related passages, the literal sense does not make sense
The literal sense of the passage would contradict axiomatic, fundamental truths.

A shortened version, which I've heard far more often goes like this:

  If the plain sense makes good sense seek no other sense lest it result
  in nonsense.

For Fundamentalists, this is a core doctrine.  It's as central to the Fundamentalist view as the doctrines of Biblical Inerrancy and Infallibility, and Divine Inspiration.

To the fundamentalist, to stray from the rules of sound Scripture interpretation is to stray into pure conjecture, in which we can make up anything we want about God, rather than worshiping Him in Spirit and in truth.  We can make up a god to suit ourselves (which is also known as idolatry.)

We want a God that says it's OK to lie? That's OK.  We can take that as an allegory.  We want a God that allows disobedience to parents?  We want a religion that teaches there are "many ways to Heaven"?  No problem.  Those are just allegorical statements.  God didn't Mean those things...

Man is fallible.  Even those in charge of our Churches are fallible.  Therefore, teachings and traditions can be erroneous, and outright blasphemous.  Only God's Word is infallible.  Put simply, from a Fundamentalist perspective, the disciplined, literal approach to interpretation of Scripture is the only approach that safeguards us from straying into error.


If Adam and Eve were perfect, why did they choose to sin?

Existing in a perfect state did not deprive Adam and Eve of Free Will. Genesis 3:4-5 tells us that the serpent firstly modified God's Word by promising Eve that by taking of the forbidden fruit she would not surely die. Second, he enticed her with the promise of knowledge (knowing good and evil).

  Genesis 3:4-5 (KJV)
  And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God
  doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be
  opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

You might say that Eve was led into believing that the serpent was showing her a "fast-track" way to become closer to God.


Is the Pentecostal concept of "praying in the Spirit" consistent with any pre-Pentecostal teachings?

Praying in the Spirit is a concept that was put forth by Paul in the book of Romans.

  Romans 8:26 and 27  Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. 27  And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.

The underlying thought appears to be that since God is Spirit that communication between our spirit and Spirit God so to speak have their own language as indicated by intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

And in verse 27 he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, appears that the Spirit itself has a mental process foreign to ours, and that God looks at our hearts rather than our entreaties.

Hope this helps.


According to Catholicism, why did Jesus not name the rich man in the story of Lazarus and the rich man?

During his Thursday [Oct 8, 2015] morning homily at Casa Santa Marta, Pope Francis may have answered your question:

  "It is curious: that [rich] man’s name is never spoken. He is just an
  adjective: he is a rich man (It. ricco, Gr. πλοσιος). Of the wicked,
  in God’s record book, there is no name: he is an evil one, a con man,
  a pimp ... They have no name. They only have adjectives. All those,
  who try to go on the way of the Lord, will rather be with His Son, who
  has the name: Jesus Saviour. It is a name that is difficult to
  understand, inexplicable for the trial of the Cross and for all that
  He suffered for us.” - Pope Francis at Santa Marta explains why good
  things can happen to bad people | ROME REPORTS TV News Agency.


Jesus is the central "idea" of the Bible:

The old Testament begins with the fall of man and the prophecy of the Redeemer (Jesus)
The Jewish religion was constantly looking forward to the Messiah (Jesus)
The New Testament records Jesus' life and public ministry
The Epistles both explain the doctrine of Jesus as well as re-establish the proofs that the old testament prophecies were fulfilled in Jesus (esp. St. Paul's letter to the Hebrews)
Revelations/Apocalypse looks forward to the second coming of Jesus


What is considered Gnosticism (within the context of Christianity)?

The key difference between orthodox Christianity and gnostic Christianity was that the orthodox required faith in what was taught by the elders, as received (or, if you like, supposedly received) from the apostles. In order to ensure uniformity, orthodox Christianity developed a hierarchy, so that bishops could oversee presbyters, who oversaw deacons, all passing on the same gospel message.

Gnostic Christianity had no need for bishops, because gnostic Christians were permitted to seek knowledge by revelation. If a member received, in a dream or otherwise, new knowledge (gnosis) then he or she could tell others in his community. If it was widely accepted, the community might adopt it, resulting in an evolution in belief. If only some members in the community accepted the new knowledge, it might result in a breakaway movement, something which occurred from time to time and generally without acrimony. At its peak, it is suggested that around half of all Christians were gnostics.

As you could guess from the above, there was no one Gnostic belief, and it would be too broad to summarise them all. What gnostic groups tended to believe in common was that the Old Testament Creator God, whom they called the Demiurge, was a different God to the more loving New Testament God. Sophia, the Lady Wisdom of Proverbs and other Jewish wisdom literature generally played a key part in gnostic theology. Gnostics were discouraged from bringing children into this evil world, to suffer here. 'Light', which we see mentioned frequently in John's Gospel in reference to Jesus, was an important motif. Most gnostics were vegetarians, because they knew that vegetables contain light, and melons were favoured because they contain more light.

The earliest known gnostic gospel was the sayings Gospel of Thomas, now generally believed to have been written in the middle of the first century.


What does it mean to not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?

A number of translators interpret "your own flesh" as your family/relatives. Comparison

This passage is a(nother) condemnation of Israel for being phony in their religious observances. God asks them what they think he really wants, then lists things that are actually what he wants. A person always has a higher obligation to his family than to others, and so in this context, I think it makes the most sense to understand it as talking about helping your relatives (esp. your parents).


Is there a story in the Bible about a certain person named Cartaphilus?

The Story of Cartaphilus or as more commonly known as the Wandering Jew is simply a legend and cannot be found in any Bible Scriptures whatsoever.

In a nutshell the legend goes like this:

  Cartaphilus (or, Cartophyllus) in Christian legend, was a Roman soldier who was doorkeeper at the entrance to the palace of Pilate at the time of Our Lord's crucifixion. When Jesus was led out thence, and went too slow for Cartaphilus, the latter struck him with his hand, and mockingly said, "Faster, Jesus, faster; why tarriest thou?" But Jesus pitifully looked at him, and said, "I go, but thou shalt tarry until I come again!" In fulfillment of the Savior's prophecy, Cartaphilus still waits in tears and anxiety for the judgment, and only the Savior's own merciful prayer sustains him: "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." This is the basis, of the fable about the Wandering Jew (q.v.). See Meth. Quar. Rev. July, 1882.


Update:

The short answer: No; it seems that partialism is not a "real," historically defined heresy.

Explanation: Before writing this post, I checked the applicable titles from among my usual textual sources -- a variety of historic theological works that are now in the public domain and available online. When that yielded no references to "partialism," I went several pages deep on various Google searches. That search turned up many pages that described "partialism," although few of them listed any references, and those that did and those that did not all seemed to have come from one of two sources: Either a page at Monergism.com on Trinitarian Heresies, or a YouTube video entitled "St. Patrick's Bad Analogies." I then wrote the answer that follows, which offers some historic information on the doctrine of the Trinity, but does not reference "partialism" directly.

Some time later, I decided to continue looking for answers by visiting a seminary here in town that has a pretty heavy duty library. Having searched there extensively, I'm now going to go ahead and say: "Partialism" is not an historically defined Trinitarian heresy.

My search at the seminary library included extensive online databases of academic theological journals; no less than twenty separate dictionaries of Christianity that covered the entirety of church history in (tens of?) thousands of pages; multiple encyclopedias of Christianity; and various other books. There was not a single, solitary occurrence of the word "partialism" to be found anywhere.

The reason I mentioned all this is to illustrate how it is that I reached the bolded conclusion above. While I of course could be wrong, it's also interesting to note that, in the "St. Patrick's Bad Analogies" video, where historic references are offered for various of the Trinitarian Heresies that are described, when "Partialism" is mentioned, a joke is offered in place of any history.

Perhaps "partialism," with its many internet references, belongs on Snopes.com?

Original Post:

The Short Answer: The Council of Nicea is one historic event that, though it did not addresses Partialism by that name, did clarify the orthodox doctrines regarding the ideas expressed in Partialism.

Summary

This answer describes some church history events from the fourth century CE in detail. It specifically looks at the Council of Nicea, the Arian Controversy, and the work of Athanasius, all of which directly addressed the ways in which the Father and Son relate to each other as two Persons of the Trinity.

It does not directly address partialism by that name, however, and is offered as relevant historical background, as the Council of Nicea arguably created the frame within which all following Trinitarian doctrine was developed. (It's also a nice opportunity for me to make a few notes to summarize some of my recent reading).

The Council of Nicea and the Arian Controversy1

The Council of Nicea, or First Ecumenical Council, was held in 325 CE. The Roman Emperor Constantine had called the meeting of bishops from across his newly unified empire to decide the orthodox stance on various doctrinal issues, and especially to resolve the Arian Controversy.

The Arian Controversy had begun a few years earlier, as a dispute between two leaders of the Christian Church in Alexandria: Bishop Alexander of Alexandria, and a popular presbyter named Arius. The main issue was whether or not the Son was co-eternal with the Father, or whether the Son was created by the Father. The latter was Arius' teaching. While it may sound like a theological subtlety, it actually had profound soteriological implications at a point in history when many of the doctrines that we take for granted today had not yet been decided.

When the time came for the presentation of the Arian perspectives at the Council, Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia -- not to be confused with Eusebius of Caesaria, the widely regarded "Father of Church History" -- presented the ideas taught by Arius', with whom he agreed, in a speech, since only bishops could address the Council. The response of the majority of the bishops in attendance was condemnatory, and some went so far as to tear Eusebius' notes from his hands and trample them underfoot, shouting "blasphemer!" and "heretic!"

The Nicene Creed was formulated by the Council as a response to Arianism. Emperor Constantine himself -- perhaps prompted by an advisor -- suggested the use of the Greek word homoousios, "of the same substance," to describe the nature of the Father and Son, and this word was included in the Creed. The official response to the Arian Controversy, now the Heresy of Arianism, seemed settled.

The Resurgence of Arianism and the Response Led by Athanasius of Alexandria2

Not everyone accepted the findings of the Council of Nicea, however, and some of those who continued to embrance Arianism had significant political influence. The state had a important role in determining what was and what was not acceptable church teaching, and the matter was further complicated when Constantine died and was succeeded by his three sons, each of whom ruled over a different portion of the Roman Empire. Constantius, the son who ruled over the eastern portion of the empire, including Alexandria in Egypt, was pro-Arian, and years later would come to be the sole emperor in 353 CE.

Enter Athanasius of Alexandria, who had attended the Council of Nicea as a young man, where he was part of Alexander's group. Athanasius was not known as a particularly intellectual man, though he did write extensively, and neither were his political connections great, but he was widely revered for his monastic discipline and holiness of life. In 328 CE he became bishop of Alexandria, though he did not seek the office and even tried to avoid being appointed. He would go on to lead the response against the Arian resurgence.

As a result of his efforts, Athanasius endured suffering both from the state and from other leaders of the church. He was banished from and returned to Alexandria on more than one occassion, and his opponents spread rumors to the effect that he practiced occult magic, that he was a tyrant over the Alexandrian church, and even that he was a murderer -- all of which rumors he successfully defeated in time. Athanasius remained "a man of the people," and was given a hero's welcome when he returned from the banishment imposed by state officials, fearful as they were of his ability to influence the public.

Conclusion

After several years of many individuals working to teach the Nicene faith, Arianism was on the decline, with the majority of the church rejecting the idea that the Son was created by the Father. Many of those who plainly rejected Arianism were reluctant to accept the language of the Nicene Creed however, due to a concern that the word homoousios could be interpreted as meaning that there was no distinction between the Son and the Father (which was related to Patripassionism, another doctrinal controversy). The word homoiousios, "of a similar substance," was suggested as a more accurate description of the relation of the Father and the Son.

Initially, Athanasius said that those who favored the term homoiousios were just as heretical as the Arians. He stated his doctrine in no uncertain terms in his Four Discourses Against the Arians:3

  As we said above, so now we repeat, that the divine generation must not be compared to the nature of men, nor the Son considered to be part of God, nor the generation to imply any passion whatever; God is not as man; for men beget passibly, having a transitive nature, which waits for periods by reason of its weakness. But with God this cannot be; for He is not composed of parts, but being impassible and simple, He is impassibly and indivisibly Father of the Son.

Continued study and debate over the next few years led him to a more comprehensive view, however. His final determination on the matter, as summarized by church historian Justo Gonzalez, was as follows:4

  Finally, in a synod gathered in Alexandria in 362 CE, Athanasius and his followers declared that it was acceptable to refer to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as "of one substance" as long as this was not understood as obliterating the distinction among the three, and that it was also legitimate to speak of "three substances" as long as this was not understood as if there were three gods.

A few years after Athanasius' death, the Second Ecumenical Council was held in Constantinople in 381 CE, and the doctrine of the Council of Nicea was ratified. In addition to establishing the equality of the Holy Spirit within the Trinity, the Council further established the Nicene understanding as orthodox teaching across the Empire, and again condemned the Arian teaching as heretical.

The emphasis during this period of history on the particular words used to describe the relative equality of the "substance" of which the Father and Son are composed seems to speak directly to the concept of Partialism.

Sources:

The Story of Christianity, Revised Edition, by Justo Gonzalez. Chapter 17, "The Arian Controversy and the Council of Nicea."
Gonzalez. Chapter 19, "Athanasius of Alexandria."
Four Discourses Against the Arians. Discourse One, paragraph 28. New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia.
Gonzalez. Chapter 17.


Why is the number 40 so common in the Bible?

Emanuel Swedenborg (1688–1772) interprets the number 40, and related numbers in the Bible, as having three key meanings, often combined, based on the usage of the number 40 throughout the Bible:

Something lasting a full measure until completeness
A period of trial and temptation
A process of devastation or emptying out of evil

"Devastation" (traditionally "vastation") as Swedenborg's uses the word, is closely connected with spiritual trial and temptation. The very purpose of temptations—which are spiritual struggles and battles—is to weaken and empty out the evil and falsity that has a person, nation, or church in its grip in order to make room for good and truth from God to flow in and replace it. Until the existing evil and falsity has been emptied out, there is no room for God's goodness, truth, love, and wisdom, and therefore no possibility of salvation.

So the periods of trial and temptation commonly represented by 40, as harrowing, painful, and depressing as they may be, are absolutely necessary for our eternal salvation.

For people, nations, and churches that are implacably evil and unwilling to repent, this spiritual devastation leads to the ultimate judgment and destruction of a nation or church, or to the death and consignment to hell of an individual.

But for people, nations, and churches that are willing to repent and begin a new life in obedience to God's commandments, this period of spiritual devastation leads to the rejection of former evil desires, false beliefs, and wrong action, and their replacement with goodwill (meaning love for God and the neighbor), understanding of genuine truth, and right action, or "righteousness" in biblical terms.

As shown in the commentaries quoted below, though the number 40 in the Bible sometimes means simply full measure until completeness, more commonly it combines all three meanings, of full measure until completeness, of trial and temptation, and of the devastation and emptying out of evil of an individual, nation, or church.

Here are two key passages from Arcana Coelestia ("Secrets of Heaven"), Swedenborg's eight volume (in the original Latin edition) commentary on the books of Genesis and Exodus, in which he details these meanings, providing many references and quotes from the Bible where these meanings show clearly. Numeric references are to other sections in the same work, here linked for convenience.

The first passage quoted is from an older translation. For reference, "the Word" here means the Bible, and "influx" means a flowing in of God's presence, or of divine truth and divine love.

In the first passage the commentary focuses on the first meaning of 40 listed above, that of completeness.

  "And Moses was on the mountain forty days and forty nights" [Exodus 24:18] means the instructions given and influx in their completeness. This is clear from the meaning of "forty" as completeness. "Forty" means completeness because "four" means that which is complete, 9103, as similarly does "ten," 3107, 4638, and forty is the product of four multiplied by ten. For compound numbers have a meaning similar to the simple numbers of which they are the product, 5291, 5335, 5708, 7973; and all numbers in the Word mean spiritual realities, see 575, 3252, 4264, 4495, 4670, 5265, 6175. All this goes to explain why Moses was on the mountain forty days and forty nights. The fact that "forty" here means the instructions given and the influx in their completeness is evident from Chapters 25-32 which come next, recording the instructions Moses received, that is, instructions regarding the ark, Aaron, the urim and thummim, and sacrifices. The reason why influx in its completeness is also meant is that at that time Moses began to represent the outward holiness of the Word, which acted as the intermediary between the Lord and the people, and mediation is accomplished by means of influx through that holiness into the representative existing among that people, 9419.

  [2] It was because "forty" represented completeness that Moses remained on Mount Sinai forty days and forty nights not only this time but also on another occasion, Exodus 34:28; Deuteronomy 9:18, 25; 10:10. For the same reason the children of Israel wandered in the wilderness forty years until, as it says in Numbers 14:33, 34; 32:13, all that generation had been consumed; Jonah told the Ninevites that their city would be overturned after forty days, Jonah 3:4; the prophet was commanded to lie on his right side and bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days, Ezekiel 4:6; it says regarding Egypt that it would be made completely desolate for forty years, after which they would be gathered from the peoples, Ezekiel 29:11-13; and the earth was rained on forty days and forty nights, so that it was inundated with the flood, Genesis 7:4, 12, 17. From all this it is evident why the wicked person was to receive forty blows, Deuteronomy 25:3, for "forty blows" meant the punishment in its completeness. It is also evident what should be understood in the prophecy of Deborah and Barak when it says that no shield or spear was seen among the forty thousand of Israel, Judges 5:8, "among the forty thousand of Israel" meaning among them all. It is in addition evident why the temple built by Solomon was forty cubits long, 1 Kings 6:17, as was the new temple, according to Ezekiel 41:2; for in the highest sense "the temple" means the Lord, and in the internal sense heaven and the Church, so that "forty" means completeness in respect of representation. And it has a like meaning in other places. (Arcana Coelestia #9437, links added)

And an even more extensive explanation from earlier section in the same work, from a more contemporary translation.

In this second passage, the commentary focuses more on the second and third meanings of 40 given above: of trial (traditionally "temptation"), and of devastation or emptying out of evil, while still retaining the first meaning relating to the full measure and completeness of those trials and devastations.

  The fact that forty days and nights is a symbol for how long their trials last stands out clearly from the Lord’s Word.

  The use of forty as a symbol for the length that times of trial last comes from the fact that the Lord submitted to being tested for forty days, as shown in Matthew 4:1–2; Luke 4:2; and Mark 1:13. Each and every tradition established in the Jewish church, and in all the other representative churches that preceded the Lord’s Coming, foreshadowed him. So the forty days and nights did too, representing and symbolizing every time of struggle in general, and the length that any one time of struggle lasts in particular.

  When we are being tried, we experience the devastation or stripping away of everything self-centered and bodily. What is self-centered and bodily has to die—and die through combat and struggle—before we can be reborn as a new being, or in other words, as a spiritual and heavenly being. Because of this, forty days and nights also symbolize the length of time that devastation lasts. They do so here, in a verse that deals with both the trials of the people in the new church known as Noah and the devastation of the pre-Flood people.

  [2] The symbolism of forty as the duration of both trials and devastation, whether long or short, can be seen in Ezekiel:

    You shall lie on your right side and carry the wickedness of the house of Judah forty days; a day for each year is the [task] I have set for you. (Ezekiel 4:6)

  Forty stands for the length of time the devastation of the Jewish church lasted. It stands also as a representation of the Lord’s struggles, since it says that he was to carry the wickedness of the house of Judah. In the same author:

    I will turn the land of Egypt into wastelands, a ruinous wasteland. It will not be traversed by a human foot, nor will an animal’s foot traverse it, and it will not be inhabited for forty years. And I will make the land of Egypt a ruin in the middle of ruined lands; and its cities in the midst of wasted cities will be a lonely place for forty years. (Ezekiel 29:10–12)

  Again forty stands for the time it takes for them to be devastated (or laid waste) and ruined. On a deeper plane it positively does not mean forty years but only the overall process by which faith is brought to ruin, whether this takes a short or long time. In John:

    Throw out the courtyard that is outside the temple and do not measure it, because it has been given to the nations, which will trample the holy city for forty-two months. (Revelation 11:2)

  [3] And in the same author:

    The beast was given a mouth speaking grand things and blasphemies, and it was given authority to act for forty-two months. (Revelation 13:5)

  Here the number stands for the course that devastation runs, since it certainly does not mean a period of forty-two months, as anyone can see.
  This time the number mentioned is forty-two, which is the same as forty, for the following reason. Seven days symbolize the end of devastation and a new start while six symbolizes hard work, from the six days of labor or combat. Seven multiplied by six, then, produces forty-two, symbolizing the length of time devastation lasts and the length of time struggles or labor and conflict last for those who are being reborn. This period contains something holy. The round number of forty is a substitute for the exact figure of forty-two, as is clear from the above places in the Book of Revelation.

  [4] The fact that the Israelite people wandered in the wilderness for forty years before entering the land of Canaan likewise represented and symbolized the duration of hardship and also of devastation. The former was represented and symbolized by the fact that they did eventually enter the holy land. The latter was represented and symbolized by the fact that everyone who had passed the age of twenty by the time of leaving Egypt, except for Joshua and Caleb, died in the wilderness. Hardships are meant by the things against which the people murmured so many times, and devastation is meant by the plagues and deaths that so often struck.

  The symbolism of these events as trials and devastation will be shown where the relevant passages are explained, the Lord’s divine mercy permitting. Moses speaks of them this way:

    Remember all the path that Jehovah your God led you on these forty years in the wilderness to afflict you, to test you, to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep his commandments or not. (Deuteronomy 8:2–3, 16)

  Moses’ forty days and forty nights on Mount Sinai are again a symbol for the length of time that struggle lasts, or for the testing of the Lord, as is clear in Moses:

    He was on Mount Sinai forty days and forty nights, not eating bread, not drinking water, pleading for the people that they not be destroyed. (Deuteronomy 9:9, 11, 18, 25–29; 10:10; Numbers 14:33–35; 32:8–14)

  [5] The reason forty days symbolize the duration of struggles, as noted, is that the Lord allowed himself to be tried by the Devil for forty days. Since everything represented the Lord, if the angels were thinking about trial, that idea was represented visually in the world of spirits by the kinds of things that exist in the world. All the thoughts angels have are made visible in representative form when they pass down into the world of spirits. So the number forty served for the idea of adversity, since the Lord would struggle for forty days. (To the Lord, and consequently to the angels in heaven, the future is the same as the present. What is to come is already here, or what will happen is already an accomplished fact.) This is why the number forty in the representative church was able to represent times of trial, and of devastation as well. (Secrets of Heaven #730, italics added)

Another extensive commentary on the number 40 and related numbers throughout the Bible is found in Swedenborg's posthumously published work Apocalypse Explained, #633.


What is the biblical basis that Noah died just before the birth of Abraham?

Noah lived 350 years after the Flood (Gen 9:28).
Arphaxad was born 2 years after the Flood (Gen 11:10)
Salah    was born 2 + 35 after Flood (verse 12)
Eber was born 2 + 35 + 30 after Flood (v14)
Peleg   2 + 35 + 30 + 34  (v16)
Reu   2 + 35 + 30 + 34 + 30 (v18)
Serug etc, etc (v20)
Nahor (v22)
Terah (v24)
Abraham was born 2 + 35 + 30 + 34 + 30 + 32 + 30 + 29 + 70 (v26) = 292 years after the Flood.  However, Abraham was actually born not in Terah's 70th year but in his 130th year (see below), meaning Abraham was born 352 years after the Flood which was 2 years after the death of Noah (Gen 9:28).  However, as I try to show below, even that is probably not correct.
(Most of this post is heavily reliant on Appendix 2 of Dr John Whitcomb and Henry Morris's book "The Genesis Flood" from which I quote:- )
The genealogy in Genesis 11 and probably Genesis 5 also is not what we would expect.  Genesis 11:26 says:
"And Terah lived seventy years and begat Abram, Nahor and Haran."

Taking this statement at face value, one might well conclude that Terah became
the father of triplets in his seventieth year (even as his grandson Isaac
became the father of twins in his sixtieth year), Abram being the firstborn of
the triplets.  We are somewhat astonished, however, to discover upon further
investigation that Abram was not the firstborn of the three and that Terah was
not seventy, but rather one hundred and thirty years old when Abram was born!
In Genesis 11:32 we read that “the days of Terah were two hundred and five
years: and Terah died in Haran”; while in 12:4 we find that Abram was seventy
five years old when he departed out of Haran.”  Thus, if Abram left Haran to go
to Canaan after Terah’s death, Abram must have been born when his father was
130 years old.  The possibility of Abram’s leaving Terah in Haran sixty years
before Terah finally died is excluded by Stephen’s statement that “from thence,
when his (Abraham's) father was dead, God removed him into this land, wherein
ye now dwell” (Acts 7:4).  In the light of these considerations, we may
paraphrase Genesis 11:26 as follows: “And Terah lived seventy years and begat
the first of three sons, the most important of whom (not because of age but
because of the Messianic line) was Abram.”

So seeing Terah was 130 when he begat Abram then this would mean that Noah died two years before the birth of Abram.  This would mean that CreationWiki is correct.
However, to further quote from the same source:-

It is quite possible that only a small number of the patriarchs listed in
Genesis 11 were firstborn sons.  A comparison of 11:10 with 5:32 and 8:13
suggests that Shem was not.  A comparison of 11:10 with 10:22 suggests that
Arphachshad was not.  And we have already seen that Abram was not.  Actually,
not one of the Messianic ancestors in Genesis, whose family background is known
in any detail such as Seth, Abram, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, and Perez, was a
firstborn son.  The year of begetting a first son, known in the Old Testament
as “the beginning of strength”, was an important year in the life of the
Israelite (Gen. 49.3, Deut. 21:17, Psa. 78:51, and Psa. 105:36).  It is this
year, then, and not necessarily the year of the birth of the Messianic link,
that is given in each case in Genesis 11.  Thus we have clear evidence for the
possible addition of a limited number of years from the lives of some of these
patriarchs to the total of years from the Flood to Abraham."

A careful comparison of Exodus 6:20 with 1 Chronicles 6:1-4, Numbers 3:27-28, and Numbers 26:59-62 calls into question the whole premise of the CreationWiki view that the genealogy in Genesis 11 is a literal father to literal son genealogy.  Exodus 6:20 says:
"And Amram took him Jochebed his father's sister to wife; and she bare him Aaron and Moses: and the years of the life of Amram were an hundred and thirty and seven years."
On the face of it it is abundantly clear that Amram and Jochebed were the parents of Aaron, Moses and Miriam.
And the similarity of structure between this verse and verses in Genesis 11 should be noted.
But here is a big problem: in Number 3:27,28 we learn that in the days of Moses, the number of males who were grandchildren of Kohath, Moses's supposed grandfather, were 8,600.  Assuming the same number of females would make 17,200 grandchildren of Kohath: dividing this by the four sons of Kohath would give over 4,000 children each to Amram, Izehar, Hebron and Uzziel.  Such a number is surely impossible and we must conclude, as Exodus 6:16-20 implies, that Amram and Jochebed were distant ancestors of Moses and Aaron, not their parents.
[It might be suggested that there were the ancestors Amram and Jochebed, and the immediate parents by the same name.  But a reading of Exodus 6:16-20 does not suggest this.  And if that is what is intended in Exodus 6:16-20 then we are left with precisely the same possible interpretation for the verses similar to Exodus 6:20 in Genesis 11 (and maybe Genesis 5 also).  The Genesis 11 genealogy need still not be literal fathers and sons.  Besides this, even if Amram fathered Moses when he was as old as 55 years old then he would have been still alive, at 135 years of age, when Moses returned to Egypt at 80 years of age.  And yet we do not read of Moses going to pay his respects to his parent(s) when he returned to Egypt; we only hear of Miriam and Aaron.  The clear impression given is that his parents have both died. Could Amram, Moses literal father, have married late and fathered Moses beyond 55 years of age?  It is possible, but the explosive birth rate of the Israelites in Egypt for 400 years argues quite strongly against it.  The population at the time of the Exodus is only possible if the Israelites married and started families, virtually en masse, in their early twenties at the latest.  For these reasons it seems to me very unlikely that Moses's literal father is referred to at all in Exodus 6:20.]
There are many reasons for doubting the premise of CreationWiki of literal fathers/sons in Genesis 11. A fuller description of the peculiarities of genealogies in Scripture can be found in the online article by Dr John Millam: "The Genesis Genealogies - Are they complete?" which you can read at https://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis_genealogies.html
(Dr Millam is a theistic evolutionist.  I believe in a literal 6 day creation, nor do I hold to the Gap Theory (of billions of years between the creation of Matter and the first day of the 7 days), I believe in Genesis literally: even so I agree with Dr Millam's very carefully argued article here that the genealogy after the Flood in Genesis 11:10-32 (and quite possibly that before the Flood in Genesis 5) do not contain every generation... so, you cannot produce a chronology from them.)
What then is Genesis 11 actually demonstrating?  Genesis 11:26 shows us what is very important in the chapter: seeing as Abram is named first and yet is not the firstborn of Terah, it follows that the writer of Genesis 11 wants to stress God's preservation and protection of the Messianic Line through all the troubles, difficulties, sins and rebellions of the human race.  The chapter also highlights the increasing grip of the Edenic Curse through the succeeding generations, with the age at death steadily declining.  Genesis 5 and 11 together show that the curse pronounced on Adam and Eve is transmitted to the whole human race, no one is excluded, not even Abraham and his descendants.  And so it shows that being under the curse is not the last word - there is a way (John 14:6) to get out from under the curse (Galatians 3:13, etc), because Abraham found that way (John 8:56).  In essence, Abraham was one of us, and yet he was blessed - so we can be too.
So Genesis 11:10 could mean "Shem was a hundred years old and begat an ancestor of Arphaxad two years after the flood."  To appreciate this seemingly unlikely construct as a possibility it would be important to read all the examples in scripture of such a construct as revealed in John Millam's article.
(Summarising Whitcomb and Morris) a literal father to son genealogy in Genesis 11 raises serious objections:-

Why did Sarah laugh in unbelief at being told she would have a child at her age when, upon the literal father-son interpretation of Gen 11, there were many around her who had had children at much older ages than her?
Abram's fathers are said to have been idolaters, yet many of the postdiluvian patriarchs would have been still alive (on the premise Gen 11 is a literal father-son genealogy).  It is hardly conceivable that the likes of Noah would have fallen into idolatry, or even that idolatry would have spread amongst his descendants while Noah was still alive.  The premise, then, that Gen 11 is recounting father-son descent is struck down.
On Abram's journey into Canaan he bumps into scores of different tribes, language groups and cities.  There is not enough time for the population to arise, and the implication of the story of Abraham is that the Tower of Babel was long before his time.  This is further implied by Abraham bumping into Philistines in Canaan: yet these had not come direct from the Babel in the plain of Shinar in the east, but via Caphtor, supposedly Crete, in the west (Jeremiah 47:4, Amos 9:7).
The Flood would have happened in the middle of recorded history, with the Great Pyramid of Egypt having been built before the Flood.  And attempts to re-date Egyptian history, such as by David Rohl, do not agree with scripture on other grounds.  (David Rohl puts insufficient years between Moses and Joseph, disagreeing with Exodus 12:40, and furthermore making the Biblical accounts of the Israelite population at the time of the Exodus entirely impossible.)
The number of years from the Flood to Abraham are not totalled.  When it comes to the patriarchs before the Flood, Moses totals them for each individual patriarch (in Genesis 5).  It would have been straightforward for Moses to have given the total number of years just as he does in Exodus 12:40.  Does he not total them because they are not intended to be totalled, because such a totalling would be meaningless?
It is said of Peleg that he lived in the days when the earth was divided (Gen 10:25).  Many hold that this is referring to the division of languages at the Tower of Babel, there being no other Biblical possibility.  But if the literal father-son is intended in Genesis 11 then Noah, Shem, Arphaxad, Shelah and Eber all outlived Peleg and thus all of them lived during the time of judgement at the Tower of Babel.  Why then does Scripture say only Peleg lived at this time?
The great fall in life expectancy at the time of Peleg is indicative of a large difference in the era in which Peleg and the post-Peleg patriarchs lived compared to the pre-Peleg patriarchs.


Did Jesus say that he was coming back within a generation?

I interpret Matthew 24 from an amillennialist point of view.
Matthew chapter 24 is a complex chapter because at the beginning of the chapter the disciples ask a lot of questions all together.  It looks as if they might be thinking the Temple will be destroyed at the end of the age:-

And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.  And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.  And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?  (Matthew 24:1-3)

Part of our Saviour's answer relates to the time of the destruction of the Temple and part of it relates to the time of the end of the age. A key section for understanding the chapter is verses 33-36:

So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.  Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.  Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.  But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.  (Matthew 24:33-36)

Here he speaks of "these things" and "this generation" in contradistinction to "that day and hour".  He is saying I know this generation is going to see these things take place; but nobody knows about that time when the end of the age will be.
Matthew 24:36 has a parallel verse in Mark 13:32 which adds an extra interesting portion:-

But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

The time of the end of the age, when our Lord returns, has not even been revealed to our Lord as he is a man.  Hence it is that he calls us to be always ready for his second coming for "we do not the hour", Matthew 24:42-44.
So when he talks of "this generation" in Matthew 24:34 he is speaking of the time of the destruction of the Temple: the Temple was destroyed at the end of the Jewish Rebellion in 70 AD.
But he is not giving a time of when he shall return to judge the living and the dead because he does not know.  His human nature has not been given this information.
This interpretation can found in the Matthew Henry's Commentary from the early 18th century.


According to Catholicism, what are the requirements for baptism?

Most Catholics are baptized as infants; consequently, there are two sets of requirements: one for the parents or guardians of infants who are to be baptized, and one for adults (those who have "reached the age of reason", which is not specified in the Code of Canon Law and may be perhaps left up to the local bishop).

The general church-wide rules regarding baptism are found in Canons 850 to 878 of the Code of Canon Law

The Church baptizes only once, so that only those who have never been baptized are eligible for baptism (cf. Canon 864). Typically, those who have been baptized in a Protestant or Orthodox denomination are considered by the bishop to have been baptized.

With respect to infants:

Since a name is typically bestowed at baptism, the priest must make sure that it's not a completely anti-Christian name (no swear words as names, no naming your child after Satan, etc. (cf. Canon 855)
At least one of the parents or guardians must consent
It must be at least reasonably likely (in the opinion of the priest) that the child will be brought up Catholic
The parents are to attend some sacramental preparation classes (the exact requirements for what is taught there, how long, and so on are up to the local bishop)

(Note: if either of these last two are not fulfilled, the baptism is valid; that is, the person is still considered as baptized. However, it is illicit; it's not in the proper format. Illicit baptisms could be performed in emergencies, say, in danger of death; but they are not supposed to be the norm.)

With respect to adults:

Generally speaking, they must have some reasonable amount of instruction in the faith. Canon 865, section 1, states:

  For an adult to be baptized, the person must have manifested the intention to receive baptism, have been instructed sufficiently about the truths of the faith and Christian obligations, and have been tested in the Christian life through the catechumenate. The adult is also to be urged to have sorrow for personal sins.

There are also requirements for sponsors (the Catholic church requires them; for infants there are usually two, who must be a man and a woman, and they are typically known as godparents; for adults there is usually only one), and requirements for who may do the baptism. But these are the specific Church-wide requirements, so far as they go, for the person baptized.

Note:

Here, as requested in comment, are the specific requirements word-for-word out of the Code of Canon Law:

  Book IV: Function of the Church
  Part I: The Sacraments
  Title I: BAPTISM
  CHAPTER III.

  THOSE TO BE BAPTIZED

  Canon 864 Every person not yet baptized and only such a person is capable of baptism [i.e. is eligible to be baptized].

  Canon 865 §1. For an adult to be baptized, the person must have manifested the intention to receive baptism, have been instructed sufficiently about the truths of the faith and Christian obligations, and have been tested in the Christian life through the catechumenate. The adult is also to be urged to have sorrow for personal sins.

  §2. An adult in danger of death can be baptized if, having some knowledge of the principal truths of the faith, the person has manifested in any way at all the intention to receive baptism and promises to observe the commandments of the Christian religion.

  Canon 866 Unless there is a grave reason to the contrary, an adult who is baptized is to be confirmed immediately after baptism and is to participate in the eucharistic celebration also by receiving communion.

  Canon 867 §1. Parents are obliged to take care that infants are baptized in the first few weeks; as soon as possible after the birth or even before it, they are to go to the pastor to request the sacrament for their child and to be prepared properly for it.

  §2. An infant in danger of death is to be baptized without delay.

  Canon 868 §1. For an infant to be baptized licitly:

  1. the parents or at least one of them or the person who legitimately takes their place must consent;

  2. there must be a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion; if such hope is altogether lacking, the baptism is to be delayed according to the prescripts of particular law after the parents have been advised about the reason.

  §2. An infant of Catholic parents or even of non-Catholic parents is baptized licitly in danger of death even against the will of the parents.

  Canon 869 §1. If there is a doubt whether a person has been baptized or whether baptism was conferred validly and the doubt remains after a serious investigation, baptism is to be conferred conditionally.

  §2. Those baptized in a non-Catholic ecclesial community [that is, generally speaking, Protestants] must not be baptized conditionally unless, after an examination of the matter and the form of the words used in the conferral of baptism and a consideration of the intention of the baptized adult and the minister of the baptism, a serious reason exists to doubt the validity of the baptism.

  §3. If in the cases mentioned in §§1 and 2 the conferral or validity of the baptism remains doubtful, baptism is not to be conferred until after the doctrine of the sacrament of baptism is explained to the person to be baptized, if an adult, and the reasons of the doubtful validity of the baptism are explained to the person or, in the case of an infant, to the parents.

  Canon 870 An abandoned infant or a foundling is to be baptized unless after diligent investigation the baptism of the infant is established.

  Canon 871 If aborted fetuses are alive, they are to be baptized insofar as possible.


Has the Church historically considered biblical texts concerning slavery to be transcultural or finite?

Historically, these verses have not been applied to employer/employee relations, at least not in the sense that we understand employment today.
In ancient times slavery was fairly common; employment, however, was not. Most free people lived and worked on the family farm. Employment contracts did exist, but only to protect the employer's interests. Contracts usually bound the employee to the employer for a set time; as such, employment was just a limited form of slavery.
In medieval times slavery was gradually replaced by serfdom. Serfs had more rights than slaves but were bound to the land on which they worked. If the land was sold the serfs were required to work for the new landowner. Employment remained a subset of slavery.
With the rise of the merchant class and the beginning of the industrial revolution this began to change; however, as recently as the early 1900s the majority of the population even in industrialized nations lived on family farms. Instructions on employer/employee relations simply were not relevant to most people's lives.
With all that in mind, it should not be surprising that commentators historically have not applied these texts to contractual employment.

Here's a few examples of what they have said.
In the 4th century, John Chrysostom wrote commentaries covering most of the New Testament. He did not comment on 1 Timothy 6:1-2, but he did say this about Colossians 3:22.

“Servants,” he saith, “obey in all things your masters according to the flesh.”
And see how always he sets down the names, “wives, children, servants,” being at once a just claim upon their obedience. But that none might be pained, he added, “to your masters according to the flesh.” Thy better part, the soul, is free, he saith; thy service is for a season. It therefore do thou subject, that thy service be no more of constraint. “Not with eye-service, as men-pleasers.” Make, he saith, thy service which is by the law, to be from the fear of Christ.

Commenting on 1 Corinthians 7:20-21, Chrysostom said,

“Let each man abide in that calling wherein he was called. Hast thou been called, having an unbelieving wife?  Continue to have her. Cast not out thy wife for the faith’s sake. Hast thou been called, being a slave? Care not for it. Continue to be a slave. Hast thou been called, being in uncircumcision? Remain uncircumcised. Being circumcised, didst thou become a believer? Continue circumcised. For this is the meaning of, “As God hath distributed unto each man.” For these are no hindrances to piety. Thou art called, being a slave; another, with an unbelieving wife; another, being circumcised.
Astonishing! where has he put slavery? As circumcision profits not: and uncircumcision does no harm; so neither doth slavery, nor yet liberty. And that he might point out this with surpassing clearness, he says, “But even (Αλλ' εὶ καὶ δυνάσαι) if thou canst become free, use it rather:” that is, rather continue a slave. Now upon what possible ground does he tell the person who might be set free to remain a slave?  He means to point out that slavery is no harm but rather an advantage.

Jerome, writing Against Jovinianus, referenced Exodus 21. He said the laws about setting slaves free do have application outside the physical practice of slavery, but he was thinking in terms much larger than employment contracts.

And if we read that every Hebrew keeps the same Passover, and that in the seventh year every prisoner is set free, and that at Jubilee, that is the fiftieth year, every possession returns to its owner, all this refers not to the present, but to the future; for being in bondage during the six days of this world, on the seventh day, the true and eternal Sabbath, we shall be free, at any rate if we wish to be free while still in bondage in the world. If, however, we do not desire it, our ear will be bored in token of our disobedience, and together with our wives and children, whom we preferred to liberty, that is, with the flesh and its works, we shall be in perpetual slavery.

In early modern times, Bible commentators focused on the plain meaning of the text or extrapolated to general moral principles.
Matthew Henry comments on Exodus 21

The Israelites had lately been servants themselves; and now that they had become, not only their own masters, but masters of servants too, lest they should abuse their servants, as they themselves had been abused and ruled with rigour by the Egyptian task-masters, provision was made by these laws for the mild and gentle usage of servants.

He adds, a little later,

This law will be further useful to us, (1.) To illustrate the right God has to the children of believing parents, as such, and the place they have in his church. They are by baptism enrolled among his servants, because they are born in his house, for they are therefore born unto him, Eze. 16:20 . [Emphasis in original]

Henry extrapolates a further application not to employees but to children, because like servants they belong to the household.
John Gill says

Now as this servant, in the state of servitude, was an emblem of that state of bondage to sin, Satan, and the law, which man is brought into by his theft, his robbing God of his glory by the transgression of his precepts; so likewise, in his being made free, he was an emblem of that liberty wherewith Christ, the Son of God, makes his people free from the said bondage, and who are free indeed, and made so freely without money, and without price, of pure free grace, without any merit or desert of theirs; and which freedom is attended with many bountiful and liberal blessings of grace.

Regarding 1 Timothy 6, Henry says,

Here is the duty of servants. The apostle had spoken before of church-relations, here of our family-relations. Servants are here said to be under the yoke, which denotes both subjection and labour; they are yoked to work, not to be idle. If Christianity finds servants under the yoke, it continues them under it; for the gospel does not cancel the obligations any lie under either by the law of nature or by mutual consent.

John Wesley says,

6:1 Let servants under the yoke - Of heathen masters. Account them worthy of all honour - All the honour due from a servant to a master.Lest the name of God and his doctrine be blasphemed - As it surely will, if they do otherwise.
6:2 Let them not despise them - Pay them the less honour or obedience. Because they are brethren - And in that respect on a level with them. They that live in a religious community know the danger of this; and that greater grace is requisite to bear with the faults of a brother, than of an infidel, or man of the world. But rather do them service - Serve them so much the more diligently. Because they are joint partakers of the great benefit - Salvation. These things - Paul, the aged, gives young Timotheus a charge to dwell upon practical holiness.

Gill says,

these things teach and exhort;
the Syriac and Arabic versions add them; the servants. The apostle was not above instructing and exhorting persons of such a capacity, and in so low a state of life; and it became Timothy to do so likewise; and every minister of the word.

None of these commentators gives the slightest hint that they thought this passage could apply to employer/employee relations.


Is there any Biblical argument against using "cuss words"?

Preface: This is one of those questions that deals with personal convictions and preferences rather than a clear-cut Biblical statement.  This actually came up not too long ago when our Pastor was preaching a sermon on the difference between the three.

A Biblical statement is simple.  The Bible says "Thou shalt" or "thou shalt not". (Example: Theft - thou shalt not steal)

A Conviction (in his definition) is a position on a subject based on overwhelming Scriptural support, but no direct statement from Scripture.  (not watching unwholesome movies based on "I shall set no evil thing before my eyes")

A preference is simply something we prefer.  (short hair on men, wearing a tie to Church)

Often the line between conviction and preference is blurry.  Many preferences can be loosely based on Scriptural understanding, and some convictions are based more on personal belief than the Word.

That said, I think the rest of this answer falls in that line between the two.

The Bible doesn't directly address "swear words" as we use the term.  When the Bible has the word "swear", it is usually a translation of a word meaning "take an oath".

However, the Bible DOES say that what we say is important for many reasons.  To list just the first two:

The words we use can hurt others.
The words that come out of our mouth reveal the condition of our heart and spirit.

Using just the second principle, if we are cursing, it's a sure sign that our spirit it not where it needs to be.

There's an entire sermon on the subject online here.

The relevant Bible section is James 3:1-11 (KJV)

  My brethren, if any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man,
  able also to bridle the whole body.

  Behold, we put bits in the horses’ mouths, that they may obey us; and
  we turn about their whole body.

  Behold also the ships, which though they be so great, and are driven
  of fierce winds, yet are they turned about with a very small helm,
  whithersoever the pilot listeth.

  Even so the tongue is a little member, and boasteth great things.
  Behold, how great a matter a little fire kindleth!

  And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity:  so is the tongue among
  our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the
  course of nature; and it is set on fire of Gehenna.

  Every kind of beasts, birds, things of the sea, is tamed ... But the
  tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison.

  With it we bless God, even the Father; and with it we curse men, which
  are made after the similitude of God.

  Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing.  My brethren,
  these things ought not so to be.

  Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter?

  Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olives?  Or a vine, figs? so can
  no fountain both yield salt water and fresh.

Also, Matthew 15:18-20 (KJV)

  But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the
  heart; and they defile the man.

  For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries,
  fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

  These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen
  hands defileth not a man.

For me, the final test comes down to "what is the frame of mind I must be in if I'm saying this particular word/phrase".

There is no situation where a loving heart shouts or mutters things like "what the ########  are you doing, you ########.  Learn to drive the ######## car!"

In any sentence where I can consider using what we would call "swear" words, I need to be either angry, disrespectful, reacting to a sudden injury or fright, or a combination of the above.

In none of those situations am I being "godly" or "Christ-like" which should be the goal of every Christian.


The relationship of the Persons (Greek hypostases) of the Trinity to their Essense (ousia) is addressed by Protopresbyter Michael Pomazanski in his Orthodox Dogmatic Theology as follows (in abridged form):

  The Three Hypostases of the Holy Trinity have one and the same
  Essence; each of the Hypostases has the fullness of Divinity unharmed
  and immeasurable; the Three Hypostases are equal in honor and worship.

  In the history of the Church, the chief dogmatic work of the Holy
  Fathers was directed towards affirming the truth of the Oneness of
  Essence, the fullness of Divinity, and the equality of honor of the
  Second and Third Hypostases of the Holy Trinity.

  In earliest Christian times, until the Church’s faith in the Oneness
  of Essence and the equality of the Persons of the Holy Trinity had
  been precisely formulated in strictly defined terminology, it happened that even those Church writers who were careful to be in agreement with the
  universal consciousness of the Church and had no intention to violate
  it with any personal views of their own, sometimes, together with
  clear Orthodox thoughts, used expressions concerning the Divinity of
  the Persons of the Holy Trinity which were not entirely precise and
  did not clearly affirm the equality of the Persons.

  This can be explained, for the most part, by the fact that in one and
  the same term some shepherds of the Church placed one meaning and
  others placed another meaning. The concept of “essence” was expressed in the
  Greek language by the word ousia, and this word was in general
  understood by everyone in the same way. Using the word ousia, the Holy
  Fathers referred it to the concept of “Person.” But a lack of clarity
  was introduced by the use of another word, “Hypostasis.” Some
  signified by this term the “Persons” of the Holy Trinity, and others
  the “Essence.” This circumstance hindered mutual understanding.

  Finally, following the authoritative example of St. Basil the Great,
  it became accepted to understand by the word Hypostasis the Personal
  attributes in the Triune Divinity.

He elaborates specifically on how the Persons and the Essence of God relate to one another through the example of Christ:

  (a) The Lord Jesus Christ is not only God, but also became Man, and
  such expressions can be referred to His humanity; (b) that in
  addition, He, as our Redeemer, during the days of His earthly life was
  in a condition of voluntary belittlement: He humbled Himself, and
  became obedient unto death (Phil. 2: 7– 8). In keeping with these
  words of the Apostle, the Fathers of the Church express this condition
  by the words ekkenosis, kenosis, which mean a pouring out, a
  lessening, a belittlement. “Foreseeing Thy Divine self-emptying upon
  the Cross, Habakkuk cried out marveling” (Canon for the Matins of
  Great Saturday). Even when the Lord speaks of His own Divinity, He,
  being sent by the Father and having come to fulfill upon the earth the
  will of the Father, places Himself in obedience to the Father, being
  One in Essence and equal in honor with Him as the Son, giving us an
  example of obedience. This relationship of submission refers not to
  the Essence (ousia) of the Divinity, but to the activity of the
  Persons in the world: the Father is He Who sends; the Son is He Who is
  sent. This is the obedience of love.


Does a Roman Catholic priest have to intellectually understand a confession in order to grant absolution?

There are several aspects to be considered here. The first situation is the general obligation of confessing grave sins. This is addressed in Canon Law, No. 960:

"Individual and integral confession and absolution constitute the only ordinary means by which a member of the faithful conscious of grave sin is reconciled with God and the Church. Only physical or moral impossibility excuses from confession of this type; in such a case reconciliation can be obtained by other means."

The lack of a common language between penitent and confessor would enter into the category of a "physical or moral impossibility" which would excuse either the obligation of confession or its integrity, and allow for reconciliation to be obtained by other means.

In the present case we would be dealing with the confessor making a prudential judgment that the penitent is excused in virtue of a physical and moral impossibility and presuming the latter's sincerity in manifesting those sins confessed in his native language.

Thus in this particular situation the sacrament would be valid.

However, canon law does foresee the possibility of confessing by using an interpreter, although the penitent may not be obliged to do so. To wit: "Canon 990: No one is prohibited from confessing through an interpreter as long as abuses and scandals are avoided and without prejudice to the prescript of can. 983, §2."

Canon 983, §2, requires absolute secrecy on the part of the interpreter analogous to the priest's sacramental seal: "The interpreter, if there is one, and all others who in any way have knowledge of sins from confession are also obliged to observe secrecy."

The violation of the secrecy of confession by an interpreter may be punished by the imposition of a canonical penalty not excluding excommunication (see Canon 1388, §2).

An interpreter need have only a sufficient command of the two languages involved and requires no official certificates of competence.

You can read more here.


What is the Southern Baptist belief regarding speaking in tongues?

The Southern Baptist denomination doesn't hold any particular stance regarding the gift of speaking in tongues.

If you took a survey of all the different Southern Baptist churches, you would come up with a variety of beliefs on the subject.

From their FAQ regarding speaking in tongues:

  Probably most believe that the "gift of tongues" as described in the Bible ceased upon the completion of the Bible. Some may view speaking in tongues as a spiritual gift given to some Christians enabling them to communicate the Gospel to foreign cultures in a language the speaker had not known previously.  A very small minority might accept what is commonly practiced today in charismatic churches as valid.

There has been some debate among Southern Baptists regarding speaking in tongues, with varying views mentioned above.


What is the Christian definition of "The Messiah"?

I think there is an assumption behind your question that is not quite right, regarding the Christian conception of "the Messiah". As David Stratton shows in his answer, the Messiah concept is originally Jewish, and Christians believe that Jesus is that very same Messiah, and the fulfilment of various prophecies. But bear in mind that most Christians historically (1) were Gentiles, and (2) lived long after Jesus did. They are not in the position of already believing the Jewish scriptures to contain true prophecy, and then figuring out that they are talking about Jesus - as if they might wake up one day and decide someone else is a better fit. It's more like taking the salvation work of Jesus as basic, and afterwards using that understanding to approach the Jewish tradition. Jesus's Messiah-nature is (pretty much) axiomatic for Christians, and not a conclusion; instead, the facts of his life tell us what "Messiah" ought to mean.

The earliest Christians, at least, were steeped in the concept of Messiah. As we know, there was a pre-existing expectation of a religious-political saviour of some kind, diverse interpretations of exactly what that meant, and many claimants to the title. The first Christians were those who came to believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the same person as the expected Messiah, and they explained this with reference to the Jewish scriptures (consider Peter's speech in Acts 2:14-41, for just one example).

I daresay that in many cases, Jewish people, ancient or modern, would regard a lot of these interpretations as wrong or unjustified (though not all: there are several passages that Jews and Christians agree are messianic, even if they disagree on whether they are talking about Jesus). From a Christian perspective, these passages help us to understand who Jesus was - they do not provide criteria against which he should be judged. Remember that Christians read the New Testament as authoritative from the get-go. If it says that's how to understand what Joel wrote, then there you have it. Moreover, it says very clearly that all expectations about the Messiah are met or exceeded in Jesus (see for example the Letter to the Hebrews). In particular, he is a king, a priest and a prophet - but not in the way people expected - he is the suffering servant, he is representative of Israel, he brings God's truth to the world, he is above the angels, and so on. More than that, he uniquely met and defeated sin in his own person, as "the firstborn of the dead" whose resurrection makes eternal life possible for all people.

There is a "weak" version of Jesus-as-Messiah, where "Messiah" was a useful analogy for explaining what Jesus did, to people who were already familiar with the idea. Consider in opposition Acts 17:16-34, where Paul speaking in Athens uses the language of Greek philosophy rather than Jewish prophecy. The title would then be just one of many attributes or analogies used to describe who Jesus was, as he is elsewhere called the bread of life, the lamb of God, and so on. But this isn't really satisfactory, since it doesn't explain why exactly God would choose to be incarnate in this nation, at this time.

From a Christian perspective, one can understand the entire prior history of Israel, and indeed the world, as leading towards Jesus. This includes the Messiah concept. In other words, the fact that the messianic idea existed should be "explicable" in terms of Jesus. N. T. Wright (Anglican theologian and bishop) writes that for Paul, "In Jesus the Messiah the covenant purpose of the creator for Israel was finally fulfilled" 1. In this way the universal significance of Jesus is tied in with the religious and political context of his life, and all of these circumstances were arranged by God. Messiah is not an empty or minor title. It is inseparable from the gospel message. And because of this there is no objective checklist within Christianity for deciding whether someone is the Messiah. Christian faith presupposes that Jesus is the Messiah.

Here comes a terrible analogy. Suppose I am expecting my long-lost uncle to show up for dinner. I've never met him, but I have some idea what he looks like (and perhaps my family can't agree on how tall he is, whether his hair is greyish-black or blackish-grey, or whether he sings bass or tenor). When he does arrive and introduces himself, I immediately "know" that he is my uncle, by what he says and the way he looks and moves, even if he doesn't precisely match my earlier expectation. He may show other forms of proof too. But from now on, because I know who my uncle is, I have updated my uncle-concept in the light of my new experience. True, there is a definition of "an uncle" as the brother of one of my parents, but my definition of "my uncle", my idea of who he is, comes from the facts of his existence. My understanding of my family history, and of all the stories in which my uncle featured, has changed now that I have met him. I cherish those stories but I no longer use them as a checklist against which uncle-candidates can be assessed. Analogy ends.

1. N. T. Wright. Romans and the theology of Paul. In Pauline Theology, volume 3, ed. David M. Hay and E. Elizabeth Johnson. 1995.


Will we be reunited with our family and friends in heaven?

Although your question is not directly addressed in Scripture, we can draw some ideas from Scripture.

Revelation 7:17  For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.
Rev_21:4  And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

Since there will be no tears, death, sorrow, crying or pain in Heaven. Does it not follow that not seeing those we loved here on Earth would only cause us sorrow.

Revelation 20:6  Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
Revelation 20:13 and 14  And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

Here we see that death is banished and will no longer be an inhibition, nor will it have any effect on those who are part of the first resurrection. the first resurrection is the resurrection of the faithful
and the second death refers to:

Revelation 21:8  But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

These are those destined for Hell. Although these Scriptures do speak directly to missing any loved one who are not in Heaven, it makes it seem that we will not know that they are not there.