What do Southern Baptists believe about Predestination? It seems that some doctrines and beliefs are not taught openly.  I was curious, what is the Southern Baptist doctrine regarding predestination?

Do they believe in unconditional election or complete lack of free will?

Historically, Baptists drew from both the Calvinist (Predestination) and Arminian (Free Will) soteriologies.  Early Baptists were first and foremost dissenters - people who disliked the establishment churches of England and Virginia.

What drew them together was not soteriology but rather a disdain for establishment church.

The Puritans in particular (one set of proto-Baptists) were basically Calvinist. Many of the more famous English baptists - John Bunyan (1600s), William Carey (early 1800s), Charles Spurgeon (late 1800s), were all Particular Baptists. Many of their kin settled in Virginia and Massachusetts (or like Roger Williams in 1636 were kicked out and stuck in Rhode Island), and helped to form the basis of Baptists in the United States.

When the Baptist movement spread during the two Great Awakenings of the 1700s, much of it was fueled by charismatic Arminians, such as the Wesley brothers. In the 1700s in particular, Baptists and Methodists both were very closely related - the primary distinction between the two was the autonomy of the local congregation. Methodists had bishops, Baptists had "associations."

By the time Baptists were allowed to practice freely (1786 is a good year) both stances were evident.

Eventually, there were two main camps of Baptists - "General" Baptists who believed in General atonement, i.e. anyone who chose (i.e. free will) to believe in Christ.  In contrast, "Particular" Baptists were Calvinists, who believed in Limited Atonement.  These are the Baptists who wrote the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, one of the closest things to a "founding Baptist creed" you'll get from a Baptist.  As you would expect from a Calvinist, they believed in predestination - i.e. that God has foreknown whom he would save from before the beginning of time.

When the Southern Baptist Convention was formed in 1845, the issues that divided Baptists had far more to do with whether or not Sunday schools and missionary work were important, than the means of salvation.  (Actually, the argument against was predicated on the belief that if God had already chosen who was saved, then it was just a waste of resources to invest in those things.  That didn't stop a a guy like William Carey, though, because he realized that even the elect should work to help the elect who didn't know they were saved to be saved!)

More to the point for Southerners was whether or not missionaries could own slaves.  The SBC has acknowledged this was their genesis, and apologized for it in the 1990s.

Throughout all of this, both strains of salvation continued through all the denominations, although many of the more prominent current Baptists (Paige Patterson, Al Mohler) are definately of the Calvinst persuasion.

That said, the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message is clearly ambivelent on the matter.

Section 4. Salvation says:

  Salvation involves the redemption of the whole man, and is offered freely to all who accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, who by His own blood obtained eternal redemption for the believer. In its broadest sense salvation includes regeneration, justification, sanctification, and glorification. There is no salvation apart from personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord.

implying free will

Section 5. Grace says:

  Election is the gracious purpose of God, according to which He regenerates, justifies, sanctifies, and glorifies sinners. It is consistent with the free agency of man, and comprehends all the means in connection with the end. It is the glorious display of God's sovereign goodness, and is infinitely wise, holy, and unchangeable. It excludes boasting and promotes humility. All true believers endure to the end.

which could come out of the Tu-lips of Calvin himself.

Incidently, there is a Free Will Baptists denomination who are most definately Arminian in their soteriology.

tl;dr
In short, Baptists have always been both.

90% of southern baptists do not believe in predestination as interpreted by the "reformed" churches.

in fact any baptist that calls themselves "reformed" in their theology is not a true baptist, because reformed theology involves a lot more than the 5 points of calvinism, and it directly opposes some baptist distinctives.

"reformed" churches beleive that they were meant to reform the catholic church, and retained many catholic ideas and still use the nicene creed (true baptists reject the use of creeds--the BIBLE alone is our creed),

most refromed churches believe that the LORD'S supper and baptism are sacraments rather that ordinances,

most reformed churches practice infant baptism, and believe in a central church authority controlling all churches, rather than each local church being independent.

that is not to say that some baptists dont believe in predestination--some do, but even the "primitive baptists" who hold very strongly to predestination, are insulted if you call them a "calvinist" because of the reasons ive previously stated.

ALL southern baptists believe in predestination, but they dont all agree on exactly what predestination is---most but not all, believe that we are predestined according to the FOREKNOWLEDGE of GOD--in other words we believe that GOD knows everything in advance, so HE already knows who will come to repentance, and thus he pre-determined that these people will reap the reward of heaven.

heres my parable of what i believe---theres a train that will only hold a certain number of people. this is because GOD knows how many people will decide to pick up their ticket and board the train. CHRIST has purchased a ticket for EVERYONE, but not everyone will claim their ticket, because they think that if they work hard enough, they can save enough money to purchase their own ticket. BUT NOBODY can afford the price of the ticket, because the price of the ticket is PERFECTION, so their works are in vain. only CHRIST is perfect, and only HE can take away our sin and imperfection, so only HE can pay the price for our ticket.

so there are enough tickets for EVERYONE, but since GOD in HIS foreknowledge knows how many will repent (change their minds about trying to purchase their own ticket and surrendering to the fact that CHRIST has already paid the price), then the number of seats on the train is fixed at that number. the train represents the church--the elect--so the CHURCH is predestined, NOT individuals --GOD IS NOT WILLING THAT ANY SHOULD PERISH BUT THAT ALL (all means ALL) should come to repentance. the train WILL reach the destination that GOD has predestined it to reach--the destination is this---that all who are on the train (the church) will be conformed to the image if HIS SON, and ultimately be received into glory as the bride of CHRIST. if you want to be in the elect, then run for the office and GOD will elect you! his vote is the only one that counts in this election!

thanks so much for your compliment! its nice that we can have a discussion and see the other view point without anger--the key to any disagreement is the ability to see the valid points of the other side--i have to disagree about the "90%"--my statement is based on a survey done by various sources including lifeway and a non-baptist source (christian exchange) which did surveys among churches in the sbc which states that 90% do not beleive in predestination as interpreted by the reformed churches--i have been in a southern baptist church my whole life, being a member of several different churches in different cities, and none of them beleived in the reformed doctrine of predestination. all the churches i have attended have been linked to pastors and leaders such as jerry vines, adrian rogers, bill stafford and others, and i am very active in the stome mountain association, and none of our churches currently endorse that doctrine, altho some have staff members who do, so i stand by my statement. but again the difference is the INTERPRETATION of predestination. if you asked "do you beleive in predestination" my answer would be yes--but i would have to qualify what i mean by that. having said that here is the reason i oppose the use of the word "reformed" in baptist discussion--1) to a non beleiver, it sounds as tho you are a recovering baptist lol--like saying i am a reformed alcoholic--they dont understand the term. also it can be taken to mean that you are not part of the larger baptist body. for example, there is a church called the "reformed catholic church" which means (at least to roman catholics) they are NOT in communion with rome and thus are NOT catholic at all. the other reason, is that reformed theology implies a LOT more than just predestination---reformed churches for the most part accept infant baptism, believe in sacraments versus ordinances, and are completely protestant in nature. even the primitive baptists who believe very strongly in predestination, are offened if you call them calvinists or reformed. reformed churches also usually believe in some form of centralized church govt. read the statement made by charles spurgeon---" We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did not begin our existence at the reformation, we were reformers before Luther or Calvin were born; we never came from the Church of Rome, for we were never in it, but we have an unbroken line up to the apostles themselves. We have always existed from the very days of Christ, and our principles, sometimes veiled and forgotten, like a river which may travel underground for a little season, have always had honest and holy adherents. Persecuted alike by Romanists and Protestants of almost every sect, yet there has never existed a Government holding Baptist principles which persecuted others; nor I believe any body of Baptists ever held it to be right to put the consciences of others under the control of man. We have ever been ready to suffer, as our martyrologies will prove, but we are not ready to accept any help from the State, to prostitute the purity of the Bride of Christ to any alliance with the government, and we will never make the Church, although the Queen, the despot over the consciences of men. — Charles Spurgeon (From The New Park Street Pulpit, Vol.VII, Page 225). so i beleive when you use that term people assume you mean reformed in the same sense as presbyterians or dutch reformed church--if you stick to the scriptures, there is no need to ever reform your theology--i do not for a MINUTE doubt your sincerity, but i am also a student of baptist history, and can trace my family back to the church where the sbc was fouded near crawfordville ga--it still stands. i will agree that at that time a lot more baptists beleived in your predestination than do today, but it was never a majority. the church that has a sunday school wing named after my great aunt still has as theor official name RUHAMA MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH, even tho they have assoicated with the sbc since its inception in 1868--it is being said by some baptists that those who use the term "reformed baptist" are really just presbyterians in disguise--again this statement isnt meant to imply that i dont believe youre a baptist if you hold to classic predestination--i just view with suspicion anyone who uses the term, because everyone i know that uses that term spends more time attending presbyterian school and church than they do baptist ones, and to SOME it appears that those who label themsleves that way spend way more time trying to convert others to that theology than they do Christ--not saying i believe that, just saying how it is perceived. grace to you brother!


What is the Biblical basis for the doctrine of the Trinity? The word/term "trinity" is never used in the Bible. However, most Christians believe that God exists as three persons in one God-head.

This question has two parts:

What is the Biblical basis for the doctrine of the Trinity?
Are there any passages that directly show all three persons of God together - and what are they?

While the word Trinity does not occur in scripture, the concept and idea of the Trinity does, if you have eyes to see and ears to hear.  A detailed treatment of the Trinity with linked references can be found on GodAndScience.org.
In the following scriptural quotes, all bold text is my emphasis (in fact, there is no use of italics or bold in scripture), and note I tend to link to the whole chapter so it's easy to see the verses in context).
Fair warning: This going to be long, and even so it is only scratching the surface of an understanding that typically seems to take decades for most Christians to grow into in their understanding of God.  The TL;DR answer begins with the heading for "God is Trinity"
God Is Plural
Let's examine the scriptures to speak to God's plurality, and then see if we can understand the way that one God can also be three.
The first hint you can see is in Genesis 1, at the end of Day 6 when God creates man:

Gen 1:26-27
26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in
our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea
and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,
and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
27 So God created mankind in his own image,     in the image
of God he created them; male and female he created them.

From this passage we could deduce that in some way, God is in some manner plural.  (We can also see that the image of God is both male and female, even though scripture consistently refers to the Godhead in the male gender).
Actually, though it's not obvious from the English, the first indication of plurality in God is in the very first verse in the Hebrew word for God:

The Hebrew word translated "God" is the word El or Elohim. Elohim is
the plural form of El. The plural form is used 2607 of the 2845 times
the word "God" is used in the Old Testament. Not only is the word for
God usually used in the plural form, but several verses refer to God
as "Us"
An example of how the Hebrew word Elohim is used in the plural is that
it is translated "gods" (referring to idols) 235 times in the Old
Testament. It is exactly the same word that is translated "God,"
referring to the Almighty. An example is given below:
"I am the LORD your God [Elohim], who brought you out of the land of
Egypt, out of the house of slavery. "You shall have no other gods
[Elohim] before Me. (Exodus 20:2-3)
Rich Deem (God and Science.org)

The Son is God
There are a huge number of verses in scripture that ascribe the same divine attributes to both the Father and the Son.  But to me, more "obvious" are the scriptures which state Jesus is God, outright.

Mat 1:23
22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” (which means “God with us”).

John 1 speaks not only to Jesus (the Word) being God, but that all that was created was created through him (Jesus).

John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
...
14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
15 (John testified concerning him. He cried out, saying, “This is the one I spoke about when I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’”) 16 Out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given. 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.

And the letter to the Colossians gives us to know that Jesus is fully God, speaking of the risen Lord (notice the present tense):

Col 2:9
9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form

Many more scriptures that speak to the deity of Jesus can be found here.
The Holy Spirit is God
Jesus speaks of the Holy Spirit as a person, on equal footing with himself and his Father:

John 14:25-27
25 “All this I have spoken while still with you. 26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. 27 Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid.

(by the way, in case you have ever wondered, this "remind[ing] you of everything I have said to you" is how the disciples recalled and recorded the Gospels so accurately and in such detail; it was through the Holy Spirit.)
And again, in the following chapters:

John 15:26
26 “When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me. 27 And you also must testify, for you have been with me from the beginning.
John 16:12-15
12 “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14 He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. 15 All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.”

For a fuller treatment of the Holy Spirit's deity and person, see here.
God Is One
So, having now seen that there are three persons in this God we serve, why do Christians then claim that there is but one God?  Again, it's because this is what God has revealed in the scriptures:

Deut 6:4-5
4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. 5 Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.

This verse from Deuteronomy is especially interesting because the same plural-form word for God is used: Yahweh Elohim, followed immediately by the declaration that he is one.
In the New Testament, we read:

1 Cor 8:4
4 So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but one.

Again, more references can be found here.
But God is Trinity
Although the word "trinity" is not used, scripture does seem to teach three distinct persons who are identified as God, such as:

18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.
Mat 28:18-20

So, scripture teaches us that God is both one, and at the same time three.  How can this be?  First you must accept that finite man cannot fully comprehend the nature and being of an infinite God.  The Trinity is a mystery - we can wrestle with it, we can approach it, we can apprehend it in our hearts, but ultimately our mind ends up only loosely understanding, like trying to wrap your mind around the concept of infinity.
Of particular concern is trying to explain God by use of analogy, these always break down, and I have never heard one to even remotely adequate to fully picture of the Trinity as alluded to in scripture (they give us a glimpse, but taken alone the picture is nearly always of a heretical understanding).
I have struggled with the idea of the Trinity all my journey, but recently I read Frank Sheed's Theology and Sanity, which I found very helpful.  He does not attempt to explain by analogy, but describes God as being one nature shared by three persons.  I will end with some quotes from his book (emphasis Sheed's):

The notion is unfortunately widespread that the mystery of the Blessed Trinity is a mystery of mathematics, that is to say, of how one can equal three.  The plain Christian accepts the doctrine of the Trinity; the "advanced" Christian rejects it; but too often what is being accepted by one and rejected by the other is that one equals three.
...
The short statement of the doctrine is, as we have heard it all our lives, that there are three persons in one nature. But if we attach no meaning to the word person, and no meaning to the word nature, then both the nouns have dropped out of our definition, and we are left of with the numbers three and one, and get by as best we can with these.
...
The doctrine may be set out in four statements:

In the one divine nature, there are three persons - the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is not the Father: no one of the persons is the either of the others.

The Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God.

There are not three Gods, but one God.

...
We are not saying three persons in one person, or three natures in one nature; we are saying three persons in one nature.  There is not even the appearance of an arithmetical problem.  It is for us to see what person is and what nature is, and the to consider what meaning there can be in a nature totally possessed by three distinct persons.
...
Nature answers the question what we are; person answers the question who we are.

Are there any passages that directly show all three persons of God
  together - and what are they?

Maybe this one ? (IMHO)

Revelation 4:3

The One seated there looked like jasper and carnelian, and a rainbow gleaming like an emerald encircled the throne.

bold is the Father.

Revelation 4:3

And out of the throne come flashes of lightning, and voices, and thunderings. And there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God.

bold is the Holy Spirit

Revelation 5:6

Then I saw a Lamb who appeared to have been slain, standing in the center of the throne

bold is the Son.


Is the concept of God in Christianity (the Trinity) three Gods or One? I don't understand the concept of God in Christianity. Based on what I do know, there is God, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit -- doesn't this add up to 3 Gods?

In Christianity, is there there One (True God) or are there three gods? If there are three gods, what is the role of each one? And who was the original God? Who is the father to the "Son of God"?

Firstly, the Trinity is not Tritheism. This is the classic argument of the Muslim against Christianity, but it is not valid. It is not valid, because the formulation of the Trinity specifically states that God is one being who exists in three persons.

The Athansian Creed (a very ancient creed dating to the fourth or fifth century predating the Orthodox / Catholic / Protestant schims and accepted by at least 97% of all Christians) in particular states:

  we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal.

The problem is not in the formulation, but rather in attempts to make an analogy to explain it. There are great light-hearted attempts at analogy, but each suffers from a defect of some kind. No analogy is possible, because there is no terrestrial equivalent that properly holds the tension of the fact that three people with distinct energies, capable of perfectly relating to each other, are thus so close as to be One being. Every Trinitarian heresy comes out of an attempt to force such an analogy.

Tritheism in particular was endemic to those areas of Christianity that are now under Muslim control. Tritheism emphasizes the distinct personalities to the detriment of their unity. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are indeed so close as to be one, in the same way a Muslim would agree that a man and wife are one flesh. Sometimes the analogy of the egg (shell, yolk, and white) is used to describe this relationship, but really it doesn't convey the simultaneous distinction and sameness of personality.
Modalism, on the other hand, makes the opposite mistake. It says that the Three manifestations of God are just different aspects of the same entity. (For example, some will say water is ice, fluid, and steam, or a man is father and husband)  That, however, precludes the ability of, say, God the Father to exalt God the Son (Phillipians 2:9).

That being said, the primary means of differentiating the three persons of the Trinity is by their observed actions in history:

God the Father is the primary actor in the history of Israel and the Old Testament. He is identified by his love, jealousy, and protection of his people. For his own glory, he rescued his people from Egypt, and showed himself powerful on behalf of those whose hearts were perfect toward him.
God the Son is known primarily through his actions as the incarnated Jesus of Nazereth.  According to John, he existed from the beginning of Creation, and he made all things. By him there is nothing made that was made. He chose to temporarily give up the rights of godhood in order to become a man. Being found in human likeness, he was obedient unto death, even the death of a cross.
God the Holy Spirit is known primarily through his actions in the church.  God the Son sent Him to dwell amongst his people, and was most visibly manifest at Pentecost. He is the source of the gifts manifest amongst Christians and is present in His church.

None of these actors acts out of accord with any of the others, and they all have the same character and purpose. They do have unique wills, but willingly subordinate them to each other in perfect harmony.

The truth is there is no analogy because there is no terrestrial equivalent. That said, both Muslims and Christians would agree that God is so far above humans that his Nature could be incomprehensible to his creation. That God is both Three and One is the core tenet of our understanding of who God is. In no way do Christians believe there is more than one God, but how we express that remains a paradox we cannot or have not resolved since his nature was revealed.

Is the concept of God in Christianity (the Trinity) three Gods or One

Yours is an age old question, which stems from a basic misunderstanding.

We have one God in three persons, but that is confusing unless we also understand that God is a Spirit. To explain that we must also understand the difference between the Spiritual realm and the Material realm.

In our material realm certain rules apply which do not apply in the Spiritual realm. For example; in the Material realm things have mass, which means that according to the laws of physics two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time; that is not true in the Spiritual realm. The following Scripture shows this as effectively as anything I could say:

All scripture is quoted from the King James translation, unless otherwise noted.

  Mark 5:2 through 10  And when he was come out of the ship, immediately there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit,  3  Who had his dwelling among the tombs; and no man could bind him, no, not with chains: 4  Because that he had been often bound with fetters and chains, and the chains had been plucked asunder by him, and the fetters broken in pieces: neither could any man tame him. 5  And always, night and day, he was in the mountains, and in the tombs, crying, and cutting himself with stones. 6  But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped him, 7  And cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not. 8  For he said unto him, Come out of the man, thou unclean spirit. 9  And he asked him, What is thy name? And he answered, saying, My name is Legion: for we are many. 10  And he besought him much that he would not send them away out of the country.

Here we see that many spirits were inhabiting the body of one man, and if we continue with the Scripture we find that there were about two thousand of them.

  Mar 5:11 through 13  Now there was there nigh unto the mountains a great herd of swine feeding. 12  And all the devils besought him, saying, Send us into the swine, that we may enter into them. 13  And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea, (they were about two thousand;) and were choked in the sea.

We also need to look at the words, Jesus said " What is thy name?" and the devils answered,
" My name is Legion: for we are many."

It is noteworthy that Jesus used the singular form 'thy' in asking the name, and it is likewise notable that the devils (plural) used the singular form 'my' in answering even though adding that they were many.

There is no difference between those many spirits being one (legion) and God being three; Father, son, and Holy Ghost.

In the Spiritual realm more than one can occupy the same space at the same time, and be known by a single name.

Hope this helps.


Can I take notes during a mass? I was raised roman catholic for the first 13 years of my life. The rest I spent agnostic of religion after I read the bible. Books like Leviticus made me very upset. Now I heard that this doesn't actually get preached in most churches, and a lot of people call themselves Christian because they believe in certain values rather than believing the bible word for word.

I'm very interested in getting to know how much of what actually gets preached matches with things I believe in. I want to figure that out by going to a couple of masses. From my religious youth I have learned that everyone is welcome in a church, but a lot of things are considered rude, like wearing a hat as a male or not standing or kneeling at the appropriate times (if you're able to).

Now my question is, is it considered impolite or rude in any way if I take notes during preaching? The goal of the notes is being able to study the preaching afterward.  Is there any Catholic teaching that would make this wrong or improper?

The short answer is “no,” there is no problem if someone takes notes during the homily. (There are no norms regarding this, so there is not much in the way of sources, but anyone who wishes to remember the homily in detail is welcome to take notes.)

Imagine  yourself sitting on the frontline and taking notes while the priest is speaking. I bet, not only the faithful surrounding you, but the priest too, will get distracted. The better option would be to recap the homily just after your get our of the church and discuss with your neighbors to ensure that you have not left out any point of discussion. This will also contribute to the participative attitude  of your neighbor.


How do Calvinists interpret 1 John 2:2 in light of Limited Atonement? 1 John 2:2 (ESV)

  He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

Understanding the "ours" as referring to the universal church of believers, it would seem that John is saying that Christ "propitiated" for everyone's sins.

Calvinism, through the doctrine of limited, or definite, or particular, atonement, says that Christ died only for the elect.

How would a five-point Calvinist understand this passage?

Calvinists see the "whole world" in this passage as referring to the elect throughout the world, particularly emphasizing that Christ died for Gentiles as well as Jews.
Examples
Examples of this approach abound.  John Gill:

that is, not for the Jews only, for John was a Jew, and so were those he wrote unto, but for the Gentiles also (source)

Similarly, Matthew Poole writes:

i.e. for all that truly believe in him, all the world over. (source)

John MacArthur more thoroughly explains his view of John's intention here:

In the Jewish context, they understood Day of Atonement, they understood the language of propitiation. John is telling them that the sacrifice that Jesus offered is not just for the nation Israel, it's now for the world because the Lord is calling out a people for His name from every tribe and tongue and people and nation. (source; emphasis added)

Many other Reformed theologians take similar approaches, including John Frame (Systematic Theology, 907), the Reformed Study Bible, Louis Berkhof (3.3.6.B.4.a), and John Piper (source).
Exposition
We can dive a bit deeper into the analysis of one Reformed theologian to get a better understanding of the rationale for this view.  Simon Kistemaker (Exposition, 253–255), referring to the oft-cited "sufficient for the whole world but efficient for the elect" language, agrees with Calvin that while this is true, it is not in view here (see Calvin's commentary).  He argues:

The phrase the whole world relates not to every creature God has made, for then the fallen angels also would share in Christ's redemption.  The word whole describes the world in its totality, not necessarily in its individuality.

In defense of this idea, Kistemaker points to 1 John 3:16, where he sees John, after making a distinction between the "children of God" and the "children of the devil," saying that "Jesus Christ laid down his life for us" (emphasis added).  He also argues, citing A. T. Robertson, that a different Greek word could have been used if John meant to say that Christ died for every individual:

John chooses the adjective ολος (whole) instead of πας (every, all) to communicate the idea of universality.  The word ολος has "an indefinite meaning which πας does not have."

They would say that although Jesus died for everyone in the whole world, nevertheless to be saved, people have to "accept" him. Those who accept Jesus and follow him were predestined from the beginning of the world to do so -- and the others were not. Furthermore, they were not just predestined but in fact pulled by an irresistible grace to be saved.

In other words, they would say Jesus did "part 1" for everyone, but "part 2" is done by God only with the Elect, and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

How the "acceptance" and "following" happens is understood differently in different denominations of Christianity:

For example, many Christians consider water baptism to be essential to salvation. Some Protestants rely on (a version of) the "baptism of desire" doctrine to say that it's not essential.
Also, some people say the Holy Spirit will work inside the saved person to make them sin less and less, and there will be unmistakable outward signs that someone is saved. Whereas other Christians say you can never really tell who is saved and who is not.
Some Christians believe "once saved, always saved" like Calvinists, and others believe that you can lose your salvation. Calvinists believe that if you fall away, it will only be for a time and then you'll come back, which logically implies a guarantee of immortality during those times when you fall away.
Finally, regarding "following Jesus", some Christians believe that one should literally do what Jesus said (i.e. keep the 10 commandments, follow those in the seat of Moses but don't do as they do, give away possessions) and other Christians believe like Paul said, that Jesus already paid for everyone's sins so the Law isn't relevant anymore, and we just have to follow our conscience. They say the Law is divided into "ritual law" and "moral law" and different Churches may have different opinions on whether a particular action is moral and immoral. Some Christians believe you should belong to an organized Church, and others believe all the Churches have become corrupt and Jesus taught against organized religion.

In short, while the words "accept Jesus" and "follow Jesus" can (and have) take on various meanings in various times and communities, but the idea of Calvinists is that anything that happens is up to God anyway, so at the end of the day, while Jesus paid the price, whoever "accepts Jesus" and "follows Jesus" is completely up to God the whole time. Grace, but not of ourselves.


What is the biblical basis for the immortality of the soul? The Immortality of the Soul is "the doctrine that the human soul will survive death, continuing in the possession of an endless conscious existence." (source).

What is the biblical basis for the immortality of the soul?

First, we must prove that there is a soul within man which can exist outside the body, i.e. disembodied, for there are some who deny that man has a soul, but instead, they assert that he is a soul (which objection is addressed here).
In 2 Cor. 12:2-4, the apostle Paul wrote,

2 I know a man in Christ fourteen years ago (I don't know whether in the body or outside the body; God knows), such a man was caught away unto the third heaven. 3 And I know such a man (I don't know whether in the body or outside the body; God knows) that he was caught away into Paradise, and he heard unspeakable words which are not lawful for a man to utter.
2 οἶδα ἄνθρωπον ἐν Χριστῷ πρὸ ἐτῶν δεκατεσσάρων εἴτε ἐν σώματι οὐκ οἶδα εἴτε ἐκτὸς τοῦ σώματος οὐκ οἶδα ὁ θεὸς οἶδεν ἁρπαγέντα τὸν τοιοῦτον ἕως τρίτου οὐρανοῦ 3 καὶ οἶδα τὸν τοιοῦτον ἄνθρωπον εἴτε ἐν σώματι εἴτε ἐκτὸς τοῦ σώματος οὐκ οἶδα ὁ θεὸς οἶδεν 4 ὅτι ἡρπάγη εἰς τὸν παράδεισον καὶ ἤκουσεν ἄῤῥητα ῥήματα ἃ οὐκ ἐξὸν ἀνθρώπῳ λαλῆσαι

Henry Alford wrote,

The adoption of the third person is remarkable: it being evident from 2 Corinthians 12:7 that he himself is meant. It is plain that a contrast is intended between the rapt and glorified person of 2 Corinthians 12:2; 2 Corinthians 12:4,—and himself, the weak and afflicted and almost despairing subject of the σκόλοψ τῇ σαρκί of 2 Corinthians 12:7 ff. Such glory belonged not to him, but the weakness did. Nay, so far was the glory from being his, that he knew not whether he was in or out of the body when it was put upon him: so that the ἐγὼ αὐτός, compounded of the νοῦς and σάρξ (Romans 7:25), clearly was not the subject of it, but as it were another form of his personality, analogous to that which we shall assume when unclothed of the body.
It may be remarked in passing, as has been done by Whitby, that the Apostle here by implication acknowledges the possibility of consciousness and receptivity in a disembodied state.

It's evident from that passage that man can have existence outside the body (ἐκτὸς τοῦ σώματος), and if not as a sentient soul, then what? Indeed, it was as a soul, or if you wish, a spirit (for the two are sometimes treated as synonymous), that Lazarus, the rich man, and Abraham (who had died long before) were all in Hades, sensible and sentient (Luke 16:19-31).
Having thus proved that the personality can exist as a soul outside the body (disembodied), sensible and sentient, we must now prove that the soul is immortal.
Justin Martyr summarizes this in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew (Ch. VI):

For the truth is so; and you would perceive it from this. The soul assuredly is or has life. If, then, it is life, it would cause something else, and not itself, to live, even as motion would move something else than itself. Now, that the soul lives, no one would deny. But if it lives, it lives not as being life, but as the partaker of life; but that which partakes of anything, is different from that of which it does partake. Now the soul partakes of life, since God wills it to live. Thus, then, it will not even partake [of life] when God does not will it to live. For to live is not its attribute, as it is God's; but as a man does not live always, and the soul is not for ever conjoined with the body, since, whenever this harmony must be broken up, the soul leaves the body, and the man exists no longer; even so, whenever the soul must cease to exist, the spirit of life is removed from it, and there is no more soul, but it goes back to the place from whence it was taken.' (Roberts-Donaldson)
τὸ γὰρ ἀληθὲς οὕτως ἔχει· μάθοις δ' ἂν ἐντεῦθεν. ἡ ψυχὴ ἤτοι ζωή ἐστιν ἢ ζωὴν ἔχει. εἰ μὲν οὖν ζωή ἐστιν, ἄλλο τι ἂν ποιήσειε ζῆν, οὐχ ἑαυτήν, ὡς καὶ κίνησις ἄλλο τι κινήσειε μᾶλλον ἢ ἑαυτήν. ὅτι δὲ ζῇ ψυχή, οὐδεὶς ἀντείποι. εἰ δὲ ζῇ, οὐ ζωὴ οὖσα ζῇ, ἀλλὰ μεταλαμβάνουσα τῆς ζωῆς· ἕτερον δέ τι τὸ μετέχον τινὸς ἐκείνου οὗ μετέχει. ζωῆς δὲ ψυχὴ μετέχει, ἐπεὶ ζῆν αὐτὴν ὁ θεὸς βούλεται. οὕτως ἄρα καὶ οὐ μεθέξει ποτέ, ὅταν αὐτὴν μὴ θέλοι ζῆν. οὐ γὰρ ἴδιον αὐτῆς ἐστι τὸ ζῆν ὡς τοῦ θεοῦ· ἀλλὰ ὥσπερ ἄνθρωπος οὐ διὰ παντός ἐστιν οὐδὲ σύνεστιν ἀεὶ τῇ ψυχῇ τὸ σῶμα, ἀλλ', ὅταν δέῃ λυθῆναι τὴν ἁρμονίαν ταύτην, καταλείπει ἡ ψυχὴ τὸ σῶμα καὶ ὁ ἄνθρωπος οὐκ ἔστιν, οὕτως καί, ὅταν δέῃ τὴν ψυχὴν μηκέτι εἶναι, ἀπέστη ἀπ' αὐτῆς τὸ ζωτικὸν πνεῦμα καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἡ ψυχὴ ἔτι, ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτὴ ὅθεν
ἐλήφθη ἐκεῖσε χωρεῖ πάλιν. (Patrologiae Cursus Completus. Series Graeca. Vol. 6)

The apostle Paul wrote that only God has immortality (1 Tim. 6:16); therefore, since all else is created by God, all else is not immortal. But, what about those of us who will one day become immortal in incorruptible, spiritual bodies, as the apostle Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 15:53,

For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
δεῖ γὰρ τὸ φθαρτὸν τοῦτο ἐνδύσασθαι ἀφθαρσίαν καὶ τὸ θνητὸν τοῦτο ἐνδύσασθαι ἀθανασίαν

Is not man to be immortal also? Evidently so; thus, we must distinguish between (1) inherent immortality and (2) granted immortality. God alone has inherent immortality, that is, "life in Himself" (John 5:26). But, He grants or gives immortality to those He wills.
For example, in John 10:28, it is written,

And I give them eternal life, and they shall certainly never perish, neither shall anyone pluck them out of my hand.
κἀγὼ ζωὴν αἰώνιον δίδωμι αὐτοῖς καὶ οὐ μὴ ἀπόλωνται εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα καὶ οὐχ ἁρπάσει τις αὐτὰ ἐκ τῆς χειρός μου

There is a soul.
The soul is disembodied, sentient, and sensible upon the death of the body.
God grants (gives) immortality to the soul as He wills, but the soul is not inherently immortal.
God alone is inherently immortal ("has life in Himself").

It should be noted that immortality is also granted to the unrighteous, but for the purpose of eternal torment rather than eternal life (i.e., reward) (cp. Dan. 12:2)).

John 5:28: "All who are in the graves shall hear his voice...
John 5:29: And they shall come forth, those who have done good unto the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

What is the biblical basis for the immortality of the soul?

For Christians;

  Romans 6:23  For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is
  eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

  John 5:24  Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word,
  and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall
  not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

  1 Thessalonians 4:17  Then we which are alive and remain shall be
  caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the
  air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

  Revelation 21:3-4  And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying,
  Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with
  them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with
  them, and be their God.  And God shall wipe away all tears from their
  eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying,
  neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed
  away

.


Liturgical prayer in Aramaic Which Aramaic speaking Christian Church(es) uses a dialect of Aramaic in their liturgy that is the closest to the dialect that Jesus of Nazareth spoke in Palestine some 2000 years ago?

Jesus spoke with a Galilean dialect of Aramaic.

The following is not meant to be an answer specific to the question, but may help in some research on the subject:

The Syro Malabar and Syro Malankara rites of the  Catholic Church in Kerala, India, which attribute their origin to St Thomas the Apostle,  used to have their liturgy in Syrian language upto the 1950s after which the liturgy adopted the native language Malayalam as its medium. In fact you will find many short prayers still said in Syrian languae  as a part of the liturgy. Besides the Catholic groups, the Catholic Orthodox Churches of Kerala also extensively use Syrian prayers during the liturgical celebrations.  How close the phraseology of those prayers are to the dialect used by Jesus, can be commented on by Syrian scholars only.

Presently the Syriac Catholic and Syriac Orthodox churches use Aramaic in their liturgy and chanting


Do any Christian traditions think that evil desires are not sin? There are several related questions already about this topic on C.SE, such as "What does it mean that Jesus was tempted in every way like us (yet without sin)?" and "What is temptation?".

My question is focusing on the phenomena that some people say that having evil desires isn't sinful in itself, but yielding to them is sinful. Others say that sinful desires are inherently sinful. It seems that there isn't agreement within broader Christianity about this issue, so I'm curious about which particular traditions (if any) teach that having evil desires does not necessarily mean that one is sinning. No doubt the answer to this question is especially related to this question: "Would it have been possible for Jesus to sin?", with particular regard to the question of whether Jesus had evil desires (I don't think he did).

Baptists believe that being tempted is not sinning, for two reason, the first being because of James 1:13-15.

"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. "
James 1:13-15 (KJV)

This verse indicates that sin doesn't occur until  after you are tempted. Another reason is the fact that Jesus was tempted and did not sin. (mark 1:24 says Jesus is the Holy one of God, indicating that Jesus is holy)

Would it  have  possible  for  Jesus  to  sin ? NO.  Would  it  be  possible  for  him  to have  had  evil  thoughts?  No'

Matthew 1;18

Now the birth of Jesus was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

John 3;5

Jesus answered, verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Philippians 2;7-8

But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men; 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

From the beginning, Jesus was converted, being born of water  ( naturally, through Mary ) and the Spirit (Holy Ghost),

Matthew 18;3

And said, verily, I say unto you, Except ye be converted and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Hebrews 4;15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Hebrews 5;9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto them who obey him.

Jesus, through the power of his Father, and obedience to his will, overcame all temptation without yielding to sin. Jesus is the perfect high priest, sinless and eternal. His character is flawless.  Temptation,  is a test of character.

Man is born of water and decended from Adam (man).

Psalms: 51;5

Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother  conceive me.

Jeremiah 17;9

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

Matthew 5;28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

1 John  3;9  Whosoever  is  born  of  God  doth  not  commit  sin,  for  his  seed  remaineth  in  him and  he  cannot  commit  sin,  because  he  is  born  of  God.


How do seventh day Sabbatarians explain the lack of Sabbath observing following Spirit led revivals? Thinking a lot about the controversial matter of whether Christians should keep the Sabbath in a strict literal sense (from sunset Friday to sunset Saturday), after looking at the problem from different angles I had a sort of "Eureka moment". This is the insight: if keeping the Sabbath is a moral duty, and breaking it is as immoral as raping, killing, stealing or fornication, you would expect the Holy Spirit to quickly convict someone about the immorality of such an act and lead the person to repentance and adoption of Sabbath observance. This is a no-brainer. Thus, this led me to ask myself: "Ok, so let's look at the evidence. Where am I more likely to find records of what happens when the Holy Spirit moves? Oh wait, in revivals!". Yes. So I decided to look at the outcomes of most revivals I knew about, looking for any evidence of widespread adoption of Sabbath observance (an outcome you would predict to happen if breaking the literal observance of the Sabbath is indeed immoral). However, after doing some investigation on the matter, I couldn't find a single instance of a revival in which Sabbath observance (from sunset Friday to sunset Saturday) was a widespread outcome.
I'm listing below some examples of revivals to illustrate the point:

Uganda's Revival: no widespread Sabbath (sunset Friday to sunset Saturday) observance.
The First Great Awakening: no widespread Sabbath (sunset Friday to sunset Saturday) observance.
The Second Great Awakening: no widespread Sabbath (sunset Friday to sunset Saturday) observance.
The Third Great Awakening: no widespread Sabbath (sunset Friday to sunset Saturday) observance.
1904–1905 Welsh revival: no widespread Sabbath (sunset Friday to sunset Saturday) observance.
Azusa Street Revival: no widespread Sabbath (sunset Friday to sunset Saturday) observance.
Pyongyang Revival: no widespread Sabbath (sunset Friday to sunset Saturday) observance.
Watchman Nee's revivalist ministry: no widespread Sabbath (sunset Friday to sunset Saturday) observance.
Brownsville Revival: no widespread Sabbath (sunset Friday to sunset Saturday) observance.
1949 Argentina Revival: no widespread Sabbath (sunset Friday to sunset Saturday) observance.
1954 Argentina Revival: no widespread Sabbath (sunset Friday to sunset Saturday) observance.
Argentine Revival with Carlos Annacondia: no widespread Sabbath (sunset Friday to sunset Saturday) observance.
Argentine Revival with Claudio Freidzon (check out this book also): no widespread Sabbath (sunset Friday to sunset Saturday) observance.

What explanation do seventh day Sabbatarians provide for the lack of strict seventh day Sabbath observing following so many revivals (in which the Holy Spirit is claimed to have moved) throughout history? If breaking the Sabbath is a terrible sin, shouldn't we expect that the Holy Spirit would quickly lead people to repentance and Sabbath keeping? Then how come we don't see that happening in so many revivals?

This is actually the same time that the Seventh-day Adventist church began.  It came out of revivals in the 1800's
Starting in 1844 after the disappointment of the millerite movement.
Joseph Bates who was one of the first to be convinced of the Sabbath and was a revivalist preacher. See: (Joseph Bates (8 July 1792 – 19 March 1872)
This combined with the understanding of Revelation 12:17 that there would only be a remnant of the church that would keep the commandments and have the testimony of Jesus.

And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the
remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the
testimony of Jesus Christ. - Rev 12:!7

The question of "Sabbath keeping" is found in all four Gospels and as failing to observe the Sabbath would be a sin, Jesus, who was sinless (Hebrews 4:15) legally observed the Sabbath.
Jesus did things on the Sabbath which others deemed inappropriate. One in particular speaks directly to the question of healing and/or bringing salvation on the Sabbath:

10 Now he was teaching in one of the synagogues on the Sabbath. 11 And behold, there was a woman who had had a disabling spirit for eighteen years. She was bent over and could not fully straighten herself. 12 When Jesus saw her, he called her over and said to her, “Woman, you are freed from your disability.” 13 And he laid his hands on her, and immediately she was made straight, and she glorified God. 14 But the ruler of the synagogue, indignant because Jesus had healed on the Sabbath, said to the people, “There are six days in which work ought to be done. Come on those days and be healed, and not on the Sabbath day.” 15 Then the Lord answered him, “You hypocrites! Does not each of you on the Sabbath untie his ox or his donkey from the manger and lead it away to water it? 16 And ought not this woman, a daughter of Abraham whom Satan bound for eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the Sabbath day?” (Luke 13) [ESV]

The ruler of the synagogue made the legal argument Jesus should have waited until the Sabbath was over before healing the woman. Jesus not only disagreed, He said the woman in bondage to Satan should be loosed from the bond on the Sabbath.
Therefore, bringing salvation on the Sabbath is not a sin, and one could argue the Gospel shows the Sabbath is the ideal day for a revival.


In what language was the Book of Matthew written? I have heard it taught in several places that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew and its intended audience was the Jews (which would help explain why it seems a bit more vague on key Christian concepts). But recently I have been told that there are no Hebrew manuscripts of this text. I assume at least that the person who told me this meant that there are no Hebrew manuscripts that outdate the Greek ones.

So in what language was Matthew written?

It's hard to know for certain, but there are very good reasons to believe all four gospels were written in Greek. However, according to the earliest Christian tradition, Matthew was written in Hebrew.
Papias, an early second century bishop and a disciple of the Apostle John, is our earliest witness to the tradition that Matthew was the author of this gospel.

Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could.

Irenaeus, writing in the late second century, elaborated on this.

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.

All four gospels were originally published anonymously, and it is only through the testimony of these two second century bishops that we attribute this gospel to Matthew. If we take their testimony at face value, then we might say the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew.
Parallels between Matthew and Mark
However, the Gospel of Matthew in its current form—that is, the one that appears in every copy of the New Testament going back to the oldest surviving copies—was almost certainly written in Greek.
As Dick Harfield mentions in his answer, we find close parallels between Matthew and Mark in several places. In this example from the Transfiguration (Matthew 17:1-8 || Mark 9:2-8) I have bolded exact parallels and italicized words and expressions that the later writer has modified.

Matthew 17:1-8
Six days later, Jesus took with him Peter and James and his brother John and led them up a high mountain, by themselves. And he was transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his clothes became dazzling white. Suddenly there appeared to them Moses and Elijah, talking with him. Then Peter said to Jesus, "Lord, it is good for us to be here; if you wish, I will make three dwellings here, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah." While he was still speaking, suddenly a bright cloud overshadowed them, and from the cloud a voice said, "This is my Son, the Beloved; with him I am well pleased; listen to him!" When the disciples heard this, they fell to the ground and were overcome by fear. But Jesus came and touched them, saying, "Get up and do not be afraid." And when they looked up, they saw no one except Jesus himself alone.
Mark 9:2-8
Six days later, Jesus took with him Peter and James and John, and led them up a high mountain apart, by themselves. And he was transfigured before them, and his clothes became dazzling white, such as no one on earth could bleach them. And there appeared to them Elijah with Moses, who were talking with Jesus. Then Peter said to Jesus, "Rabbi, it is good for us to be here; let us make three dwellings, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah." He did not know what to say, for they were terrified. Then a cloud overshadowed them, and from the cloud there came a voice, "This is my Son, the Beloved; listen to him!" Suddenly when they looked around, they saw no one with them any more, but only Jesus.

Although these are not exact copies of each other, the presence of so many exact phrases is a strong indication that one author used the other as a source. There are good reasons to believe that Matthew used Mark as a source, and not the other way around.
Differences between Matthew and Mark
First, there are a number of passages where Matthew elaborates on what is written in Mark. For example, compare their accounts of Jesus' temptation in the wilderness. Again, I have bolded exact parallels and italicized words and expressions that the later writer has modified.

Mark 1:-12-13
And the Spirit immediately drove him out into the wilderness. He was in the wilderness forty days, tempted by Satan; and he was with the wild beasts; and the angels waited on him.
Matthew 4:1-11
Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. He fasted forty days and forty nights, and afterwards he was famished. The tempter came and said to him, "If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread." But he answered, "It is written, "One does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.' " Then the devil took him to the holy city and placed him on the pinnacle of the temple, saying to him, "If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down; for it is written, "He will command his angels concerning you,' and "On their hands they will bear you up, so that you will not dash your foot against a stone.' " Jesus said to him, "Again it is written, "Do not put the Lord your God to the test.' " Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor; and he said to him, "All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me." Jesus said to him, "Away with you, Satan! for it is written, "Worship the Lord your God, and serve only him.' " Then the devil left him, and suddenly angels came and waited on him.

It is hard to see why Mark might have left out these details if he had them available. The more likely explanation is that Matthew added them.
In some places, Mark displays an apparent lack of geographical knowledge. In Mark 5:1 Jesus is said to have crossed the sea of Galilee to "the country of the Gerasenes". The parallel in Matthew 8:28 says "the country of the Gadarenes". Gadara (modern Umm Qais) is located by the sea of Galilee, while Gerasa (modern Jerash) is more than 30 miles away.
Following the feeding of the four thousand, Mark 8:10 states that Jesus got in his boat and went to a place called Dalmanutha. This name is not mentioned anywhere else in ancient writings, and no town by that name has ever been uncovered. Matthew 15:39 says Jesus went to Magadan (or Magdala in some manuscripts).
It's hard to imagine why Mark would choose the words "Gerasenes" and "Dalmanutha" if he had a copy of Matthew's gospel in front of him. The more likely explanation is that Matthew corrected what he recognized as errors.
Conclusion
So how do we reconcile the evidence that Matthew used the Greek Gospel of Mark as a source with the tradition that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew or Aramaic?
One possible explanation is that Papias and Irenaeus are referring to an early gospel written by Mathew in Hebrew, and that the book we know as the Gospel of Matthew drew upon this (or a translation of it) to supplement the information he got from Mark. Since we have no surviving Hebrew manuscript, it's hard to say how likely this is. But in either case, the gospel that made it into the Bible with Matthew's name was composed in Greek.

Gospel of Matthew was actually written in Aramaic. Not in Greek or Hebrew. The language of first century Israel was Aramaic. Not Hebrew or Greek. Check here for more details on the language of first century Israel - Why didn't the Jews understand "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani"?

There are thousands of textual variations in Greek NT.

Let me take famous Greek NT manuscripts - Codex Vaticanus (B) and Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph).

According to Greek NT Scholar Herman C. Hoskier, there are, without counting errors of iotacism, 3,036 textual variations between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus in the text of the Gospels alone, enumerated as follows:

Matthew: 656

Mark: 567

Luke: 791

John: 1022

There are 656 textual variations between Gospel of Matthew in Codex Sinaiticus and  Gospel of Matthew in Codex Vaticanus.

Check here for more information on this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_codices_Sinaiticus_and_Vaticanus

Aramaic New Testament is called Eastern Aramaic Peshitta. In Aramaic Peshitta, there are no textual variations. Check this website for more infos - www.peshitta.org

Aramaic Peshitta even clarifies many of the errors and tamperings found in Greek NT Manuscript.

Here is an example from Gospel of Matthew.

Simon the leper or potter/jar maker? – Matthew 26:6 / Mark 14:3

The KJV says (Matthew 26:6): “Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper,”

The KJV says (Mark 14:3): “And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard very precious; and she brake the box, and poured it on his head.”

The Greek reads ("Simônos tou leprou"), which literally means "Simon the Leper" or "Simon the Skin-Diseased" ("λεπρου" (leprou, or lepros in the nominative case) can stand for various skin diseases like it's Hebrew-Aramaic counterpart). This seems strange, because according to the Law laid down in Leviticus, Lepers are not allowed within the city:

Leviticus 13:45-46 - And the leper in whom the plague is, his clothes shall be rent, and his head bare, and he shall put a covering upon his upper lip, and shall cry, Unclean, unclean. All the days wherein the plague shall be in him he shall be defiled; he is unclean: he shall dwell alone; without the camp shall his habitation be.

Gariba' can easily be confused with Garoba' since Aramaic at that time was written without vowel markers.

Gariba' means POTTER or JAR MERCHANT where, Garoba' means LEPER or SKIN DISEASE

But both are spelled with the same consonants: Gomal - Reesh - Beyth – Alap

In addition, why was there no record of Jesus healing Simon? If he were a leper, it would be very dangerous for His disciples and other people in the house. Leprosy is a very contagious disease and not worth the risk of catching. Here the Aramaic sheds some light on a story whose host was a non sequitur of the circumstances.

Since Aramaic was written without vowels in first century AD, there was no distinction between the Aramaic words. Since in this story a woman pours oil from a jar it is apparent that Simon was a jar merchant or jar maker and not a leper.

While Aramaic words are identifical, they are not in Hebrew. The Hebrew for a potter is יוצר (yotser) while leper is צרוע (tsaru'a).


Have any Orthodox clergy expressed a belief in an impending doomsday/judgment? For a few months now, I have been receiving unsolicited letters, pamphlets, and bulletins regarding the 'end times', 'coming prophetic storm', 'God's impending judgement', etc.

I have family members who are extremely concerned about Jonathan Cahn's bloodmoon judgement literature (he says the four recent lunar eclipses are a sign from God telling us something crazy is about to happen, I can't distinguish this from astrology).

It seems that a significant percentage of the Protestant church in America believes God will produce some type of upheaval, whether it's the Second Coming or a smaller-scale judgement event, very shortly. Have any Orthodox priests or deacons expressed this belief?

What @Adam Heeg said.

Matthew 24 is Jesus' description of things to pass before the end times (Ex: [verse 7] "For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.").

But these are things that have been happening for a very long time.

And that same chapter (verses 35 - 37) states we won't know until it actually happens: "[35] Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. [36] But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. [37] But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be."

The point is to be presently alert and keep your soul prepared by doing things in the now that God commanded us to do.

BTW, Orthodox Priests do not read from Revelation as part of the yearly Liturgical readings.  Nor do they discuss their own interpretations of it or "end times" in their homilies (sermons).  Though Revelation may be quoted, or groups may have a bible study on it.


How novel is John Paul II's theology of the family as "ecclesia domestica"? The Second Vatican Council wrote in Lumen gentium 11 (English, Latin):

The family is, so to speak, the domestic church. In it parents should, by their word and example, be the first preachers of the faith to their children; they should encourage them in the vocation which is proper to each of them, fostering with special care vocation to a sacred state.
In hac velut Ecclesia domestica parentes verbo et exemplo sint pro filiis suis primi fidei praecones, et vocationem unicuique propriam, sacram vero peculiari cura, foveant oportet.

In The Splendor of Faith: The Theological Vision of Pope John Paul II (Crossroad, 1999; 2nd ed. 2003), Cardinal Avery Dulles writes (p146 of the 2003 edition, which I have read only on Google snippet view):

John Paul II has frequently repeated the term ecclesia domestica without adding the qualifier veluti ("as it were") used by the council.

Dulles' cited examples are Catechesi tradendae 68 (1979), Familiaris consortio 49-52 (1981), and Evangelium vitae 92 (1995). John Paul II's homily Expedit ut laborem (26 Sept 1980) also speaks of the family's place as "ecclesiola" seu ecclesia domestica; and his statement in Familiaris consortio 21 that

The Christian family constitutes a specific revelation and realization of ecclesial communion, and for this reason too it can and should be called "the domestic Church."

can now be found in the Catechism (s. 2204). A footnote in FC refers to Lumen gentium and to Paul VI's Apostolicam actuositatem 11 (1965) - which says that the family fulfils its mission "if it appears as the domestic sanctuary of the Church" (my emphasis; the Latin is tamquam domesticum sanctuarium Ecclesiae se exhibeat).
It's not hard to find bundles of sources for the family being a good thing, and support for its special role in education. But it seems, especially in FC, that John Paul II gives the family a theologically elevated position, as an explicit Church-in-miniature, and that this is a novel development - whereas previous authorities used the phrase more cautiously. Is this actually novel? I would be interested in finding earlier (pre-Council) sources for this theology, or alternatively an explanation of how it differs from prior explanations of the ecclesial role of the family.
(I should say that I don't have a problem with novelty, so this isn't intended to be a criticism! I'm just interested in the history of the idea.)

Please consider this only the start of an answer, I don't know too much about it and the Internet isn't much help.

My wife and I participated in a Marriage Encounter Weekend, part of Worldwide Marriage Encounter (WWME) this weekend and it was mentioned the idea of "Little Churches". In the back of the booklet there was a timeline that gave the progression of events that led to the creation of the WWME community.

It's very beginning is traced back to the conferences given by Spanish Priest, Fr. Gabriel Calvo starting in 1952 as part of the "Marriage teams of Pope Pius XII".

There was a teaching, which for your benefit although it made me sound like a know-it-all doorknob Catholic. I specifically asked one of the facilitators about one of the ideas in the weekend called "Little Churches", where it is specifically mentioned, although not attributed to any pope or council, the idea that the family is a little church.  I asked him if it came from John Paul II, and he said yeah, the Theology of the Body has a lot to do with the ideas WWME incorporates into the presentations (although certainly not explicitly), but the Little Church idea was present in his first encounter, which was 30 years ago.

So, that doesn't particularly help since the time-line puts it at the same time.  But I'd be hard-pressed to assume that particular theological point (as pertinent was it is) would get incorporated into WWME that quickly, which was clearly a product of the 1960's.  I almost think the Pope was more influenced by them than the other way around!

"Velut ecclesia domestica". The responsible is the bishop of Prato (Italy) Pietro Fiordelli (+ dic. 12 2004). About him spoke Enzo Bianchi prior of Bose Monanstery (Italy): "Giovanni Crisostomo diceva ai cristiani: “Fate della vostra casa una chiesa”, e
Agostino parlava di “chiesa domestica”, perché c’è analogia tra chiesa e
famiglia». Ed ha aggiunto: «È stato un mio grande amico, il vescovo di Prato
mons. Pietro Fiordelli, che ha fatto introdurre nella Lumen Gentium
queste parole: “In questa che si potrebbe chiamare chiesa domestica (In
hac velut ecclesia domestica), i genitori devono essere per i loro figli i primi
maestri della fede e assecondare la vocazione propria di ognuno”."
About Pietro Fiordelli see also this link: http://www.ilregno.it/ew/ew_page/news/Sessione%20II%20-%20Servizio%20speciale%208.pdf     at page 87
About "velut chiesa domestica" se the book
Titolo del Libro: Familia christiana velut Ecclesia domestica secondo l'insegnamento del Concilio Vaticano II. Analisi teologica del dato conciliare
Autore :  Colombo Ferdinando A.
Editore: Urbaniana University Press
Collana: Dissertationes urbanianae
Data di Pubblicazione: 1996
Genere: Religione
Pagine: 254
ISBN-10: 8840136096
ISBN-13: 9788840136097


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

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

What is that name?

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

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

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

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

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

Jesus Name, Jehovah is Salvation.

That's the name of Jesus, to point to God the Father at all time. Jehovah is Salvation.

YLT Luk 24:31: "31 and their eyes were opened, and they recognized him, and he became unseen by them."

Always not self but Jehovah, even His is God's Son.

YLT Gen 5:24: "24 And Enoch walketh habitually with God, and he is not, for God hath taken him."

Enoch (which means dedicated), no record of him except walketh habitually with God.  God manifested not self, and God hath taken him.


What did Jesus mean by "not peace but division"? I'm having difficulty understanding the following passage from Luke 12:51-53:

  Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.

My Question:

Should this passage be ignored or deleted?
If not, then what does it mean?

Following Christ in many countries carries a significant price to pay in many places of the world.  In fact, the decision to become a Christian often results in being ostracized from one's family and even worse.

Even within some Christian traditions, the decision to leave the tradition of one's family to join another tradition is met with exclusion from the family.

Jesus told His disciples before His death that the world will, in fact, hate them:

  “If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. 19 If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you. 20 Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A slave is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you; if they kept My word, they will keep yours also. 21 But all these things they will do to you for My name’s sake, because they do not know the One who sent Me.  John 15:18-21

So, there is division and that decision does arise out of one's decision to follow Christ, but the prophecy was that the world would hate Christians--not that Christians would hate the world (the people of the world).

So, no, the passage should not be deleted.  There are millions of Christians who have experienced the hatred of one's own family upon their decision to follow Christ.  These verses predicted that.

First of all, I don't know your meaning of "deletion" of a passage, so I'll try to give you some bits of general information.

Bible is a work of group of people, it's a tradition, not a text "downloaded" straight from God to Earth.

Even when we talk about a work of one person (Gospel of XX, Book of XX), it's really not. For example, what we call "Paul's Epistle to ..." is not actually written by Paul - he only dictated the message to his clerk (there is even evidence of this in Romans 16:22 "I, Tertius, who wrote down this letter, greet you in the Lord", and in other place, he explicitly states he has the urge to write a part of episle himself, because of the circumstances - Galatians 6:11 "See what large letters I use as I write to you with my own hand!"). Naturally, the person who wrote it down could have made a mistake or change something. He was human, humans can fail.

But there is also a possibility someone composed the message and signed it as Paul, in order to give it more weight - this is considered about 2nd Thessalonians, because the style and beliefs expressed concerning the second coming are very different to 1st Thessalonians. Not only could that be done in order to give weight to your word, but generally, signing your work with the name of your master/someone you respect as a teacher was common in ancient times. For example, hardly any manuscripts signed by Socrates really belong to him, same can be said for Pythagoras, Hyppocratus, etc.

But then, even after it's written, you had only one copy of the written text on your hand, but you'd want to spread it, so you had to make duplicates. They didn't have direct ways of copying texts back then like we do now - the printing press was invented way way later into the middle ages, so, people re-wrote texts to make copies! Obviously, when someone re-writing a text saw a mistake (as he thought) or a sticking out fragment, he would sometimes correct it. For example, Mark 1 "41 Jesus was indignant." and "43 Jesus sent him away at once with a strong warning: " - if I recall correctly, in original greek manuscript in one of these verses a verb "to roar like a lion" is used to express Jesus reaction towards the man. Obviously, those rewriting the texts wanted to soothe this passage, because they didn't feel that it fit for Jesus to make such expressions. Eventually, 1:41 turned into a feeling of compassion for the sick man.

Also, some churches or groups of people could have lost parts of the whole text, some could have bundled together texts that they thought were part of one whole, while they weren't (read about 2nd Corinthians, and how it is considered to contain several different missives all in one - for example, here http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/2corinthians.html)

There are certain verses that may likely have been added at a certain point (meaning, they were not part of the original manuscript written by original author in the first go). A big example would be the whole ending of the Gospel by Mark (16:9-20). The last chapter of Gospel by John is also likely an addition (but by John himself) to the originally complete text (it is obvious from the chapter's contents why the addition was made). There are also single verses added here and there, or "Amen" added to the end of several Paul messages that originally wasn't there. And so on.

You have to understand: there is no problem with that, because this isn't "falsification" or "alteration" of the Bible, as those who attack the Word of God would like to believe, when they say "Bible was altered many times and thus it's authenticity is questionable". Nothing essential, nothing "false" was added. And nothing significant was lost. Sure, it would be great to have all the Epistles to Corinth by Paul (which there were at least four, the one before the one we know as 1st, and the one between the ones we know as 1st and 2nd). But we have what we have. And we believe that since God did not make effort to preserve the rest, these are enough for us.

So, yes, to conclude: certain verses (or even whole bunch of verses) in the Bible could (or most likely were) added later down the line. And you could consider "deleting" them (which is done in some modern translations, where those verses are not present - for example, does your translation have verses 44 and 47 of Mark 9?)

Should you do so? Consider the fact I started with. Bible is a tradition, a work of group of people. The fact that you consider New Testament to contain the books it contains, in the form in which they are there - this was not a result of direct Jesus's will, or any of the apostles. It happened naturally, through the work of the Holy Spirit, and was finalised officially only in ~690. You can read about it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon So, if naturally some verses were added, and got accepted by the vast majority of the Christians, why consider them "to be ignored or deleted" just because the original author in the original manuscript didn not have them?

However.

This is definetly not the case when you don't like the verse personally and want it to "not be there". This is basically trying to twist the words of God to fit your needs. People want to remove verses from the Bible every day - like verses about homosexuality, because they want Christianity to be fit to their liking.

I hope I need not explain why this is not a good idea.

Therefore, you are right in your second point - since we obviously cannot ignore and delete anything from the Bible because we don't understand it or don't like it, we should make effort to understand it to the best of our abilities.

On topic of actual meaning of the verse:

1) First of all, it literally means what it means.

Jesus warned people not to be fooled, because his teaching would not bring a way to make everybody live in peace, because that is impossible (because there are people who do not wish to do so, and God does not control the will of men). He warned people that his religion would divide even the most hard bounds - those of the blood - father and son, mother and daughter (which meant way more to the people of his time and in the area where he preached, than it does today to us). As it did (this was one of the reason for prosecution of Christianity by authorities). He obviously didn't want to "bait and switch", so he warns his disciples beforehead, that chosing to go with Him will have very serious consequences they should be aware of BEFORE they make the choice.

If you study the flow of the narrative of the Gospels, you will notice that the closer Jesus is to crucifiction, the more "serious" his preaching becomes. Because he saw that people misunderstood Him. They considered Him to be a miracle worker, a healer, even Messiah (meaning, a person who'll become a king like David, smash the idolaters and conquer the world for Jews). Even his disciples misunderstood Him. He obviously saw that and tried to correct it. Hence such "unpleasant" verses. Hence frequent mention of how disciples did not understand what he said, how he told them to be silent about him being the Messiah, about him curing people, etc.

2) Second, it always helps to read relative places in the Bible. This passage corellates with many others in the Bible. Here's the immediate two:
* Luke 14:26 If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.
* Matthew 10:37 Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
I'm sure there are others too. This will let you feel the overall picture. And also show you why you can't consider one single verse to be out of it's place, can't ignore or delete it - because it isn't out of it's place, it's very well in it's place and it corellates with other things Jesus had to say.

3) How to apply it to your own life?

Well obviously, this verse tells us that following after Christ can get in the way of our family life, our relationships with our relatives, and in that case, following Christ will have to take precedence. We all hope this will not go down to such levels, but sometimes, it will, and in this case, we have been forewarned that we will have to take a side - Jesus or my father/mother/relatives. Notice how there's nothing said about division of wife and husband, by the way.

Finally:

I'd love to cite you good commentaries for the verse (and relevant verses) but I'm russian and all good commentaries I know are in russian too. I guess you can easilly find those for yourself in your language of preference if you google (for such a controversal verses, there must be many available). Read multiple ones and find out what explains the verse better to you. In the end, it's not about finding "true meaning" or "true interpretation" - it's about the Word of God being beneficial to you, influencing your life, helping you become a better person.

There is no "true" and "only" interpretation. There can only be false ones - those that twist the meaning, obviously, and should be disregarded as such (like muslims saying that John 16:13-15 talks about Mohhamed). But from those that are not false, you are free to peruse the ones that you feel resonate with yourself.


Why are most Christians reluctant to identify the Lazarus Jesus raised from the dead with Lazarus in the story of the rich man and Lazarus? I’m doing a talk in a few weeks on the story of ‘the Rich Man and Lazarus’ (Luke 16:19-31), and I find that it fits quite nicely with the account of the raising of Lazarus from the dead in John 11.  In particular:

The name ‘Lazarus’ is used in both accounts without any disambiguation.  Usually when more than one person has the same name, we get a surname or other point of identification.  Eg. Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Judas - not Iscariot etc.  Here it’s just ‘Lazarus’.  Nor is he just a bit player with one or two mentions.  Lazarus is named 4 times in Luke 16, and 11 times in John 11-12.
The story of the Rich Man and Lazarus offers no clue to why Lazarus goes to “Abraham’s bosom” other than that in his lifetime he ‘received bad things’.  Are we to understand that everyone who has a tough life goes to heaven?  If however we grant him being the Lazarus of John 11, then the answer is clear.  Lazarus is identified by his sisters in John 11:3 by “He whom you love is sick”.  So he went to heaven because he loved Jesus and Jesus loved him.
The rich man asks for Lazarus to be sent back to his brothers, and while Abraham is pessimistic about the prospects he doesn’t actually deny the request.  And then we find in John 11 that a man called Lazarus is indeed ‘sent back’.  And in John 12:10-11, Abraham’s assessment is confirmed – Lazarus’ resurrection results in the chief priests seeking to put him to death again because it’s causing people to believe in Jesus.

One thing that is difficult to reconcile is how Lazarus could be a beggar when a) he was buried in a tomb (John 11:38), and b) his sister Mary produced perfume worth a year’s wages to anoint Jesus (John 11:2; 12:5).  However there are three other accounts of this anointing (Matt 26:6-14; Mark 14:3-10; Luke 7:36-50), and in the Luke account the anointer is described as a ‘sinful woman’ (Luke 7:39) – presumably a prostitute.  This puts the family in a quite different light.  Far from being a well-to-do middle-class family, we see something much grittier.  Lazarus is a poor beggar, while his sister Mary makes big money as a prostitute - and apparently doesn’t share with her brother.  Yet Jesus met this family and loved them (John 11:5).
This all follows quite naturally, but I find that most commentary on these stories dismisses the possibility that it could be the same Lazarus.  So perhaps I’ve missed something important in this, or maybe there are implications that are too uncomfortable for us to accept.  Such as:

It upsets our idea of the Mary who sat at Jesus’ feet (Luke 10:38-41).  The usual understanding of her is a pious virtuous woman, listening attentively because it’s the ‘right thing to do’.  This interpretation reveals her as a desperate sinner hearing words of grace from her Saviour.  Of course she should be excused from meal preparation this time - she has crucial business to do.
It upsets our idea of who Jesus should love.  John 11:5 has “Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus.”  It’s a bit disturbing to think of them as a dysfunctional family.  We’d much rather see Jesus loving respectable folk.  But loving the unlovely is quite in character for Jesus, and complaining about it is quite in character for everyone else.  Eg. Matt 11:19; Luke 5:29-30; Luke 15:1-2.

I realise this view is unpopular, but there must be a reason for it.  Have I missed something important, or is this simply prejudice?
EDIT: I know there are strong opinions on this topic, but if you’re going to give an answer, please provide something based on Scripture rather than unsubstantiated assertions and assumptions.

I think taken together the Gospels do make us think about this possibility. God has inspired not just the texts of each Biblical book in isolation, but in relation to each other. Lazarus himself is interesting, being mentioned only in John, despite his resurrection being one of the most stunning of all of Jesus's miracles. But to go so far as to assert that the Lazarus of Jesus's story is the same as the real life Lazarus would I think be dangerous. I think this story should make us think of Jesus's friend Lazarus, but not read him into the story.

First, no one else in the Bible has their afterlife described in such detail. The afterlife is described so generally, and I think this is deliberate, God not wanting us to know enough to be distracted by it. If this is a true story then it gives us a lot of unique information about the afterlife, its seeming "physical" structure, and the role of Abraham in the place of the dead. With no other texts giving anywhere near as much detail, I think this passage would set us up more for unhelpful speculation than right understanding.

Second, it detracts from the real meaning of the story, which is a prophetic condemnation on the Jewish leaders after they refused to believe after Jesus was resurrected. In John the resurrection of Lazarus is given as a catalyst of the chief priests and Pharisees scheming to kill Jesus (John 11:46-53). But in the narrative of Luke, the point is about Jesus. Those in the know, those who've heard other stories, or who've read the Gospel of John, know that there are other resurrections which had similar results. But the main point is focused on Jesus. The chief priests and Pharisees sinned as they schemed after the resurrection of Lazarus, but they were condemned when they refused to believe after Jesus came back to life.

In short, I think this Luke 16:19-31 story reminds us of John 11, but we don't read John into Luke. Instead we read the Luke story with what happens later in the Luke-Acts narrative. Understanding it on its own terms takes precedence over harmonising between the Gospels.

Lack of Evidence
First of all, as others have mentioned, there's simply no evidence at all that they might be the same man aside from sharing a name. There's rather little evidence that the Lazarus of Luke 16 is even a real person in the first place (as opposed to a fictional character in a parable,) let alone that he is the same Lazarus that Jesus raised from the dead.
The context of Luke 16
Jesus had just finished telling several parables in the last few chapters of text preceding Luke 16:19, including earlier in chapter 16. Furthermore, according to verses 14-18, Jesus was addressing the Pharisees, who verse 14 identifies as being "lovers of money." It makes sense then that his response to them would include a parable addressing the dangers of the love of money.
The Rich Man's Statement
The rich man says,

No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.

(Luke 16:30 NKJV)
This would have been a rather nonsensical thing for the rich man to say if it were the same Lazarus, as that would literally have already happened and yet they clearly had not repented.


The first conception or the first coitus? Genesis 4:1 Now the man had relations with his wife Eve, and she
  conceived and gave birth to Cain, and she said, “I have gotten a
  manchild with the help of the Lord."

Why do some theologians (Aquinas for example, quoting Augustine in Summa Theologica 1, Q98, article 2) take this to mean sexual relations for the first time when it is equally plausible for it to refer to:

the first sexual relations that resulted in conception, or
the first sexual relations that resulted in conception and birth of
a male child

Did Adam and Eve have sex with each other in the Garden of Eden?

Sure, it is possible, since the Scriptures do not say clearly one way or another. According to tradition, these theologians do not think so. If Adam and Eve did have intimacy of a sexual nature before the fall, there would have been, to what degree I do not know, a chance the Eve could have conceived a child and that child would have been born without original sin! This fact alone must be weighed in on the minds of all the Church Fathers in this issue.

From reading Scriptures alone it is impossible to say one way or another.

  The Bible does not say whether or not Adam and Eve had sexual relations in the Garden of Eden. Therefore, we cannot say they did or did not.  Still, let's take a look at the issue a little more deeply.

    "Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth. 27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth," (Genesis 1:26-25).

  God commanded them to multiply and fill the earth.  But, we do not know if they had begun to fulfill that command by having relations in the Garden. Furthermore, we do not know how long they were in the Garden before they fell.

  In Genesis 2 there is a more detailed account of the creation order that Genesis 1:26-25 goes over.

  Man is formed.  "Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being," (Genesis 2:7).
  Not good for man to be alone. "Then the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him," (Genesis 2:18).
  God made Eve. "So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place, 22 the LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man." (Genesis 2:21-22).

  So, there is no way to know for sure whether or not Adam and Eve actually had sexual relations before they were expelled from the Garden of Eden. - Did Adam and Eve have sex with each other in the Garden of Eden?

Thus we a forced to take a look at one more sacred text before moving on.

When God put Adam and Eve out of the Garden, He told Eve the following:

  I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. - Genesis 3:16

This last text tends to imply that both Adam and Eve did not have sexual relations while in the Garden, for now they knew that such relationship could result in a painful delivery of a child for all women. God had foreseen this moment to reveal this punishment for sinning in the Garden.

Again tradition holds that both Adam and Eve were virgins in the Garden. St. Justin Martyr, writing about 155 A.D. in his work 100 Dialogue with Trypho, and St. Irenaeus, writing about 189 A.D. in his work 3, 22 Against Heresies, both say Eve was still a virgin at the time she and Adam committed the first sin.

Sterility is a defect.This is evident from the many barren matriarchs of the Old  (e.g., Rebecca, Sarah, et al.) and New (e.g., Elizabeth) Testaments. Coitus not resulting in conception is analogous to a seed not growing into a plant; it's against what nature intends.Answering the objection that although "the punishment of our first parents' sin is transmitted to all" (Gen. 3:16 for women, Gen. 3:17 for men), yet "all 'women's conceptions' are not 'multiplied'" ("nor does 'every man eat bread in the sweat of his face.'"), St. Thomas Aquinas writes (Summa Theologica II-II q. 164 a. 2 ad 3): "if a woman neither conceives nor bears, she suffers from the defect of barrenness, which outweighs the aforesaid punishments."
Before sin there were no defects in human nature.In fact, "sensible delight [in the marital act would] have been the greater in proportion to the greater purity of nature and the greater sensibility of the body" (St. Thomas, Summa Theologica I q. 98 a. 2 ad 3).
∴, before the Fall every act of coitus would have resulted in conception.

So, your points #1 and #2 are both true regarding Genesis 4:1, unless Original Sin produced periodic sterility in Eve or Cain was not the first male child of Eve.