What is the earliest name ascribed to the book of Revelation?

In many languages, the book is called "Apocalypse", which is Greek for "Revelation". It seems that the modern English convention is to use a translated, rather than transliterated, title.
I am not aware of any title other than "Apocalypse", or a translation of "Apocalypse", for this book, in any language.

In the early English translations, there is some dissent about what to call it.

Wycliffe's Bible (1382-1395) used "Apocalips"
Tyndale's Bible (1525) used "Revelation"
Coverdale's (1535) called it "The apocalips or revelacion of S. John"
Douay-Rheims (1582) uses just "Apocalypse".

The King James (1611) called it "The Revelation of S. John the Divine" and, as the legally authorized English version, its usage seems to have stuck.

I checked the Koine text of Eusebius - he says "τῇ Ἰωάννου λεγομένῃ Ἀποκαλύψει", the relevant word being that middle "legomene". This often means just "called", without a negative slant, as in Luke 22:1 "the Festival of Unleavened Bread, which is called (legomene) Passover", or Matthew 2:23 "in a city called (legomenen) Nazareth". So I am not convinced that Eusebius is doing anything other than giving the name by which the book is known.

Later in the book (7.25) he says:

  Some before us have set aside and rejected the book altogether, criticising it chapter by chapter, and pronouncing it without sense or argument, and maintaining that the title is fraudulent. For they say that it is not the work of John, nor is it a revelation, because it is covered thickly and densely by a veil of obscurity. [...]  But I could not venture to reject the book, as many brethren hold it in high esteem. But I suppose that it is beyond my comprehension, and that there is a certain concealed and more wonderful meaning in every part. For if I do not understand I suspect that a deeper sense lies beneath the words.

He does not mention what these others call the book instead, though he does say they attribute it to the heretic Cerinthus. He says that the John who wrote this book was not the same John who wrote the gospel, but he is happy to say on the basis of the text that some John wrote it.


There are two things you're missing:

The time from Jacob's arrival in Egypt to the nation's liberation under Moses was roughly 400 years.
It is a common (but often missed and misunderstood) practice in biblical genealogies to "telescope" the list of names, focusing only on key individuals in the list.  (Going along with this, the word translated as "father" can mean a person's actual parent, or it can mean a more distant ancestor.)

Referring to this source for example, the article states the following concerning the period of time you're looking at:

  In the Old Testament period, it was important for every Jew to be able
  to trace his lineage back to prove his tribal affiliation—it was even
  more important for Levites and the descendants of Aaron in order to
  prove they were qualified to be priests (see Ezra 2:59–63). So we can
  see that in Moses’ day, he is said to be the descendant of Levi,
  Kohath, and Amram. This is supposed to cover a period of 400 years,
  and we’re given enough generations to cover just about ¼ of that.
  That’s not a problem however; the genealogy isn’t concerned with
  giving an exhaustive list of ancestors; just enough to tell us where
  Moses comes from. So we have Levi and his son, along with Moses’
  father.

So as Cerulean Chelonii noted, the four centuries between Jacob and Moses was plenty of time to allow the population to reach the numbers given at their first census.


Are there any Christian sects that say salvation is based, in whole or in part, on your response to Jesus on Judgment Day?

The various "New Church" denominations that follow the Christian teachings and Bible interpretations written by Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772) have a view of salvation that is partially, though not wholly, compatible with the salvation theory that your Christian friend describes.
Key points that are compatible:

Non-Christians and people with faulty or false conceptions of God can
be saved.
Those who are saved will accept God, and most of them will accept Jesus Christ as God, during their preparation for heaven in the afterlife.
In the afterlife we are not punished for any evil actions done on earth; only for evil actions we continue to commit in the spiritual world.

A key point that is probably incompatible:

It is through the decisions we make and the life we live on earth that we develop a character that either will or will not accept God's lordship in the afterlife, and that either will or will not continue to commit evil actions in the afterlife.

I should add that in Swedenborg's theology there is not a single Judgment Day on which all people are simultaneously judged, but rather each person faces his or her own particular "judgment day" as part of a step-by-step process that begins immediately after each individual's death.
Here are a few sample quotations from Swedenborg's writings in which he makes the above points.
About non-Christians and people with faulty ideas of God being saved:

It is an insane heresy to believe that only those born in the church are saved. People born outside the church are just as human as people born within it. They come from the same heavenly source. They are equally living and immortal souls. They have religions as well, religions that enable them to believe that God exists and that they should lead good lives; and all of them who do believe in God and lead good lives become spiritual on their own level and are saved, as already noted.
Someone could point out that they have not been baptized. But baptism saves only people who have been spiritually washed, that is, regenerated. Baptism serves as a symbol and reminder of this.
Someone could point out that they do not know the Lord, and that apart from the Lord there is no salvation. But no one is saved because of knowing about the Lord. We are saved because we live by his commandments. Further, the Lord is known to everyone who believes in God because the Lord is the God of heaven and earth, as he tells us in Matthew 28:18 and elsewhere.
Particularly, people outside the church have more of a concept of a personal God than Christians do; and people who have a concept of a personal God and lead good lives are accepted by the Lord. Unlike Christians, they believe in God as one in both person and essence. Further, they think about God as they lead their lives. They treat evils as sins against God; and people who do this are thinking about God as they lead their lives. (Divine Providence #330)

About people accepting God, and commonly accepting Jesus Christ ("the Lord," in Swedenborg's terminology) as God in the afterlife if they had not been Christians or had not had a clear idea of God in their earthly life—provided that they had lived a reasonably good and thoughtful life on earth:

I have been taught by a great many instances that if non-Christians have lived decent lives, intent on obedience and appropriate deference and in mutual thoughtfulness as their religion requires so that they have acquired a measure of conscience, they are accepted in the other life and are taught by angels about matters of goodness and truth with most sensitive care. Once they have been taught, they behave unpretentiously, intelligently, and wisely and readily accept and absorb truths. This is because no false principles have taken form to oppose truths of faith, principles that would need to be ousted, let alone slanders against the Lord, as is the case for many Christians whose treasured concept of the Lord is simply of an ordinary human being. It is different for non-Christians. When they hear that God became a person here and made himself known in the world, they acknowledge it immediately and revere the Lord. They say that of course God made himself known; after all, he is the God of heaven and earth, and the human race belongs to him.
It is a divine truth that there is no salvation apart from the Lord, but this needs to be understood as meaning that there is no salvation that does not come from the Lord. (Heaven and Hell #321)

About our not being punished for evil actions done on earth, but only for evil actions we continue to do in the afterlife—and yet that the choices we make on earth, and the life we live pursuant to those choices, determines whether we will continue to commit evils in the afterlife ("the world of spirits" is Swedenborg's term for the region of the spiritual world that everyone enters after death before going to his or her final home in either heaven or hell):

Since evil spirits plunge into all kinds of evils when they are in this second state [after death], it is normal for them to be punished often and severely. There are many kinds of punishments in the world of spirits, and there is no respect for rank, for whether someone was a king or a servant in the world. Every evil brings its own punishment with it. They are united; so whoever is involved in something evil is involved in the punishment of the evil as well. Still, no one suffers any punishment for evil things done in the world, only for current evil deeds. It boils down to the same thing, though, and makes no difference whether you say that we suffer punishments because of our evil deeds in the world or that we suffer punishments because of our evil deeds in the other life, because after death we all return to our life, which means that we are involved in the same kinds of evil. This is because our nature is determined by the kind of physical life we led.
The reason they are punished is that fear of punishment is the only means of taming their evils in that state. Encouragement does not work anymore, or teaching or fear of the law or fear for their reputation, because they are acting from their nature, which cannot be compelled or broken by anything but punishments.
Good spirits are never punished, though, even though they have done bad things in the world. This is because their evils do not come back. I have also been granted a knowledge that their evils are of a different kind or nature. They do not stem from any deliberate resistance to what is true, and they are not from any evil heart except the one they acquired by heredity from their parents, which blind pleasure drove them into when they were involved in outward concerns separated from inner ones. (Heaven and Hell #509)

In other words, according to Swedenborg, regardless of what religion people had belonged to or what they had believed about God here on earth, they will be given the opportunity in the afterlife to learn the true nature of God, and what it truly means to live a good and heavenly life. If at that point they are willing to learn, to accept God, and to live a good, moral, and spiritual life, then they are accepted into heaven. No faulty beliefs held or wrongful actions done on earth will be held against them, since their intent was and is to live a good and thoughtful life, which they now recognize comes from God.
This much is compatible with your Christian friend's belief.
However, according to Swedenborg it ultimately is the choices people make on earth, and the life they live according to their own choices and beliefs, that will determine whether in the afterlife they are willing and able to accept true teachings about God and spiritual life, and therefore go to heaven. If they are ultimately more interested in their own self-interest, pleasure, power, and so on than they are in loving and serving God and their fellow human beings, then they will reject God, the truth, and spiritual life when it is offered to them, and will choose instead to spend eternity in hell.
For more on these points based on Swedenborg's theology, please see these articles:

If there’s One God, Why All the Different Religions?
Is Jesus Christ the Only Way to Heaven?
What Happens To Us When We Die?
Is There Really a Hell? What is it Like?


Should praying the Liturgy of the Hours in private be out loud or silent?

Liturgy in the strict sense is a public activity, so as such it should be prayed out loud, either recited in less formal settings or chanted with a melody, as monastic communities still do, or somewhere in between.

When you are praying the hours privately it's enough to just read the prayers, psalms and collects to yourself, though of course you are free to do whatever helps you to pray more devoutly, so if that means whispering the words outwardly then so be it.


Who if any Evangelicals still believe that Adam was created with "a perfect knowledge of God" and everything else?

Edward's view is more or less the traditional view. To give an earlier example, St. Thomas Aquinas says the following of the knowledge of Adam.

  And man was made right by God in this sense, that in him the lower powers were subjected to the higher, and the higher naturewas made so as not to be impeded by the lower. Wherefore the first man was not impeded by exterior things from a clear and steady contemplation of the intelligible effects which he perceived by the radiation of the first truth, whether by a natural or by a gratuitous knowledge. Hence Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xi, 33) that, "perhaps God used to speak to the first man as He speaks to the angels; by shedding on his mind a ray of the unchangeable truth, yet without bestowing on him the experience of which the angels are capable in the participation of the Divine Essence." Therefore, through these intelligible effects of God, man knew God then more clearly than we know Him now.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1094.htm#article1

  Man named the animals (Genesis 2:20). But names should be adapted to the nature of things. Therefore Adam knew the animals' natures; and in like manner he was possessed of the knowledge of all other things.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1094.htm#article3

However, it should be noted that "perfect knowledge" could only be attributed to Adam in a qualified sense.

Among modern Evangelicals, I don't think this is a very popular question in comparison to others, but I will leave it to another to catalog the individual opinions.


Why was Martin Luther attempting to change the canon?

The key point of Luther's biblical exegesis was his conviction of Christ's being the rex scripturae.1 There is a famous passage from his preface to the "Epistel S. Jacobi und Judas" saying:

  This is the right touchstone to criticize all the books: See if they preach Christ or not. […] What Christ did not teach, that is not apostolic, may it have been taught by St. Peter or Paul. And what Christ did teach, that is apostolic, may it have been taught by Judas, Annas, Pilate or Herode.2

With this key exegetical principle, that the doctrine of justification is paramount,3 Luther found a critical standard for the individual biblical writings. The Epistle of James,4 Second Maccabees, Revelation, and Esther did not meet that standard in his eyes. He was so hostile to them that he wished they didn't even exist: he wanted to "almost put them out of the bible."5

1: 40 I, 421
2: "Auch ist das der rechte prufsteyn, alle bucher zu tadelln, wenn man sihet, ob sie Christum treyben odder nit. […] Was Christum nicht lehret, das ist noch nicht apostolisch, wenns gleich S. Petrus oder Paulus lehret. Wiederum, was Christum prediget, das wäre aposolisch, wenns gleich Judas, Hannas, Pilatus oder Herodes tät", WADB 7, 384
3: And mainly the things that are taught in the Gospel of John, the Epistle to the Romans, and the First Epistle of Peter.
4: There's a dinner speech where he once said: "I'm going to heat up the oven with Jeckel [=Jakob=James]." ("Ich werdem einmal mit dem Jeckel den Ofen heizen."), Ti. 5,382,17
5: "schier aus der Bibel stoßen", Ti. 5,414


To the YEC, did God make a single male/female pair of each kind of animal?

The Answer is A.  The question is very good, but a lot of people are not familiar with the phrase - YEC [It should be explained ] and it also should be noted that many who hold this view do not use or like this term - Young Earth Creationists, because something that is 6-10 thousand years is ancient - not young. It's better to use the term Biblical Creationists, or "those who believe in the literal creation account".
The creation account in Genesis 1:20-24 doesn't say explicitly, but when we look at other passages, [using solid principles of Bible Interpretation- scripture interprets scripture, and other clear passages inform or shed light on less clear ones] we can see that the answer is A.
It is a common view among those Biblical Creationists- who hold the literal creation position - that the original earth was one giant land mass and split as a result of plate tectonics in the Genesis flood.  We know this from at least 2 separate scriptures, and it's important to the topic.  I Chronicles 1:19 and Genesis 10:25 "In the days of Peleg, the earth was divided."
https://answersingenesis.org/geology/plate-tectonics/did-the-continents-split-apart-in-the-days-of-peleg/.
So in this scenario there were thousands of miles of continuous, connected land mass.  If God had only made 2 otters or 2 racc0ons, or 2 rabbits, or 2 squirrels, they could have been devoured in the first week by a vulture, fox or eagle and poof, 1/3 of the animals are extinct in a year.
But this leads us to the other evidence from scripture. *Remember that we should compare scripture to help shed light on questions like these and other issues.
Ask most of your Christian friends "How many of each kind of animal were on the ark"? and they will immediately say two. But this is a commonly held myth.
It's great for helping 4 year old kids remember the story, and making kids songs rhyme, but it's not true.
Scripture explicitly says that there were 2 of the unclean animals but 7 pairs of the birds and 7 pairs of clean animals. It's no coincidence that the sacrificial animals are also the same animals they could eat.
Genesis 7:1-3 "Then the LORD said to Noah, “Go into the ark, you and all your household, for I have seen that you are righteous before me in this generation. 2 Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals,a the male and his mate, and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and his mate, 3 and seven pairs of the birds of the heavens also, male and female, to keep their offspring alive on the face of all the earth.
As soon as Noah and his family left the ark, they made a sacrifice, so if there were 2, then the sheep and goats would immediately be extinct.
It's clear from other scripture that the pure spotless young lamb was to be a perfect picture of his son- the spotless lamb of God, so it wouldn't work for God to have people sacrifice unclean animals - and the other point is that scripture says that it is slothful to kill an animal and not eat it.
God's design of clean animals for sacrifice and for eating also provided a means for the Old Testament priests to eat.


The problem was not with the building, but with the intent of the builders, as shown in verse 4:

  They said, "Come, let us build for ourselves a city, and a tower whose top will reach into heaven, and let us make for ourselves a name, otherwise we will be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth."

This is in direct opposition to what God had just commanded Noah a few years before (Genesis  9:7):

  As for you, be fruitful and multiply; Populate the earth abundantly and multiply in it.

The people in their journeyings found a place they liked, and decided to quit following God, and rather settle where they were comfortable. On top of this, they displayed the hubris to build a tower to "reach heaven" - ie, to find God on their own, rather than through His intended means.

God's judgement was not upon the tower, per se, but on the people. Nowhere else in scripture can I think of a place where towers are forbidden or condemned (indeed, almost all ancient city states had towers for protection - and Jesus references a tower that collapsed onto some people in Siloam in a neutral fashion).

The "problem at Babel" was pride, arrogance, and an unwillingness to follow God's command to replenish the earth after the flood.


Was Zacchaeus saved before he met Jesus?

Zacchaeus' good works are after he addresses Jesus as 'Lord'

So step 1. Was encountering Jesus, step 2. Believing in Him as the Christ - which is not explicitly stated, but necessarily occurred prior to step 3. Confessing Him as Lord step 4. Good works.

Summary: Zacchaeus' good works were a consequence of salvation, not a cause of it.


What is the basis of the argument that Open Theism is heretical?

The fundamental assertion of Open Theism is a fairly simple proposition - it posits that God experiences time in a fashion not unlike that of mere mortals. Unlike the more mainstream understanding of God's relationship to time - namely that God does not exist in time, nor is He constrained by it, in Open Theism, God, like man, is unaware of what the future actually is. In and of itself, that is not particularly radical or heretical - but the implications of that statement twist theologians into a lot of knots.

Prior to Creation, for example, it would have asserted that God did not know what His world would look like.  It is not that he was unable to create any possibility (and that term is important for Open Theists), but rather that until he implemented any given possibility, it was not known.  Asserting such a framework opens God up to the ability to form relationships, to learn, to love, and to grow as it were, precisely because he is not omnipotent.

And therein lies the crux of Piper's issue with Open Theism.

In asserting that God can grow, change, and be open to relationship, it also has the effect of making him less than omnipotent.  Omnipotence itself is not a central theological point, but it is widely held, especially in evangelical circles. If God either cannot or will not be aware of his own future, then he has cut himself off from a form of power and knowledge.  He must then, thus, by choice or by nature, be less than all-powerful.
Additionally, Open Theism, in opening God up to change, fundamentally must also deny the doctrine of immutability - sometimes called impassibility - or the doctrine that says, God does not change.  If God can change, immutabilitists contend, then God cannot be perfect - for things that are perfect are not capable of becoming "more perfect" or "less perfect."
Beyond that, if God is constrained by time in the same way we are, his eternality is also called into question.  If God can change, then there can be a time in which God is different.
Calvinists, of course, would also say that predestination becomes impossible under such a framework. While Calvinism is by no means universal, it is significant (especially amongst Evangelicals), and is a doctrine to which John Piper personally subscribes.
Finally, Open Theism calls into question the Unity of the Trinity, for if God can change over time, then he could, in theory, have different "parts" at different points in time - the heresy of partialism.  If God can change, then the Members of the Trinity could, for example, disagree - a logical conundrum that would have most Trinitarians scratching their heads.

In short - it's not that Open Theism is, in and of itself, heretical - but its natural consequences lead to the overturning of many established doctrines that, if overturned, would be heretical.  It's a huge leap that changes a lot of what we "know" about God, and is therefore viewed with suspicion.


What are the classics/giants in Systematic Theology?

I think the concept of systematic theology and biblical theology is deceptive.  I have studied both and I think I can strip away the confusion by providing a non academic answer that sort of throws the curtain in front of the wizard of Ozz to one side.

Let me explain and hopefully this makes sense as I am going out on a branch a bit here with potential negative feedback.

Organizing the understanding that one has when reading the Bible has been termed by somebody as systematic theology. It means nothing.  Yes possibly under Newtonian physics where the universe was considered like a clock, some theologians became overly dogmatic. Yes, yes, so what.  Yes, after Einstein and theories of relativity we prefer more organic models of thought and we are post-modern and all that, but who really cares.  Newton still dominates most of physics anyway.

The truth is, an understanding is by nature somewhat systematic, in that it organizes what would otherwise appear as just random things, tries to make sense of it, daws conclusions and then tries to fit new things into the 'understanding' as it progresses. When something new (new Bibles verse for example) does not fit (into our theology) then we try to revise our understanding until it does.  Eventually we developed a system of beliefs like 'Calvinism' or Arminianism and people call it a systematic theology.

To answer the question then.  The greats are whoever you consider as having a great understanding.  The other side of this coin is not Biblical Theology.  There is no other side of the coin.  Biblical Theology is more like a preferred organic technique of adhering to a natural progression of scripture and avoiding the dogmatic assertions that would otherwise  too quickly digest scripture into ones own belief system.  We as 'organic thinkers' tend to prefer to leave things as they are and not always have a direct link into a system.  In the end however, there is nothing in this method that was not already performed by some systematic theologians. Biblical Theology is therefore nothing but a word in some ways. A word created by people who prefer to explain things in a different way and eventually use it to create their own systematic theology.

I have explained the basic core subtle difference between the old systematic thinkers and the systematic thinking of Biblical Theology here. I consider this subtle difference sinister as Biblical Theology in its quest for the 'unfolding flower' does not like the sudden violence on the cross in how it radically changed the covenant.  When I studied Biblical Theology through one of the colleges who have popularized it into today's world, I found that it tried to synthesize the covenant of the Old Testament to the New as though there really was no difference at all.  All in the name of a slow progression.  Ironically I think this makes Biblical theology is not biblical on this most important point.

When we consider our theology to be simply our understanding there is only Systematic Theology and if the term Biblical Theology had never been created it would not have a significant impact on what understanding we have.  The emphasis in Biblical Theology that is good and always was understood by the better systematic theologians, is that the scripture is not like a manicured garden, with every leaf in its place.  It is not Calvinism per se. The scripture is more like nature with a big rock here, where it should not be, and something else there for some strange reason.  Yet the whole of it is much more amazing and beautiful that way.  Ironically the person who said this was Charles Hodge, the last of the systematic theologians at Princeton before his predecessor started the department of Biblical Theology (as though Hodge's Theology needed improvement! ) In my own view this was the beginning of a theological decline at Princeton. Hodge is an excellent Bible commentator that as far as I know has not had an equal from Princeton since.


Who said that the mere sight of devils was one of the greatest torments of hell?

The most obvious reference I see comes from St. Catherine of Siena, one of the Doctors of the Catholic Church.
St. Catherine wrote a work known as the Dialogue, representing a discussion between a soul and God. In Section 22 of the Dialogue, God says this to the soul:

"[The] vision of the Devil is the third pain [of four pains suffered by those in Hell] and redoubles to them their every toil.
"As the saints exult in the sight of Me, refreshing themselves with joyousness in the fruit of their toils borne for Me with such abundance of love, and displeasure of themselves, so does the sight of the Devil revive these wretched ones to torments, because in seeing him they know themselves more, that is to say, they know that, by their own sin, they have made themselves worthy of him.
"And if you remember well, you know that I showed him to you in his own form for a little space of time, hardly a moment, and you chose (after you had returned to yourself) rather to walk on a road of fire, even until the Day of Judgment, than to see him again. With all this that you have seen, even you do not know well how horrible he is, because, by Divine justice, he appears more horrible to the soul that is deprived of Me, and more or less according to the gravity of her sin."

St. Catherine lived in the mid-14th century. It's possible that earlier philosophers or theologians made similar statements, but I have been unable to find any.


Apostle John lived in Ephesus - what sources claim that?

Revelation 1:9 explicitly states that John was on the island of Patmos when he wrote revelation:

  I, John, your brother and companion in the suffering and kingdom and patient endurance that are ours in Jesus, was on the island of Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.

That he would have been exiled there is common:

  "Early tradition says that John was banished to Patmos by the Roman authorities. This tradition is credible because banishment was a common punishment used during the Imperial period for a number of offenses. Among such offenses were the practices of magic and astrology. Prophecy was viewed by the Romans as belonging to the same category, whether Pagan, Jewish, or Christian. Prophecy with political implications, like that expressed by John in the book of Revelation, would have been perceived as a threat to Roman political power and order. Three of the islands in the Sporades were places where political offenders were banished." (Pliny Natural History 4.69-70; Tacitus Annals 4.30)[9]

Patmos is an island very close to the city of Ephesus, the major port city of the day.  Indeed, Revelation 2 - 3 is a series of letters to the 7 cities in Western Turkey, and Ephesus is by far the largest of them.  This is not surprising, since Rome pretty much cleared Jerusalem of Jews in 70AD (actually completely destroyed Jerusalem in 125AD!) thus resulting in a diaspora that moved many of the writers to Western Turkey and Galatia.  Indeed - every one of the Epistles written to a city or region in Turkey or Greece.

Were we to receive word that a certain person was familiar with the Bronx, Manhattan, Newark, Hoboken, and we have written correspondance to them where he claims to be at Hsing Hsing prison - especially absent any transportation - it would not at all be unreasonable to assume he is from New York.

When tradition thus states that John was living in the biggest city of the area, and we have written correspndance that shows how close he was, it's a really safe bet.


What is the basis for arguing that the gospel has already been preached to "all nations"?

Some argue that "throughout the whole world" here is best interpreted as an

  indication of the universal offer of the gospel to all nations, i.e. outside the confines of the Jewish community.

This is possible since the literal meaning of the word for "world" here is "the inhabited area," and often indicated simply the Roman Empire or the known world.1,2

Two verses in particular are often used as evidence of this alternative interpretation. Colossians 1:5–6 reads:

  Of this you have heard before in the word of the truth, the gospel, 6 which has come to you, as indeed in the whole world it is bearing fruit and increasing (ESV)

Colossians 1:23 is even more clear:

  if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister. (NKJV)

Paul's language here and elsewhere (cf. Romans 1:8, Romans 10:18) is seen by some to be a confirmation of the words of Jesus, that the gospel had spread "universally" during the apostolic age.

Preterist J. Stuart Russell also sees a parallel passage in Matthew 10:23:

  Truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

This he sees as consistent with Matthew 24:14, and argues that 10:23 refers to evangelizing Israel just as 24:14 refers to evangelizing the Roman empire.  He concludes:

  The wide diffusion of the gospel, both in the land of Israel and throughout the Roman empire, is sufficient to justify the prediction of our Lord [in Matthew 24:14].3

References and notes

R. T. France, The Gospel According to Matthew
Many commentators take the passage this way, including Albert Barnes, People's New Testament, John Wesley, and Thomas Coke.  Wayne Grudem mentions this understanding as a possibility in his Systematic Theology, 1101–2.
The Parousia, 71


In Catholic teaching, what specific actual sinful act did Adam and Eve commit, and what level of authority can be applied to this teaching?

The doctrines of Original Sin are of the highest level, de fide or "of faith."(cf. this table of theological notes, the proximity of truths to Divine Revelation)

The following comes from Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. Denzinger numbers (e.g., D 788) are references to his Sources of [Catholic] Dogma, a collection of Catholic dogma from Councils and Popes' ex cathedra dogmatic definitions. For example, D 788 is a reference to the Decree on Original Sin from the Council of Trent's Session V (June 17, 1546).

  III. Man’s Lapse from the Supernatural Order

  § 20. The Personal Sin of Our First Parents or Original Sin

  1. The Act of Sin

  Our First Parents in Paradise sinned grievously through transgression
  of the Divine probationary commandment. (De fide.)

  The Council of Trent teaches that Adam lost sanctity and justice by
  transgressing the Divine commandment (D 788). Since the punishment is
  proportionate to the guilt, the sin of Adam was clearly a serious sin.

  The biblical account of the fall through the sin of the First Parents
  is contained in Gn. 2:17 and 3:1 et seq. Since Adam’s sin is the basis
  of the dogma of Original Sin and Redemption the historical accuracy of
  the account as regards the essential facts may not be impugned.
  According to a decision of the Bible Commission in 1909, the literal
  historical sense is not to be doubted in regard to the following
  facts: a) That the first man received a command from God to test his
  obedience; b) That through the temptation of the devil who took the
  form of a serpent he transgressed the Divine commandment; c) That our
  First Parents were deprived of their original condition of innocence.
  D 2123.

  The later Books of Holy Writ confirm this literal, historical
  interpretation. Ecclus. 25:33: “From the woman came the beginning of
  sin, and by her we all die.” Wis. 2:24: “But by the envy of the devil
  death came into the world.” 2 Cor. 11:3: “But I fear lest, as the
  serpent seduced Eve by his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted
  and fall away from the simplicity which is Christ.” Cf. 1 Tim. 2:14;
  Rom. 5:12, et seq; John 8:44. The mythological explanation, and the
  purely allegorical explanation (of the Alexandrines) are therefore to
  be rejected.

  The sin of our First Parents was a sin of disobedience. Cf. Rom. 5:19:
  “By the disobedience of one man many were made sinners.” The root of
  the disobedience was pride. Tob. 4:14: “From it (pride) all perdition
  took its beginning.” Ecclus. 10:15: “Pride is the beginning of all
  sin.” The theory that Original Sin was a sexual sin (St. Clement of
  Alexandria, St. Ambrose) cannot be accepted. The gravity of the sin is
  clear when we regard its purpose and the circumstances of the Divine
  commandment. St. Augustine regards Adam’s sin as an “inexpressibly
  great sin” (ineffabiliter grande peccatum: Op. Imperf. c. Jul. I 105).

  2. The Consequences of Sin

  a) Through sin our First Parents lost sanctifying grace and provoked
  the anger and the indignation of God. (De fide.)

  In Holy Writ the loss of Sanctifying Grace is indicated in the
  exclusion of Our First Parents from intercourse with God. (Gn. 3:10,
  23). God appears as a judge and announces the sentence of punishment
  (Gn. 3:16 et seq.).

  God’s displeasure finally takes effect in the eternal rejection.
  Tatian believed that Adam lost eternal salvation but St. Irenaeus
  (Adv. haer. III 23, 8), Tertullian (De poenit. 12) and St. Hippolytus
  (Philos. 8, 16) rejected this view. In later times, the Fathers
  generally, supported by Wis. 10:2: (“She [Wisdom] brought him out of
  his sin”), teach that Our First Parents did atonement and “through the
  Blood of the Lord” were saved from eternal destruction (cf. St.
  Augustine, De peccat. mer. et rem. II 34, 55).

  b) Our First Parents became subject to death and to the dominion of
  the Devil. (De fide.) D 788.

  Death and the evils associated with it follow from the loss of the
  gifts of integrity. According to Gn. 3:16 et seq., God imposed
  suffering and death as a punishment for sin. The dominion of the devil
  is mentioned in Gn. 3:15 and is explicitly taught in John 12:31;
  14:30; 2 Cor. 4:4; Hebr. 2:14; 2 Peter 2:19.

  § 21. The Existence of Original Sin

  1. The Heretical Counter-propositions

  The doctrine of Original Sin was rejected by the Gnostics and
  Manichaeans, who believed that the moral corruption of humanity comes
  from an eternal principle of evil and also by the Origenists and
  Priscillianists, who explained humanity’s inclination to evil by a
  pre-corporeal fall through sin.

  Original sin was directly denied by the Pelagians, who taught: a) The
  sin of Adam is transmitted to posterity not by inheritance but through
  imitation of a bad example (imitatione, non propagatione). b) Death,
  suffering and concupiscence are not punishment for sin, but a natural
  condition of man who was created in a pure state of nature. c) The
  baptism of children is administered, not for the remission of sins,
  but as a sign of acceptance by the Church, and to enable men to reach
  the Kingdom of Heaven, which is distinct from vita aeterna (a higher
  stage of blessedness).

  The Pelagian error was combated chiefly by St. Augustine and was
  condemned by the Church at the Synods of Mileve 416, Carthage 418,
  Orange 529 and in later times by the Council of Trent (1546) D 102,
  174 et seq., 787 et seq.

  The Pelagian error lives on in modern rationalism (Socianism,
  Rationalism of the age of the Enlightenment, Liberal Protestant
  Theology, modern unbelief).

  In medieval times the Synod of Sens (1141) rejected the following
  thesis of Peter Abelard: Quod non contraximus culpam ex Adam, sed
  poenam tantum D 376.

  The Reformers, the Baians, and the Jansenists admitted the reality of
  original sin, but misunderstood its essence and its operation, since
  they regarded it as identical with concupiscence which corrupts
  completely human nature. Cf. St. Augustine Conf. Art. 2.

  2. Teaching of the Church

  Adam’s sin is transmitted to his posterity, not by imitation, but by
  descent. (De fide.)

  The dogmatic teaching on original sin is laid down in the Tridentine
  Decree “Super peccato originali” (Sess. V; 1546), which in part
  follows word for word the decisions of the Synods of Carthage and of
  Orange. The Council of Trent rejects the doctrine that Adam’s loss of
  the sanctity and justice received from God was merely for himself
  alone, and not for us also, and that he transmitted to his posterity
  death and suffering only, but not the guilt of sin. It positively
  teaches that sin, which is the death of the soul, is inherited by all
  his posterity by descent, not by imitation, and that it dwells in
  every single human being. It is removed by the merits of the
  Redemption of Jesus Christ, which as a rule are bestowed through the
  Sacrament of Baptism on adults as well as on children. Therefore
  children also are baptised for the forgiveness of sins (in remissionem
  peccatorum). D 789–791.

  3. Proof from the Sources of Faith

  a) Scriptural proof

  The Old Testament contains references to original sin. Cf. especially
  Ps. 50:7: “For behold I was conceived in iniquities: and in sins did
  my mother conceive me.” Job 14:4 (according to Vulg.): “Who can make
  him clean that is conceived unclean?” Both passages speak of an inborn
  sinfulness whether this be understood in the sense of habitual sin or
  merely of the inclination to sin, but do not bring this into causal
  connection with the sin of Adam. The causal connection between the
  death of all mankind and the sin of our First Parents (original death)
  is, however, clearly stated in the Old Testament. Cf. Ecclus. 25:33;
  Wis. 2:24.

  The passage which contains the classical proof is Rom. 5:12–21, in
  which the Apostle draws a parallel between the first Adam, from whom
  sin and death are transmitted to all humanity, and Christ, the second
  Adam, from whom justice and life are transmitted to all men. V. 12:
  “Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death,
  and so sin passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned (in quo omnes
  paccaverunt—ἐφʼ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον) … 19. For as by the disobedience of
  one man many were made sinners: so also by the obedience of one, many
  shall be made just.”

  By sin (ἁμαρτία) is to be understood quite generally sin, which here
  appears personified. Original sin is therefore included. What is meant
  is the guilt of sin and not the consequences of sin. Death is
  expressly distinguished from sin and is represented as the consequence
  of sin. Concupiscence is not meant, because sin, according to V. 18 et
  seq., is removed by the grace of Christ’s Redemption, while evil
  desire remains as experience shows.

  β) The words in quo (ἐφʼ ᾧ; V. 12 d) were related relatively to unum
  hominem by St. Augustine and during the whole middle-ages: “By one man
  … in whom all have sinned.” Since the time of Erasmus the
  better-founded conjunctional meaning already proposed by the Fathers,
  especially by the Greeks, came to the fore: ἐφʼ ᾧ = ἐπί τούτῳ ὅτι =
  “on the ground that all have sinned” or “because all have sinned”; cf.
  the linguistic parallels in 2 Cor. 5:4; Phil. 3:12; 4:10; Rom. 8:3.
  Since those also die who have committed no personal sin (young
  children), the origin of bodily death is not a personal guilt, but a
  guilt inherited from Adam. Cf. V. 13 et seq. and V. 19, in which the
  sin of Adam is given as the reason for the sinfulness of the many. The
  conjunctional interpretation, which is adopted generally to-day,
  conforms to the explanation of St. Augustine: all have sinned in Adam,
  therefore all die.

  γ) The words: “Many (οἱ πολλοί) were made sinners” (V. 19a) do not
  limit the universality of original sin, since the expression “many”
  (in opposition to the one Adam, or Christ) is parallel to “all”
  (πάντες) in V. 12 d and 18 a.

  b) Proof from Tradition

  St. Augustine appeals to the Tradition of the Church against the
  Pelagian Bishop Julian of Eclanum: “It is not I who have invented
  original sin, which the Catholic Faith holds from of old, but thou,
  who deniest it, thou art without doubt a new heretic” (De nupt. et
  concup. II 12, 25). St. Augustine, in his Contra Julianum (L. I and
  II), adduces a formal proof from Tradition, in which he quotes St.
  Irenaeus, St. Cyprian, Reticius of Autun, Olympius, St. Hilary, St.
  Ambrose, Innocent I, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, St. John Chrysostom,
  St. Basil and St. Jerome as witnesses of the Catholic teaching. Many
  assertions of the Greek Fathers who insist on personal responsibility
  for sin and appear entirely to prescind from original sin, are to be
  understood as being in opposition to Gnostic-Manichaean dualism and to
  Origenistic pre-existentianism. St. Augustine defended the teaching of
  St. John Chrysostom against its misinterpretation by the Pelagians:
  vobis nondum litigantibus securius loquebatur (Contra Jul. 16, 22).

  Irrefutable proof of the conviction of the primitive Church as to the
  reality of original sin is the old Christian practice of the baptism
  of children “for the remission of sin” (in remissionem peccatorum).
  Cf. St. Cyprian, Ep. 64, 5.

  4. Dogma and Reason

  The doctrine of Original Sin cannot be proved by natural reason,
  nevertheless the fact of Original Sin is evidenced by many signs:
  peccati originalis in humano genere probabiliter quaedam signa
  apparent (S.c.G. IV 52). Such signs are the frightful moral
  aberrations of humanity, and the many lapses from belief in the True
  God (polytheism, atheism).

  § 22. The Nature of Original Sin

  1. False Views

  a) The view of Peter Abelard that Original Sin consists in eternal
  punishment (“reatus poenae aeternae) is false. According to the
  teaching of the Council of Trent, Original Sin is a true and proper
  sin, that is, a guilt of sin. Cf. D 376, 789, 792. St. Paul speaks of
  a real sin. Rom. 5:12: “All have sinned.” Cf. Rom. 5:19.

  b) Original Sin does not consist, as the Reformers, the Baians, and
  the Jansenists taught, in: “The habitual concupiscence, which remains,
  even in the baptised, a true and proper sin, but is no longer reckoned
  for punishment.” The Council of Trent teaches that through Baptism
  everything is taken away which is a true and proper sin, and that the
  concupiscence which remains behind after Baptism for the moral proving
  is called sin in an improper sense only. D 792. That sin remains in
  man, even if it is not reckoned for punishment, is irreconcilable with
  the Pauline teaching of Justification as an inner transformation and
  renewal. The justified man is saved from the danger of rejection
  because the ground for the rejection, the sin, is removed. Rom. 8:1:
  “There is now, therefore, no condemnation to them that are in Christ
  Jesus.” As concupiscence, in consequence of the composition of human
  nature out of body and spirit would be present, as natural evil, even
  in the pure state of nature, it cannot be sinful in itself, for God
  has created everything well. D 428.

  c) Original Sin does not consist, as, among others, Albert Pighius (†
  1542) and Ambrosius Catharinus, O.P. († 1553), taught, in a mere
  external imputation of the sinful deed of Adam (imputation theory).
  According to the teaching of the Council of Trent, Adam’s sin is
  transferred by inheritance to all the children of Adam, and exists as
  his own proper sin in every single one of them: propagatione, non
  imitatione transfusum omnibus, inest unicuique proprium. D 790. Cf. D
  795. Propriam iniustitiam contrahunt. According to the teaching of
  the Council of Trent, the efficacy of baptism consists in a real
  eradication of sin, not in a mere non-imputation of an alien guilt. D
  792. Cf. Rom. 5:12, 19.

  2. Positive Solution

  Original sin consists in the deprivation of grace caused by the free
  act of sin committed by the head of the race. (Sent. communis.)

  a) The Council of Trent defined Original Sin as the death of the soul
  (mors animae: D 789). The death of the soul is, however, the absence
  [not-being-present] of supernatural life, that is, of sanctifying
  grace. In Baptism Original Sin is eradicated through the infusion of
  sanctifying grace (D 792). It follows from this that Original Sin is a
  condition of being deprived of grace. This flows from the Pauline
  contrast between sin proceeding from Adam and justice proceeding from
  Christ (Rom. 5:19). As the justice bestowed by Christ consists
  formally in sanctifying grace (D 799) so the sin inherited from Adam
  consists formally in the lack of sanctifying grace. The lack of
  sanctifying grace, which, according to the will of God, should be
  present, establishes that the guilt of Original Sin signifies a
  turning away from God.

  As the ratio voluntarii, that is the free incurring of guilt, belongs
  to the concept of formal sin, and as a young child cannot perform a
  personal voluntary act, in original sin, the factor of spontaneity
  must be explained from its connection with Adam’s deed of sin. Adam
  was the representative of the whole human race. On his voluntary
  decision depended the preservation or the loss of the supernatural
  endowment, which was a gift, not to him personally but, to human
  nature as such. His transgression was, therefore, the transgression of
  the whole human race. Pope Pius V rejected the assertion of Baius,
  that Original Sin had the character of sin in itself without any
  reference to the will from which it sprung. D 1047. Cf. St.
  Augustine, Retract. I 12 (13), 5. S. th. I II 81, 1.

  b) According to the teaching of St. Thomas, Original Sin consists
  formaliter in the lack of original justice, materialiter in the
  unregulated concupiscence. In every sin St. Thomas distinguishes
  between a formal and a material element, the turning away from God
  (aversio a Deo) and the turning towards the creature (conversio ad
  creaturam). As the turning towards the creature manifests itself above
  all in evil desire, St. Thomas with St. Augustine, sees in
  concupiscence, which itself is a consequence of original sin, the
  material element of original sin: peccatum originale materialiter
  quidem est concupiscentia, formaliter vero est defectus originalis
  iustitiae (S. th. I II 82, 3). The doctrine of St. Thomas was
  influenced partially by St. Anselm of Canterbury, who sees in the
  nature of original sin only the lack of original justice and partially
  by St. Augustine, who defines original sin as: an evil concupiscence
  with its state of guilt (concupiscentia cum suo reatu) and explains
  that the state of guilt (reatus) is removed by Baptism, while the
  concupiscence persists for a moral test (ad agonem), but not as a sin.
  (Op. imperf. c. Jul. I 71). Most of the post-Tridentine theologians do
  not regard concupiscence as an essential constituent part of original
  sin, but as its consequence.

  § 23. The Transmission of Original Sin

  Original sin is transmitted by natural generation. (De fide.)

  The Council of Trent says: propagatione, non imitatione transfusum
  omnibus. D 790. In the baptism of children that is expurgated which
  they have incurred through generation. D 791.

  As original sin is a peccatum naturae, it is transmitted in the same
  way as human nature, through the natural act of generation. Although
  according to its origin, it is a single sin (D 790) that is the sin of
  the head of the race alone (the sin of Eve is not the cause of
  original sin) it is multiplied over and over again through natural
  generation whenever a child of Adam enters existence. In each act of
  generation human nature is communicated in a condition deprived of
  grace.

  The chief cause (causa efficiens principalis) of original sin is the
  sin of Adam alone. The instrumental cause (causa efficiens
  instrumentalis) is the natural act of generation, which gives rise to
  the connection of the individual human being with the head of the
  race. The actual concupiscence associated with the act of generation,
  the sexual pleasure (libido) is, contrary to the view of St. Augustine
  (De nuptiis et concup. I 23, 25; 24, 27), neither the cause nor the
  inescapable condition for the reproduction of original sin. It is only
  an accompanying phenomenon of the act of generation, which in itself
  alone is the instrumental cause of the transmission of original sin.
  Cf. S. th. 1 II 82, 4 ad 3.

  Objections

  From the Christian doctrine of the reproduction of original sin, it
  does not follow, as the Pelagians maintained, that God is the
  Originator of sin. The soul created by God is, according to its
  natural constitution, good. The condition of original sin signifies
  the want of a supernatural advantage to which the creature has no
  claim. God is not obliged to create the soul with the adornment of
  sanctifying grace. God is not to be blamed for the fact that the
  newly-created soul is denied the supernatural endowment, but man is
  who misused his freedom. Again, it does not follow from this teaching
  that marriage is bad. The marital act of generation is good because,
  objectively, that is, according to its adaptation to its end, and
  subjectively, that is, according to the intention of the generators,
  it is aimed at good, namely, the reproduction of the human nature
  desired by God.

  § 24. The Consequences of Original Sin

  The consequences of original sin are, following Luke 10:30, summarised
  by the scholastic theologians, in the axiom: By Adam’s sin man is
  deprived of the supernatural gifts and wounded in his nature
  (spoliatus gratuitis, vulneratus in naturalibus). The word gratuita
  usually means only the absolute supernatural gifts and naturalia the
  gifts of integrity, which were part of man’s abilities and powers
  before the fall. Cf. S. th. 1 II 85, 1; Sent. II d. 29 q. 1a.2.

  1. Loss of the Supernatural Endowment

  In the state of original sin man is deprived of sanctifying grace and
  all that this implies, as well as of the preternatural gifts of
  integrity. (De fide _in regar__d to Sanctifying Grace and the_
  Donum Immortalitatis. D 788 et seq.)

  The lack of the sanctifying grace has, as a turning away of man from
  God, the character of guilt and, as the turning of God away from man,
  the character of punishment. The lack of the gifts of integrity
  results in man’s being subject to concupiscence, suffering and death.
  These results remain even after the extirpation of Original Sin, not
  as punishment, but as the so-called poenalitates, that is, as the
  means given to man to achieve the practice of virtue and moral
  integrity. The person stained by Original Sin finds himself in the
  imprisonment and slavery of the devil whom Jesus calls “the prince,”
  and St. Paul “the god of this world” (2 Cor. 4:4). Cf. Hebr. 2:14;
  Peter 2:19.

  2. Wounding of Nature

  The wounding of nature must not be conceived, with the Reformers and
  the Jansenists, as the complete corruption of human nature. In the
  condition of Original Sin, man possesses the ability of knowing
  natural religious truths and of performing natural morally good
  actions. The Vatican Council teaches that man, with his natural power
  of cognition, can with certainty know the existence of God. D 1785,
  1806. The Council of Trent teaches that free will was not lost or
  extinguished by the fall of Adam. D 815.

  The wounding of nature extends to the body as well as to the soul. The
  2nd Council of Orange (529) explained: totum, i.e., secundum corpus et
  animam, in deterius hominem commutatum (esse) (the whole man both in
  body and in soul was changed for the worse). D 174. Cf. D 181, 199,
  793. Side by side with the two wounds of the body, sensibility to
  suffering (passibilitas) and mortality (mortalitas), theologians, with
  St. Thomas (S. th. 1 II 85, 3) enumerate four wounds of the soul,
  which are opposed to the four cardinal virtues: a) ignorance
  (ignorantia), that is, difficulty of knowing the truth (opposite to
  prudence), b) malice (malitia), that is the weakening of the power of
  the will (opposite to justice), c) weakness (infirmitas), that is, the
  recoiling before difficulties in the struggle for the good (opposite
  to fortitude), d) desire (concupiscentia) in the narrower sense, that
  is, the desire for satisfaction of the senses against the judgment of
  reason (opposite to temperance). The wounds of the body are caused by
  the loss of the preternatural gifts of impossibility and immortality,
  the wounds of the soul by the loss of the preternatural gift of
  freedom from concupiscence.

  There is a controversy as to whether the wounding of nature consists
  exclusively in the loss of the preternatural gifts, or whether human
  nature in addition is intrinsically weakened in an accidental manner.
  The former view, which is that adopted by St. Thomas and by most
  theologians, conceives the wounding of nature as relative only, i.e.,
  by comparison with its primitive condition, while the latter view
  conceives it as absolute and visualises it as a worsening in
  comparison with the pure state of nature. According to the former
  view, the person who is born in original sin is to the human being in
  the pure state of nature as one stripped of his clothes is to the
  unclothed (nudatus ad nudum); according to the latter view, as the
  sick person is to the healthy (aegrotus ad sanum). The former view is
  to be preferred, as the sinful act of Adam, which occurred once only,
  could, neither in his own nature nor in the nature of his posterity,
  effect an evil habit and with it, a weakening of the natural powers.
  Cf. S. th. 1 II 85, 1. However, it must be admitted that fallen human
  nature, in consequence of individual and social aberrations, has
  declined below the state of pure nature.

  § 25. Souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are
  excluded from the Beatific Vision of God (De fide.)

  The 2nd General Council of Lyons (1274) and the Council of Florence
  (1438–45) declared: illorum animas, qui in actuali mortali peccato vel
  solo originali decedunt, mox in infernum descendere, poenis tamen
  disparibus puniendas (the souls of those who die in original sin as
  well as those who die in actual mortal sin go immediately into hell,
  but their punishment is very different). D 464, 693.

  The dogma is supported by the words of Our Lord: “Unless a man be born
  again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the Kingdom of
  God” (John 3:5).

  The spiritual re-birth of young infants can be achieved in an
  extra-sacramental manner through baptism by blood (cf. the baptism by
  blood of the children of Bethlehem). Other emergency means of baptism
  for children dying without sacramental baptism, such as prayer and
  desire of the parents or the Church (vicarious baptism of
  desire—Cajetan), or the attainment of the use of reason in the moment
  of death, so that the dying child can decide for or against God
  (baptism of desire—H. Klee), or suffering and death of the child as
  quasi-Sacrament (baptism of suffering—H. Schell), are indeed,
  possible, but their actuality cannot be proved from Revelation. Cf. D
  712.

  In the punishment of Hell theologians distinguish between the “poena
  damni,” which consists in the exclusion from the Beatific Vision of
  God, and the “poena sensus” which is caused by external means, and
  which will be felt by the senses even after the resurrection of the
  body. While St. Augustine and many Latin Fathers are of the opinion
  that children dying in original sin must suffer “poena sensus” also,
  even if only a very mild one (mitissima omnium poena: Enchir. 93), the
  Greek Fathers (for example, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 40, 23), and
  the majority of the Schoolmen and more recent theologians, teach that
  they suffer “poena damni” only. The declaration of Pope Innocent III,
  is in favour of this teaching: Poena originalis peccati est carentia
  visionis Dei (= poena damni) actualis vero poena peccati est gehennae
  perpetuae cruciatus (= poena sensus). D 410. A condition of natural
  bliss is compatible with “poena damni.” Cf. St. Thomas, De malo, 5, 3;
  Sent. II d. 33 q. 2 a. 2.

  Theologians usually assume that there is a special place or state for
  children dying without baptism which they call limbus puerorum
  (children’s Limbo). Pope Pius VI adopted this view against the Synod
  of Pistoia. D 1526.


Why would cold running water be preferred for baptism?

You may find this link of interest:

http://www.theropps.com/papers/Winter1998/regeneration.htm

And here is the significant part, where they talk about the significance of running water and cold water:

  The main points here related to the topic of regeneration are (as in
  Ignatius' works) implicit, in a discussion primarily centered around
  the baptismal mode. There is a stress on baptism in living and cold
  water. Living water is likely preferred because rivers had symbolic
  significance as boundaries of transition in the ancient world. The
  living water emphasis also has Jewish parallels. Water which was
  running is also still connected to its natural source (J. Draper. The
  Didache in Modern Research. Leiden: E.J. Brill. 1996:46,218). Cold
  water may have been prescribed because of the shocking nature, which
  would make baptism a memorable event. Interestingly, however, if these
  types of water are not available, or even if enough water is not
  available to immerse, the great importance of baptism is seen in the
  admonition to do so in at least some fashion regardless of the
  resources at hand. The emphasis of living water is especially
  consistent with concepts of a change in the baptized person's life.

I found this quote of interest, if you search for the word 'leper', in http://www.christian-history.org/water-baptism-quotes.html, as it would seem that running water would also be better if we are to be cleansed.

  For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean by means of the sacred
  water and the invocation of the Lord from our old transgressions,
  being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes,

There are other thoughts that this is based also on the Jewish traditions, but I think that is getting into a different area than the question was intended.


As far as biblical references go, I know of nothing other than Luke 2:52:

  Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.

Or, in Mark 6:3, early in his ministry, they say:

  Isn’t this the carpenter?

In Luke's gospel they say "Isn’t this the carpenter's son?" but here he is identified not just as being the son of the carpenter but of being a carpenter himself and also that they recognise him - he is not an unknown stranger to them.

Of course, if you turn to extra-biblical sources there are theories in abundance, these include Jesus visiting India, or learning from the druids at Glastonbury.

There are also various non-canonical writings such as the Infancy Gospel of Thomas which tell of him as a child performing various miracles.  This, however, is at odds with John 2:11 which says that turning water into wine at the wedding at Cana was "the first of the signs through which he revealed his glory" which seems to rule out childhood miracles.


What is the oldest hymn (with music) that is still sung in churches today?

Probably the oldest text you'll find is the Phos Hilaron, sometimes known as "Hail gladdening light".  The earliest music for it was a Byzantine Chant, and it's still largely sung in churches worldwide, though not so much in the West.

David Crowder released a version on his album "Church Music".

Hail, gladdening Light, of His pure glory poured

Phos Hilaron (Wikipedia)

AFAIK, that's the oldest Christian hymn known today.


According to the Assembly of God, must a person love God to get into heaven, if he believes in Christ?

Here are several scripture reference for your reflection and possibly, revelation:

John 3:3 - Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

John 3:16 - “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

John 3:36 - Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

John 14:6 - Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Romans 10:9-10 - Because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.

Ephesians 2:8-9 - For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

These scripture references shown above align with your known and accepted perspective above. Additionally, you will fine a couple of statements made by Jesus that must also be considered, in Matthew as follows:

Matthew 22:

37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’
38 This is the first and greatest commandment.
39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’
40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Matthew 5:

14 “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden.
15 Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house.
16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that[b] they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

In Closing:
Numbers 6:24-26
24 “The Lord bless you and keep you;
25 The Lord make His face shine upon you, And be gracious to you;
26 The Lord lift up His countenance upon you, And give you peace.”’

Peace


Does the Bible say that it is better to have been born after Christ?

I will take a stab at this question, and say "Yes" the Bible does teach that it is better, but I caution not reading "better" as meaning "more pleasant," as your question included the statement that you would not have "enjoyed" Judaism much. Instead, it is better for some very specific reasons.

When I read your question, my mind instantly went to Hebrews, because the book of Hebrews is saturated with the idea of "better."  As a Son, Jesus is in a better position than the angels.  Our gospel is better than the sacrificial system. We have a better Sabbath, a better High Priest, and a better sacrifice.  It sounds odd to say, but Hebrews six and eight convey the idea that our position in Christ is founded on better promises. I don't fully grasp how the promises of God get "better" but Hebrews tells us that they do. We also know from Hebrews that we have a better hope and a guarantee of a better covenant (7:19-22). Other ideas in Hebrews include a better country, better resurrection, a better mediator, better blood.

So, yes, in seeing the comparison between before and after Christ, Hebrews seems to be the most comprehensive answer to your question, and the answer it gives is a resounding "Yes!" I believe  Hebrews is addressing a situation in which Jewish Christians were continuing to participate in temple worship, with all of its rites and ceremonies. They insisted on practicing circumcision, making the sacrificial offerings, and were essentially trying to Judaize their Christian faith. Why pour low octane fuel into your old Yugo when you have a Ferrari sitting here the runs on jet fuel?  That's better!


Why do Baptists even baptize in water at all considering their "spirit baptism" views?

Baptists practice baptism because it is something taught in Scripture.

Your question hits exactly on the distinction between those denominations that believe that baptism is necessary for salvation, and those that don't. Baptists don't see it as necessary for salvation.  Instead, it's seen as an outward expression of obedience.

The analogy is graduation.  getting your diploma doesn't impart knowledge onto you.  Getting an education - sitting through class, studying, etc. imparts knowledge.  Yet people participate in the graduation ceremony.  Similarly, Baptists, and other groups that believe that baptism is not a necessary component of salvation practice it as a celebration, or an outward expression of the fact that they are already saved, and have already been born again of the spirit.

Backing reference: Baptists: Believer’s Baptism

Excerpt:

  Baptists believe that the Bible teaches that baptism is important but
  not necessary for salvation. For example, the thief on the cross (Luke
  23:39-43), Saul on the Damascus road (Acts 9:1-18) and the people
  gathered in Cornelius’ house (Acts 10:24-48) all experienced salvation
  without the necessity of baptism. In his sermon at Pentecost, Peter
  urged those who had repented and believed in Christ to be baptized,
  not that baptism was necessary for salvation but as a testimony that
  they had been saved (Acts 2:1-41).

  Thus, baptism is symbolic and not sacramental. Baptists believe that
  the Bible teaches that baptism symbolizes that a person has been saved
  and is not a means of salvation. Baptism is not a means of channeling
  saving grace but rather is a way of testifying that saving grace has
  been experienced. It does not wash away sin but symbolizes the
  forgiveness of sin through faith in Christ.

  While baptism is not essential for salvation, it is a very important
  requirement for obedience to the Lord. Christ commanded his disciples
  to baptize (Matthew 28:19) and therefore baptism is a form of
  obedience to Jesus as Lord. Baptism is one way that a person declares,
  “Jesus is Lord.”


Are people by nature good or are they inherently evil?

Deriving from the topics of Original Sin and Common Grace, I would argue that the answer is "both".

Let me expand. Our born nature is that of a sinner - one who cannot obtain God's favor on his own. However, we also have natural tendencies to take care of immediate family (Matthew 5:47 "If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?" and Luke 11:11 "Now suppose one of you fathers is asked by his son for a fish; he will not give him a snake instead of a fish, will he?").

In so far as it benefits US, we are "basically good". But since we tend to epitomize selfishness, when the benefits for US no longer exceed the cost, we will tend to be "basically evil".

As to the extreme examples of that (theft, murder, etc etc), the cost-benefit analysis was either never made, or is highly skewed.


Is the receipt of the Sacrament of Confirmation a requirement before receiving the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony?

While it is not an absolute requirement that Catholics be confirmed before they are married in the Church, confirmation before marriage is something the Church strongly urges. The Code of Canon Law states:

  Catholics who have not yet received the sacrament of confirmation are
  to receive it before being admitted to marriage if this can be done
  without grave inconvenience. (CIC 1065)

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3W.HTM

Term

  GRAVE INCONVENIENCE

Definition

  In moral theology a sufficient reason to excuse a person from
  fulfilling certain positive precepts of the Church, not of themselves
  binding by the natural or revealed law. Also sufficient reason for
  delaying or even not performing certain actions, otherwise obligatory,
  provided there is a sincere desire to do so.


What is the biblical basis against the use or overuse of tobacco and other types of drugs?

First, beware of false premises.  Food provides sustenance to the body. It contains calories and vital nutrients.  Drugs do not, so it would be a mistake to equate them with food.  In fact, drugs tend to have the opposite effect from food: instead of nourishing the body, they harm it.

Second, simply because "everything created by God is good," that does not mean that every possible use of everything created by God is good.  Otherwise, there would be no such thing as sin at all.  Hemp contains very useful fibers that make it good for building ropes, for example, and tobacco has medicinal properties that make it quite good for treating bruises.  Neither of these require the plants to be taken internally.

Third, as I pointed out in another answer to a related question, a lot of modern drugs were not known in Biblical times, but abuse of the one they did know about, alcohol, is strongly condemned in the Bible. (Including by Paul, the same guy who wrote the 1 Timothy passage quoted in the question.)  So it stands to reason that the use of other drugs should likewise be considered sinful.


What is the difference between the Christologies of Nestorianism and Pelagianism?

Pelagianism isn't a Christology, and "the perfect humanity of Christ is united to the Logos" isn't a Nestorian position as stated. The argument linking the two was that Nestorianism is the Christology that naturally fits with Pelagian Anthropology and Soteriology. That's not something that any of the major Pelagians or Nestorian thinkers said, though; that was a link made by their enemies.

It wasn't Nestorian thinkers specifically, but the East generally that attracted the exiled Pelagians. The Synod of Diospolis, which exonerated Pelagius, wasn't a Nestorian synod. And though Julian of Aeclanum was an admirer of Theodore of Mopsuestia and settled in his bishopric and translated some of his stuff into Latin, Theodore plainly denied that it was possible to live a perfect life with only the goods of nature. The Assumed Man could do it only because the Word was so closely and permanently united to him. And Julian quoted many Eastern authorities against Augustine, most of whom had no Nestorian connection.

A distinctively Pelagian Christology would not only have to teach two persons in Christ, but would also have to be Adoptionist in order to give Jesus a chance to live perfectly on his own before the Word indwelt him; and as far as I know, neither Pelagius nor Caelestius nor Julian ever suggested such a thing. Nor did Theodore, nor Nestorius. You have to go back to Paul of Samosata (who was universally condemned well before the 5th century) to try to pin that one on Antioch.


Is there a term for children whose parents' marriage ends with nullity?

Yes, there is a term: legitimate children

Canon 1137 of The Code of Canon Law:

  “The children conceived or born of a valid or putative marriage are
  legitimate.”

Canon 1061 of the Code of Canon Law

  “An invalid marriage is called putative if it has been celebrated in
  good faith by at least one of the parties, until both parties become
  certain of its nullity”.

There is no stain, and no fault, laid upon any child under canon law due to a decree of nullity.

Beyond that simple term, based on your presumption

  Presumptively, these are children baptized in the Church with godparents.

there is another term for those children:  Baptized Catholics.


What do day-age theorists do with "very good" in Genesis 1:31?

The best way for me to answer this as a Day Age person is to quote from my main go to guy on the topic, Hugh Ross so I'm going to quote from one of his articles.

Was Evil Present in God's Very Good World

If you read the full article you will notice that Ross shows that the Bible uses the words Good and very good in both a moral sense, as well as in the sense of beauty and aesthetics.

  Interpreting tob in Genesis 1
  Tob carries both a moral and a physical appraisal in Genesis 1—the former based on supplementary information in Genesis 3, and the latter on the verb "saw." Hence the essential question is how to weigh these two components: is the meaning more moral than physical, or the reverse? Those who believe that the moral component dominates will typically suggest that God's creation contained not only no real evil, but also no apparent evil. Such interpreters usually picture the original creation as being like the popular concept of "Nirvana"—with no vertebrate animal death or harsh conditions whatsoever. There are, however, severe problems with this interpretation, detailed in our previous TNRTB, "What Does a 'Very Good' World Look Like?" (see here and here.)
  On the other hand, a strong argument can be made that the good God sees in Genesis 1 refers to the aesthetic and/or functional beauty of His creation. This is not to deny the moral aspect of the word tob in Genesis 1, but to emphasize the pleasing sight that God beheld in His work. There is harmony and structure in the creation narrative that points to the harmony and structure of the cosmos. Furthermore, His laws of nature are working together, and something that works harmoniously is beautiful to behold. Additionally, God may have seen Earth as tob because of its potential as humanity's habitat and the place where humans fellowship with the Creator.

  Our belief is that the language of Genesis 1 fits better with the aesthetic/functional interpretation. Although it is true that no real evil was present in the original creation, that is not the primary emphasis. Instead, the primary emphasis rests on the beauty of the created order. This is in harmony with the language and biblical theology (Psa. 104; Rev. 4:11). By contrast, there seems little justification for those who claim there is no apparent evil in the created order.
  If we combine the aesthetic and functional concepts of beauty with the moral, one can see why God sees His creation as very good.


What does the Bible say about body art/tattos?

The Bible mentions tattoos just once, at Leviticus 19:28, which says: “You must not put tattoo marking upon yourselves.”  This prohibition was for the nation of Israel and should not be taken to apply to the New Covenant relationship that GOD has established with Christians.
  I am not aware of any major Christian denominations that directly address tattoos nor do they prohibit them.  There are some smaller groups, however, that prohibit tattoos.
  The simple answer is that nothing in the New Covenant prohibits Christians from getting tattoos.


Do Catholic children near death recieve the Eucharist as Viaticum

I think your question is covered by Can. 913:

Can.  913 §1. The administration of the Most Holy Eucharist to children requires that they have sufficient knowledge and careful preparation so that they understand the mystery of Christ according to their capacity and are able to receive the body of Christ with faith and devotion.
§2. The Most Holy Eucharist, however, can be administered to children in danger of death if they can distinguish the body of Christ from ordinary food and receive communion reverently.

While that does not explicitly say, "if and only if," I believe it is fairly clear.

As a side note: when it comes to questions like, "who should receive a sacrament?" the person who really decides is priest (or, occasionally the Eucharistic Minister) present. It could very well be that a 3½ year old or someone outside of the Catholic Church could receive when they are close to death (my son understood the Eucharist was special at 2½, but I doubt a priest would have let him receive...).


How do believers in Jesus' deity explain that Jesus is never claimed to be God/divine in the Old Roman Creed and the Didache?

Why do I need to explain the reason Jesus Christ is not mentioned or noted as God in the "Roman Creed" and the Didache?
ONE is arguing from silence any time you point to specific data that is not present. In this case, Jesus is not mentioned as God in these two documents. A rational inquiry would seek to understand the data (the words) that ARE present.
It's like asking (and this is an actual example that was ask of me). "Why is it in the book of Acts no one mentions that Jesus Christ is God?" I said to the person, "You believe the Bible is the word of God right?" "He said yes." Well why don't you accept all the other places where Jesus is clearly identified as God?
So what was the purpose of the Didache in the early church? "The Didache is an early handbook of an anonymous Christian community, likely written before some of the New Testament books were written. It spells out a way of life for Jesus-followers that includes instruction on how to treat one another, how to practice the Eucharist, and how to take in wandering prophets."
Basically, the Didache is a hand book for how to treat one another, practice the Eucharist and take in wandering prophets. What about the "Roman Creed?"
"“Old Roman Creed,” or “Romanum,” is the scholarly name for the earlier and shorter form of the Apostles’ Creed as we have it in its original Greek (with probably also a simultaneous Latin edition) in Marcellus (d. ca. 374) and Rufinus (ca. 345–411) and three MSS from the early Middle Ages. It was evidently the baptismal creed of the early Roman church (Baptism). The baptismal questions that have come down to us from Hippolytus (d. ca. 236) at the beginning of the third century are an almost exact prototype of this creed."
It says right there, "It was evidently the baptismal creed of the early Roman church (Baptism). Remember I said to "seek to understand the data (the words) that are present."
In conclusion, it was "ALREADY" assumed that Jesus Christ was God before the Creeds were written. As Christianity grew various heresies would arise. The Nicene Creed was adopted to resolve the Arian controversy, whose leader, Arius.
He believed the following. "Arius taught that Jesus Christ was divine/holy and was sent to earth for the salvation of mankind but that Jesus Christ was not equal to God the Father (infinite, primordial origin) in rank and that God the Father and the Son of God were not equal to the Holy Spirit." Today's Arians include the JW, Unitarians and other groups that deny the deity of Jesus Christ.
As a side note, the Bible itself has creeds and one of them was written by the Apostle Paul at 1 Corinthians 15:1-4.


Why did Pope Pius XII mention the soul of Mary?

Canadian Thomist philosopher Charles de Koninck was a big defender of the Assumption. He saw Munificentissimus Deus (1 November 1950), which Pius XII promulgated only a few months after his anti-Modernist and pro-Thomist encyclical Humani Generis (12 August 1950), as contra Cartesian dualism (mind-body dualism),* since the Pope stresses the unity of the body and soul in proclaiming our Blessed Mother was assumed both body and soul into heaven.
*Cartesian dualism says that there are two types of beings, utterly disconnected from each other: "thinking things" (res cogitans) and "extended things" (res extensa); cf. Four Ages of Understanding p. 523 or the more popular account, ch. 2 of Philosophy of Mind by Dr. Ed Feser.
From De Koninck's "The Immaculate Conception and the Divine Motherhood, Assumption and Coredemption":

THE SIMULTANEITY OF MARY’S DEATH AND ASSUMPTION
The person of Mary, being merely human, depends, for its reality, upon the actual union of body and soul.  If, then, her soul had been maintained in a state of separation; if, during some course of time, she had been in death, she would have ceased, for that time, to exist as a human being, as a person, and as Mother of God.  Such a state would mean that, during some lapse of time, however brief, the grace of Motherhood—the seat of her habitual grace and of all her privileges as Mother of God—would have been withdrawn.  Now, “what is bestowed through God’s grace is never withdrawn except through fault.”  But Mary, conceived Immaculate and wholly confirmed in the good, could never have committed the slightest of faults. For this reason, we have argued elsewhere that no lapse of time occurred between Mary’s death and Assumption, in which her soul would have been in a state of separation from her body; but that, on the contrary, her resurrection from death took place in the same instant as her death itself.


Does the Bible suggest that there would be a literal apostasy of the early Christian church?

In traditional Christian theology, Apostasy, yes.  Total Apostasy, no.

The first verse is commonly understood to be part of end-times prophesy.  There is no indication that it relates to the early Church, and to try to make it fit there ignores the context of the surrounding verses.

  3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come,
  except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be
  revealed, the son of perdition;

The "man of sin" a.k.a the "son of perdition" is commonly believed to be the Antichrist.

  Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary on 1 Thessalonians

  2:1-4 If errors arise among Christians, we should set them right; and
  good men will be careful to suppress errors which rise from mistaking
  their words and actions. We have a cunning adversary, who watches to
  do mischief, and will promote errors, even by the words of Scripture.
  Whatever uncertainty we are in, or whatever mistakes may arise about
  the time of Christ's coming, that coming itself is certain. This has
  been the faith and hope of all Christians, in all ages of the church;
  it was the faith and hope of the Old Testament saints. All believers
  shall be gathered together to Christ, to be with him, and to be happy
  in his presence for ever. We should firmly believe the second coming
  of Christ; but there was danger lest the Thessalonians, being mistaken
  as to the time, should question the truth or certainty of the thing
  itself. False doctrines are like the winds that toss the water to and
  fro; and they unsettle the minds of men, which are as unstable as
  water. It is enough for us to know that our Lord will come, and will
  gather all his saints unto him. A reason why they should not expect
  the coming of Christ, as at hand, is given. There would be a general
  falling away first, such as would occasion the rise of antichrist,
  that man of sin. There have been great disputes who or what is
  intended by this man of sin and son of perdition. The man of sin not
  only practises wickedness, but also promotes and commands sin and
  wickedness in others; and is the son of perdition, because he is
  devoted to certain destruction, and is the instrument to destroy many
  others, both in soul and body. As God was in the temple of old, and
  worshipped there, and is in and with his church now; so the antichrist
  here mentioned, is a usurper of God's authority in the Christian
  church, who claims Divine honours.

And Acts 20:29 is understood to be speaking of those who claim to be Christian, but preach a false gospel, which has been happening since the early Church, and continues to this day.  It does not speak of a total Apostasy, it speaks of people being led from Truth into false doctrines.

A Catholic rebuttal is found here.

A Protestant perspective on what to watch for, as far as these ravenous wolves are concerned can be found here, along with an orthodox (small "o") view on Apostasy.

And as God is not a liar, there could not have been a total Apostacy.

He Himself promised that he would always keep a remnant - there would always be those who walk in His truth.  A Total Apostasy is impossible, because God himself promised it, and His power is enough to prevent it.

At least that's how "Mainstream Christians" see it.


This hymn is addressed to all three persons within the One Being of God. It was composed by Anglican bishop Reginald Heber (early 19th century) and is an all-time favourite in Hymns Ancient and Modern.  Here are the lyrics:

Holy, Holy, Holy! Lord God Almighty!
Early in the morning our song shall rise to Thee;
Holy, Holy, Holy! Merciful and Mighty!
God in Three Persons, blessed Trinity!

Holy, Holy, Holy! All the saints adore Thee,
Casting down their golden crowns around the glassy sea;
Cherubim and seraphim falling down before Thee,
Which wert, and art, and evermore shalt be.

Holy, Holy, Holy! though the darkness hide Thee,
Though the eye of sinful man, thy glory may not see:
Only Thou art holy, there is none beside Thee,
Perfect in power in love, and purity.

Holy, holy, holy! Lord God Almighty!
All thy works shall praise thy name in earth, and sky, and sea;
Holy, Holy, Holy! merciful and mighty,
God in Three Persons, blessed Trinity!

Intended for use on Trinity Sunday, the text invites worshipers to join in praising the trinitarian deity, paraphrasing Revelation 4:1–11.
Source: Holy, Holy, Holy! Lord God Almighty


Yes, God did say something like that after the flood. You can find this in Genesis, however the reference is specifically to destruction by flood (emphasis added):

  Genesis 9:8-17 (ESV)
  Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him, “Behold, I establish my covenant with you and your offspring after you, and with every living creature that is with you, the birds, the livestock, and every beast of the earth with you, as many as came out of the ark; it is for every beast of the earth. I establish my covenant with you, that never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.” And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant that I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all future generations: I have set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth. When I bring clouds over the earth and the bow is seen in the clouds, I will remember my covenant that is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh. And the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh. When the bow is in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.” God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant that I have established between me and all flesh that is on the earth.”

There will be a time when the earth is destroyed again, this time by fire. You can find one (of many) references to this in the New Testament (emphasis added):

  2nd Peter 3:4-10 (ESV)
  They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly. But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.


If you look at the role of Jesus especially at the very end of time and the beginning of eternity (eternity for us, that is to say) he does not seem that different after all. When Jesus returns, he will not return as the contemporary hippie Jesus. That image is a product of modern humanistic culture and not the Jesus of scriptures. He will return as the King of kings, terrifying in his righteous wrath. That will be a day of devastation for anybody who does not want anything to do with him.

One striking difference between Noah and the flood vs Abraham and Sodom/Gomorrah is that Abraham was the one who thought that perhaps there was still hope for the two cities. Noah did not. Abraham pleaded with God and God agreed upon a minimum number of righteous people who, if present, would be grounds for not carrying out the punishment. A similar incident happened during the early exodus, when God, appalled at the golden calf the Israelites had made, offered Moses to destroy them all and make him the new god's people. Moses turned the offer down.

It is almost as if God tries to provoke a reaction. If Moses' reaction had been "yes, let's do away with them wrongdoers" God most certainly would have carried out his threat, as his righteousness demands. God never bluffs. At the same time He would have been disappointed in the hard-heartedness of Moses.

I believe this type of thinking can be applied to the mosaic law. It gives a human being an apparent right to stone another, but it does not take away the possibility to show compassion. The problem is that the israelites rarely did that. It tells more about man than it tells about God. The tendency to point fingers at each other and not see our own error is a product of the god-syndrome mankind fell victim of in the garden of Eden. That is something Jesus pointed out, and that is just what he did; he did not introduce a new hippie religion or change, defy, or undo the law, but pointed out how the law should have been applied in the first place. He explained what the law really is and is supposed to be; a dilemma.

I hope this answer helps and manages to touch all the different issues in your question.