Why aren't the Apostles called the Church Fathers? If the traditional “Church Fathers' are from about 160-380 AD, why are they called the Church Fathers?
The Church was started by Jesus and ministered by the apostles from the very beginning - teaching, baptising and sorting out problems and misunderstandings which are written about throughout the NT.
Why aren't the Apostles called the Church Fathers?
Who decided which figures would be “Church Fathers”, ignoring the Apostles unquestioned esteem, experience and de facto appointment for that title and role?

Why aren't the Apostles called the Church Fathers?
The term Church Fathers was coined by unknown Christian authors to refer to ancient and influential Christian theologians and writers of the Patristic Era who established the intellectual and doctrinal foundations of Christianity.
The Church founded by Jesus Church is now some 2000 years. Churchmen have found it logical to divide this 2000 years in various ways in order to be able to understand various historical times of Church history.
For example, St. Augustine divided the world into six ages.

The Six Ages of the World Latin: (sex aetates mundi), also rarely Seven Ages of the World (Latin: septem aetates mundi), is a Christian historical periodization first written about by Augustine of Hippo circa AD 400.
It is based upon Christian religious events, from the creation of Adam to the events of Revelation. The six ages of history, with each age (Latin: aetas) lasting approximately 1,000 years, were widely believed and in use throughout the Middle Ages, and until the Enlightenment, the writing of history was mostly the filling out of all or some part of this outline.
The outline accounts for Seven Ages, just as there are seven days of the week, with the Seventh Age being eternal rest after the Final Judgement and End Times, just as the seventh day of the week is reserved for rest. It was normally called the Six Ages of the World because in Augustine's schema they were the ages of the world, of history, while the Seventh Age was not of this world but, as Bede later elaborated, ran parallel to the six ages of the world. Augustine's presentation deliberately counters chiliastic and millennial ideas that the Seventh Age, World to Come, would come after the sixth.
Six Ages
The Six Ages, as formulated by Augustine of Hippo, are defined in De catechizandis rudibus (On the catechizing of the uninstructed), Chapter 22:
The First Age "is from the beginning of the human race, that is, from Adam, who was the first man that was made, down to Noah, who constructed the ark at the time of the flood", i.e. the Antediluvian period.
The Second Age "extends from that period on to Abraham, who was called the father indeed of all nations".
The Third Age "extends from Abraham on to David the king".
The Fourth Age is "from David on to that captivity whereby the people of God passed over into Babylonia".
The Fifth Age is "from that transmigration down to the advent of our Lord Jesus Christ"
The Sixth Age: "With His [Jesus Christ's] coming the sixth age has entered on its process."
The Ages reflect the seven days of creation, of which the last day is the rest of Sabbath, illustrating the human journey to find eternal rest with God, a common Christian belief.

In a similar manner ecclesiastical history is divided up into different ages.
Early Christianity is generally reckoned by church historians to begin with the ministry of Jesus (c. 27–30) and end with the First Council of Nicaea (325). It is typically divided into two periods: the Apostolic Age (c. 30–100, when the first apostles were still alive) and the Ante-Nicene Period (c. 100–325).

Apostolic Age
The Apostolic Age is named after the Apostles and their missionary activities. It holds special significance in Christian tradition as the age of the direct apostles of Jesus. A primary source for the Apostolic Age is the Acts of the Apostles, but its historical accuracy is questionable and its coverage is partial, focusing especially from Acts 15:36 onwards on the ministry of Paul, and ending around 62 AD with Paul preaching in Rome under house arrest.
The earliest followers of Jesus were apocalyptic Jewish Christians. The early Christian groups were strictly Jewish, such as the Ebionites and the early Christian community in Jerusalem, led by James, the brother of Jesus. According to Acts 9:1–2, they described themselves as "disciples of the Lord" and [followers] "of the Way", and according to Acts 11:26 a settled community of disciples at Antioch were the first to be called "Christians". Some of the early Christian communities attracted gentile God-fearers, who already visited Jewish synagogues. The inclusion of gentiles posed a problem, as they could not fully observe the Halakha. Saul of Tarsus, commonly known as Paul the Apostle, persecuted the early Jewish Christians, then converted and started his mission among the gentiles. The main concern of Paul's letters is the inclusion of gentiles into God's New Covenant, deeming faith in Christ sufficient for righteousness. Because of this inclusion of gentiles, early Christianity changed its character and gradually grew apart from Judaism and Jewish Christianity during the first two centuries of the Christian Era.

The ante-Nicene period was the period following the Apostolic Age down to the First Council of Nicaea in 325. It saw the period now known as the Apostolic Fathers which in time was followed by the traditional known age of the Church Fathers.

The Apostolic Fathers
Christian writers of the first and second centuries who are known, or are considered, to have had personal relations with some of the Apostles, or to have been so influenced by them that their writings may be held as echoes of genuine Apostolic teaching. Though restricted by some to those who were actually disciples of the Apostles, the term applies by extension to certain writers who were previously believed to have been such, and virtually embraces all the remains of primitive Christian literature antedating the great apologies of the second century, and forming the link of tradition that binds these latter writings to those of the New Testament.
The name was apparently unknown in Christian literature before the end of the seventeenth century. The term Apostolic, however, was commonly used to qualify Churches, persons, writings, etc. from the early second century, when St. Ignatius, in the exordium of his Epistle to the Trallians, saluted their Church "after the Apostolic manner." In 1672 Jean Baptiste Cotelier (Cotelerius) published his "SS. Patrum qui temporibus apostolicis floruerunt opera", which title was abbreviated to "Bibliotheca Patrum Apostolicorum" by L. J. Ittig in his edition (Leipzig, 1699) of the same writings. Since then the term has been universally used.

The Church Fathers were ancient and influential Christian theologians and writers who established the intellectual and doctrinal foundations of Christianity. The historical period of the Patristic Era spans approximately the late 1st to mid 8th centuries.

Fathers of the Church
The word Father is used in the New Testament to mean a teacher of spiritual things, by whose means the soul of man is born again into the likeness of Christ: "For if you have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet not many fathers. For in Christ Jesus, by the Gospel, I have begotten you. Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ" (1 Corinthians 4:15, 16; cf. Galatians 4:19). The first teachers of Christianity seem to be collectively spoken of as "the Fathers" (2 Peter 3:4).
Thus St. Irenæus defines that a teacher is a father, and a disciple is a son (iv, 41,2), and so says Clement of Alexandria (Stromata I.1.1). A bishop is emphatically a "father in Christ", both because it was he, in early times, who baptized all his flock, and because he is the chief teacher of his church. But he is also regarded by the early Fathers, such as Hegesippus, Irenaeus, and Tertullian as the recipient of the tradition of his predecessors in the see, and consequently as the witness and representative of the faith of his Church before Catholicity and the world. Hence the expression "the Fathers" comes naturally to be applied to the holy bishops of a preceding age, whether of the last generation or further back, since they are the parents at whose knee the Church of today was taught her belief. It is also applicable in an eminent way to bishops sitting in council, "the Fathers of Nicaea", "the Fathers of Trent". Thus Fathers have learnt from Fathers, and in the last resort from the Apostles, who are sometimes called Fathers in this sense: "They are your Fathers", says St. Leo, of the Princes of the Apostles, speaking to the Romans; St. Hilary of Arles calls them sancti patres; Clement of Alexandria says that his teachers, from Greece, Ionia, Coele-Syria, Egypt, the Orient, Assyria, Palestine, respectively, had handed on to him the tradition of blessed teaching from Peter, and James, and John, and Paul, receiving it "as son from father".
It follows that, as our own Fathers are the predecessors who have taught us, so the Fathers of the whole Church are especially the earlier teachers, who instructed her in the teaching of the Apostles, during her infancy and first growth. It is difficult to define the first age of the Church, or the age of the Fathers. It is a common habit to stop the study of the early Church at the Council of Chalcedon in 451. "The Fathers" must undoubtedly include, in the West, St. Gregory the Great (d. 604), and in the East, St. John Damascene (d. about 754). It is frequently said that St. Bernard (d. 1153) was the last of the Fathers, and Migne's "Patrologia Latina" extends to Innocent III, halting only on the verge of the thirteenth century, while his "Patrologia Graeca" goes as far as the Council of Florence (1438-9). These limits are evidently too wide, It will be best to consider that the great merit of St. Bernard as a writer lies in his resemblance in style and matter to the greatest among the Fathers, in spite of the difference of period. St. Isidore of Seville (d. 636) and the Venerable Bede (d. 735) are to be classed among the Fathers, but they may be said to have been born out of due time, as St. Theodore the Studite was in the East.
Classification of patristic writings
In order to get a good view of the patristic period, the Fathers may be divided in various ways. One favourite method is by periods; the Ante-Nicene Fathers till 325; the Great Fathers of the fourth century and half the fifth (325-451); and the later Fathers. A more obvious division is into Easterns and Westerns, and the Easterns will comprise writers in Greek, Syriac, Armenian, and Coptic. A convenient division into smaller groups will be by periods, nationalities and character of writings; for in the East and West there were many races, and some of the ecclesiastical writers are apologists, some preachers, some historians, some commentators, and so forth.
A. After (1) the Apostolic Fathers come in the second century (2) the Greek apologists, followed by (3) the Western apologists somewhat later, (4) the Gnostic and Marcionite heretics with their apocryphal Scriptures, and (5) the Catholic replies to them.
B. The third century gives us (1) the Alexandrian writers of the catechetical school, (2) the writers of Asia Minor and (3) Palestine, and the first Western writers, (4) at Rome, Hippolytus (in Greek), and Novatian, (5) the great African writers, and a few others.
C. The fourth century opens with (1) the apologetic and the historical works of Eusebius of Caesarea, with whom we may class St. Cyril of Jerusalem and St. Epiphanius, (2) the Alexandrian writers Athanasius, Didymus, and others, (3) the Cappadocians, (4) the Antiochenes, (5) the Syriac writers. In the West we have (6) the opponents of Arianism, (7) the Italians, including Jerome, (8) the Africans, and (9) the Spanish and Gallic writers.
D. The fifth century gives us (1) the Nestorian controversy, (2) the Eutychian controversy, including the Western St. Leo; (3) the historians. In the West (4) the school of Lérins, (5) the letters of the popes.
E. The sixth century and the seventh give us less important names and they must be grouped in a more mechanical way.

Wikipedia explains the Church Fathers as follows:

The Church Fathers, Early Church Fathers, Christian Fathers, or Fathers of the Church were ancient and influential Christian theologians and writers who established the intellectual and doctrinal foundations of Christianity. The historical period of the Patristic Era spans approximately the late 1st to mid 8th centuries, with a flourishing during the 4th and 5th centuries, when Christianity was in the process of establishing itself as the state church of the Roman Empire.
In traditional dogmatic theology, authors considered Church Fathers are treated as authoritative, and a somewhat restrictive definition is used. The academic field of patristics, the study of the Church Fathers, has extended the scope of the term, and there is no definitive list.
Great Fathers
In the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church traditions there are four Fathers each who are called the "Great Church Fathers". In the Catholic Church, they are collectively called the "Eight Doctors of the Church",
Western Church
Ambrose (A.D. 340–397)
Jerome (347–420)
Augustine of Hippo (354–430)
Pope Gregory I (540–604)
Eastern Church
Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296 or 298 – 373)
Gregory of Nazianzus (329 – c. 390)
Basil of Caesarea (c. 330 – 379)
John Chrysostom (347–407)
In the Eastern Orthodox Church, three of them (Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus and John Chrysostom) are honored as the "Three Holy Hierarchs".
Apostolic Fathers
The Apostolic Fathers were Christian theologians who lived in the 1st and 2nd centuries AD, who are believed to have personally known some of the Twelve Apostles, or to have been significantly influenced by them. Their writings, though popular in Early Christianity, were ultimately not included in the canon of the New Testament once it reached its final form. Many of the writings derive from the same time period and geographical location as other works of early Christian literature that did come to be part of the New Testament, and some of the writings found among the Apostolic Fathers' seem to have been just as highly regarded as some of the writings that became the New Testament. The first three, Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp, are considered the chief ones.
Patristics
The study of the Church Fathers is known as patristics.
Works of fathers in early Christianity, prior to Nicene Christianity, were translated into English in a 19th-century collection Ante-Nicene Fathers. Those of the First Council of Nicaea and continuing through the Second Council of Nicea (787) are collected in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers.

Why aren't the Apostles called the Church Fathers?
The apostles are not referred to as the church fathers because they are not representative of the Roman Catholic church teachings. Thus the men accredited as developing the guiding dogma are called the church fathers (as noted in Ken's answer) and responsible for the doctrines held largely indisputable, though also largely unexplainable, today by most of Christianity.
The apostles were taught by Christ and the direct inspiration of God and Jesus ascended and exalted by the spirit they both dispensed.
They understood Jesus to be the son of God, a human who had the form and nature of God, but who certainly was not God. If they thought Jesus was God, they would have expressed this very distinctly in the extensive NT writings - at least once, but certainly a lot more as it would have been earth shaking information previously unheard of or taught by anyone previously.
Not that they wrote from their own ideas, they were inspired of God to write what He wanted to be passed down to successive generations of followers of His son the Christ - hence the name Christians. 2 Timothy 3:16-17
The so-called 'church fathers' who spoke of and formulated a triune God concept which lacks credible correlation with simple and explicit biblical revelation, are the ones denoted the founders for the (widely accepted) theology we have today.
The apostles never spoke of, were taught, or did teach, a trinity, but that clearly is of lesser importance than the denoted church father's offerings which took centuries to finalise.
The church fathers are responsible for making doctrine of - (among other things)

Jesus, a God the Son - as opposed to the son of God
the Holy Spirit, a 'person' - the third of the trinity
Jesus, the Father, and the HS, as eternally existing co-equals

These items have been mandated to be essential to salvation - even though the bible never mentions any of these. The bible in fact refutes such claims abundantly and consistently. The spirit is never presented as a person, and Jesus is clearly a man only and provides numerous reasons via several writers that reject him being God.
It is well documented that there were councils brought together to discuss and find a way forward for church teaching that was to be broadly recognised and accepted, and to deal with various (alleged) heretical ideas floating about.
These were not convivial or equally represented discussions. Rather the majority ruling in favour of new teachings foreign to biblical truth, and cast opponents aside with threats, excommunication and fiery death.
Indeed, the victors are those who write history - until the ruse is discovered. Sadly, by then, hardly anyone cares.
To maintain control over the church, the bible was not allowed to be read by lay members for over 1000 years.

Original texts of scripture in particular, would expose her (Catholic Church) false doctrines and policies, all of which had been twisted around Greco-Roman philosophy, and pagan traditions. She was accustomed to pontificating what people should believe, and dictating how they should practice their Christian faith. To allow common people to read the Bible for themselves would threaten this authority. There were too many people, without proper training, that felt the Bible was the ultimate authority on spiritual matters and doctrine, rather than the hired churchmen who had grown comfortable lording it over the flock. Excerpt from, https://www.ecumenicalexaminer.com/bible_suppression.html

This vigorous grip on believers limited access to the bible extended until,

while an English language version of the Bible was gradually allowed to come into use, the Roman Catholic church would continue to conduct ceremonies, rituals, prayers, and the mass, in Latin. This practice would continue until the Vatican II council (1962 to 1968)

While there may well have been the best intentions for the careful and loyal devotion to the scriptures - as they understood, the resultant creeds are now readily seen by some to be quite in error and do not faithfully represent God's inspired word and intended meaning.
There was no need for a trinity doctrine - the bible neither offered nor provoked one. It was born out of, at best, an incomplete and/or biased grasp of scripture and a desire to head off various divergent theologies. And at worst, a drive to exert control over early church growth for advantage and influence - both religious and political. This is now readily observed by more recent works that show the way the scripture has been corrupted to favour the triune theology. Work by Bart Ehrman - the Orthodox Corruption of Scripture.
The so-called 'church fathers' then do not represent the teachings of the original apostles including Paul, and have expressly initiated a different teaching sponsored by the Roman church which has at its heart a triune dogma that they insist is essential for salvation.
Alternatively, the salvation promised by God through His son, via the scriptures, that never mention or hint at a trinity in its entire provision.
Conclusion
The apostles are not referred to as the rightful church fathers because they do not teach the trinity centric dogma the Roman Church decided was the core of truth. They taught of the man Jesus, who was not God, but the son thereof and that there was only one solitary God also known in the OT as Yahweh.
The Holy Spirit was simply the presence and power of God and is not, either with Jesus, part of a triune Godhead comprising 3 unique and individual entities sharing one substance as one God.


What did Jesus say about the end times? Between the fighting in Israel, blood moons, and the Harbinger, there has been a lot of chatter about the end times on my radar lately. Natural disasters are, too, discussed as omens of the end. I have tried not to bother too much with it, but I'm curious.

What did Jesus have to say about the end times? Did He give specifics, or discuss it in parables? I do recall Him saying that no one (Himself included) knows when it will be... But does He give any indication as to what will happen?

Jesus' most clear statements on the end times are in Matthew 24.  You can see for yourself what He said.

I don't see anything about "blood moons" here, but this passage is far from the only passage in Scripture that addresses the end times.  A full answer addressing eschatology would be far* too large to this site.  Many books have been written on the subject, so I'm sticking to Jesus' words, as asked.

  1 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples
  came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.

  2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say
  unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that
  shall not be thrown down.

  3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him
  privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall
  be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

  4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive
  you.

  5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall
  deceive many.

  6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not
  troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not
  yet.

  7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom:
  and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in
  divers places.

  8 All these are the beginning of sorrows.

  9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you:
  and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.

  10 And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and
  shall hate one another.

  11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.

  12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.

  13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

  14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world
  for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

  15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken
  of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let
  him understand:)

  16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

  17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing
  out of his house:

  18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his
  clothes.

  19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck
  in those days!

  20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the
  sabbath day:

  21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the
  beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

  22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be
  saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

  23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there;
  believe it not.

  24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall
  shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they
  shall deceive the very elect.

  25 Behold, I have told you before.

  26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert;
  go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.

  27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto
  the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

  28 For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered
  together.

  29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be
  darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall
  fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

  30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and
  then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the
  Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

  31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and
  they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end
  of heaven to the other.

  32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender,
  and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:

  33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is
  near, even at the doors.

  34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all
  these things be fulfilled.

  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 Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son
  of man be.

  38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and
  drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe
  entered into the ark,

  39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall
  also the coming of the Son of man be.

  40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the
  other left.

  41 Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken,
  and the other left.

  42 Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.

  43 But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what
  watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have
  suffered his house to be broken up.

  44 Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the
  Son of man cometh.

  45 Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made
  ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season?

  46 Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so
  doing.

  47 Verily I say unto you, That he shall make him ruler over all his
  goods.

  48 But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord
  delayeth his coming;

  49 And shall begin to smite his fellowservants, and to eat and drink
  with the drunken;

  50 The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not
  for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of,

  51 And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the
  hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

  King James Version (KJV)

Also, from Luke 21: (This time NIV)

  5 Some of his disciples were remarking about how the temple was adorned
  with beautiful stones and with gifts dedicated to God. But Jesus said,
  6 “As for what you see here, the time will come when not one stone will
  be left on another; every one of them will be thrown down.”

  7 “Teacher,” they asked, “when will these things happen? And what will
  be the sign that they are about to take place?”

  8 He replied: “Watch out that you are not deceived. For many will come
  in my name, claiming, ‘I am he,’ and, ‘The time is near.’ Do not
  follow them. 9 When you hear of wars and uprisings, do not be
  frightened. These things must happen first, but the end will not come
  right away.”

  10 Then he said to them: “Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom
  against kingdom. 11 There will be great earthquakes, famines and
  pestilences in various places, and fearful events and great signs from
  heaven.

  12 “But before all this, they will seize you and persecute you. They
  will hand you over to synagogues and put you in prison, and you will
  be brought before kings and governors, and all on account of my name.
  13 And so you will bear testimony to me. 14 But make up your mind not to
  worry beforehand how you will defend yourselves. 15 For I will give you
  words and wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to resist
  or contradict. 16 You will be betrayed even by parents, brothers and
  sisters, relatives and friends, and they will put some of you to
  death. 17 Everyone will hate you because of me. 18 But not a hair of
  your head will perish. 19 Stand firm, and you will win life.

  20 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know
  that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to
  the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the
  country not enter the city. 22 For this is the time of punishment in
  fulfillment of all that has been written. 23 How dreadful it will be in
  those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great
  distress in the land and wrath against this people. 24 They will fall
  by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations.
  Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the
  Gentiles are fulfilled.

  25 “There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars. On the earth,
  nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing
  of the sea. 26 People will faint from terror, apprehensive of what is
  coming on the world, for the heavenly bodies will be shaken. 27 At that
  time they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and
  great glory. 28 When these things begin to take place, stand up and
  lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near.”

  29 He told them this parable: “Look at the fig tree and all the trees.
  30 When they sprout leaves, you can see for yourselves and know that
  summer is near. 31 Even so, when you see these things happening, you
  know that the kingdom of God is near.

  32 “Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away
  until all these things have happened. 33 Heaven and earth will pass
  away, but my words will never pass away.

  34 “Be careful, or your hearts will be weighed down with carousing,
  drunkenness and the anxieties of life, and that day will close on you
  suddenly like a trap. 35 For it will come on all those who live on the
  face of the whole earth. 36 Be always on the watch, and pray that you
  may be able to escape all that is about to happen, and that you may be
  able to stand before the Son of Man.”

  37 Each day Jesus was teaching at the temple, and each evening he went
  out to spend the night on the hill called the Mount of Olives, 38and
  all the people came early in the morning to hear him at the temple.

1)  Humanity would be well on its way to destroying itself.

  "And unless those days had been shortened, no flesh should be saved:
  but for the sake of the elect those days shall be shortened."  Matt 24:22

2) There will be very few people possessing the true faith at the end of the world

  I say to you, that he will quickly revenge them. But yet the Son of
  man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?

3) People will be as wicked at the end as they were right before the Flood

  And as it came to pass in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the
  days of the Son of man Luke 17:26


Ezekiel Temple and Prophecy The temple detailed in prophecy by Ezekiel chapters 40-48 is very specific in detail. Does anybody have any theological evidence or would like to apply a reasoned assertion that it may ever be fulfilled in the Physical Form detailed?

Throughout the Book of Ezekiel, the theme often changes dramatically from chapter to chapter, returning in a later chapter to a previous theme, with some of the symbolism being obscure and some of it extremely offensive to modern readers. However, the earlier chapters are essentially a condemnation of Israel and Judah for worshipping other gods. Then, Ezekiel gradually changes to themes of hope and comfort. The Book of Ezekiel is notable for the careful way in which the author regularly tells us the exact date on which he receives his visions. Thus we know that Ezekiel is prophesying after the destruction of Jerusalem and the first temple.

Chapter 37 is notable for the promise that Israel (Ephraim) and Judah will soon be reunited as one nation upon the land, and never again divided into two kingdoms. David (his descendants) shall be their king (37:24-25). The Jews could hold onto these prophecies in their long period of exile, even if they never came true after the Return from the Exile.

Chapter 38 tells of an apocalyptic invasion of the now united and prosperous land of Israel by the legendary Gog of Magog. When Gog invades Israel, the fury of God shall be aroused against him (38:18). Yet this invasion from the north will be instigated by God himself, so that all the nations will know him (38:14-16). Having led the armies of Gog against Israel, God will then ensure their total defeat, such that it will take all the people of the land seven months to bury their carcasses (39:11-12). This is another prophecy that never came true, but it was probably the kind of heroic epic the Jewish exiles wanted to hear.

The book ends, in chapters 40-48 with the promise of a new Israel, a new Jerusalem and a new temple.  Measurements are carefully taken so that the new temple will be on the same grand scale as the old one. Chapter 43:7:

  "The voice said to me: Son of man, this is where my throne shall be,
  this is where I will set the soles of my feet; here I will dwell among
  the Israelites forever. Never again shall they and their kings profane
  my holy name with their harlotries and with their high places."

Ezekiel's temple was built, just as he prophesied, although perhaps not to his exact plan.


Are there any verses showing God being fooled or deceived? Are there any passages in the bible (old or new) that display god as getting tricked by somebody? For example in the Garden of Eden God didn't know (or seemed to not know) about the apple being eaten until he was told. Could they have lied? Are there any examples of something like this happening?

In standard Christian theology, God is described as omniscient, or all-knowing (by major theologians such as St Aquinas).  This is incompatible with being deceived.  Accordingly we would not interpret any passage in the Bible as implying God was deceived, unless we wished to discard this core belief.

Yes, else the following would make no sense:

Genesis 3:8 NIV

  They heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool
  of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence
  of the LORD God among the trees of the garden.

Genesis 32:27

  So He said to him, “What is your name?”

1 Kings 19:9

  And there he went into a cave, and spent the night in that place; and
  behold, the word of the Lord came to him, and He said to him, “What
  are you doing here, Elijah?”

Mark 5:30

  And Jesus, immediately knowing in Himself that power had gone out of
  Him, turned around in the crowd and said, “Who touched My clothes?”

If God knew the answers, he wouldn't have asked.  Therefore, he could have been given the incorrect answer.  Alternatively, God continues to test people by asking questions that he already knows the answer to - which doesn't really fit.  He would be the master of the art of rhetorical questions.


Is the USA mentioned in the Bible? I've dug up at least one reference that may be a candidate.

Jeremiah 6:21-23

  Therefore thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will lay stumblingblocks before this people, and the fathers and the sons together shall fall upon them; the neighbour and his friend shall perish. Thus saith the Lord, Behold, a people cometh from the north country, and a great nation shall be raised from the sides of the earth. They shall lay hold on bow and spear; they are cruel, and have no mercy; their voice roareth like the sea; and they ride upon horses, set in array as men for war against thee, O daughter of Zion.

I've heard some say this verse is talking about the nation of Russia rising against Israel, and that the 'great nation' that is 'raised from the sides of the earth' is a allusion to the United States.

Are there any other verses that people have cited as evidence the USA is mentioned in the Bible?
Is there anyone (denominations/prominent individuals) who believes that the USA is mentioned in the Bible?
What are the arguments for or against this reference (or any other)?

The passage is most likely referring to the nation of Babylon.

Per ESV Study Bible Note:

  Jer. 6:22–23 great nation. Babylon. the farthest parts of the earth. Babylon’s army had outposts all over the ancient world. This army has no mercy; its horses are so numerous that their thundering hoofs sound like the roaring sea (4:13, 29).

The Book of Daniel 7:4 kjv.

4 The first was like a lion, and had eagle's wings: I beheld till the wings thereof were plucked, and it was lifted up from the earth, and made stand upon the feet as a man, and a man's heart was given to it.

Now Great Britain can be represented by The Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom.On it there's a lion on one side with a horse on the opposite side.

There are 2 images that go hand in hand with America. The Bald American Eagle, and Uncle Sam.

So What Daniel describe was like a lion (G.R) with eagle wings (America) which Daniel held and plucked its wings. Daniel prophesied that America was going to separate from Great Britain Causing the American Revolution.
Daniel also said that lifted up from the earth and made to stand upon the feet as a man (Uncle Sam), and a mans heart was given to it.

It can be read as a reference about America's day of Independence by referring to which Book, chapter and verse it just happens to be.
The Book of Daniel who is a prophet, Chapter 7 with July being the 7th month of the year, and the 4th verse matching the 4th day of the month.


Should Genesis 1:2 be translated "And the earth became without form..."? The Gap theory seems to be based largely on translating Genesis 1:2 differently from the usual translations, eg. KJV:

  1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

  1:2 And the earth was became without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Is this a sound translation? Why is was the more usual one?

The Hebrew verb "was" is in the Qal (indicative) perfect tense.   "Became" is a fanciful translation.  There's nothing wrong with fanciful translations and midrasch.  But it's probably best to avoid basing tonnage of doctrine on midrasch or fancy.

There is an ambiguity in Hebrew about past or future actions, but that crops up when the IMperfect tense is used, not the perfect.

Because the earth is no longer without form. When this was written, the earth was no longer without form.

The earth has form, as a testimony and to the Glory of God.


Do I have to disclose my private life to a stranger? Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another,
  that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great
  power as it is working. (James 5:16, ESV)

If I did something sinful between myself and God, like watching pornography, smoking, getting drunk, having sinful thoughts, involving in some sinful activities etc. and I want to stop doing it, do I have to confess my weakness to others and bring shame to myself? It would be fine if the audience are my good friends but if there are new people in the church, I don't think it is appropriate to share my personal life to a stranger. I think personal problems should be shared with the pastor and ask him to pray for us, encourage us and strengthen us.

Do I have to share my shameful private life and humiliate myself in front of everyone?
Does this verse imply only to confessing and asking forgiveness to the person that we hurt and sin against?

I would prefer answers from Evangelical or Pentecostal.

Jesus also said:

  “Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. (Matthew 10:16)

and

  Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces. (Matthew 7:6)

Wisdom would suggest that one choose one's counselors wisely.  This would not mean a stranger.

Confessing your sin is also done privately, per Matthew 18:15

  “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.

Although I am not Pentecostal or Evangelical I will give you what advice I find in the Bible, and will not burden you with any of my opinions.

  1st John 1:9  KJV If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

As far as who to confess to these may be some qualifications you might use to select:

  Matthew 7:1  KJV  Judge not, that ye be not judged.

  Matthew 7:2  KJV  For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

From these Scriptures you might decide just how much public confession you make.

  Matthew 10:32  KJV  Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.

  Luke 12:8  Also I say unto you, Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God:

I have found no other commandment for public confession after Jesus death and resurrection, but there are several Scriptures affirming that we should confess our sins to God.

I will break my promise and add just one opinion:

The only forgiveness which matters is God's.

For those who are down voting What I am saying with the quotes Matthew 10:32 and Luke 12:8 is the only public confession is that Jesus is LORD, and not that it means we are to publicly proclaim our sins!!!!!!


Does Satan actually laugh? I've watched a lot of horror movies and I can't help noticing Satan or any demons are often portrayed 'diabolically' laughing somewhere in the movie. But then, Satan is supposed to be our prosecutor* at the Last Judgement and a professional prosecutor would NOT laugh for other reasons. So, my question is - are there any facts in the Book or elsewhere confirming that Satan indeed laughs?

* I got the idea that Satan will be our prosecutor from the Book of Revelation but please also explain that imagery if my interpretation is wrong.

"Laughter" has two completely different manifestations: it can be joyous or a cynical sneer.

Joyous laughter: not possible for Satan since Joy is a fruit of The Holy Spirit.

Sneering: not recorded in the Bible from Satan, but certainly used by his followers, see both in the Old Testament (Isaiah 57:3-5) and New when the Pharisees sneered at Jesus, both regarding His attitude to money and His failure (in their perception) to save Himself.

Personal note: I'm pretty sure I can hear the sneering when I read Biblical accounts of Satan, e.g. in his first appearance.

Yes he and his angels often laugh at humans because we are gullible and often stupid and naive. Check out www.staciespielman.com and read her free e-book if you like - she was a new age healer with "spirit guides" who later revealed themselves to be demons who had had been laughing at her for years because she believed the lies they told her!

Satan laughs but it is not a good kind of laugh. He hates us, he hates all humans because we can have eternal life. He and the demons -- ALL DEMONS, EVEN TOTORO -- hate us and they are always looking for ways to hurt us (steal, kill and destroy).


According to Catholic Tradition, what is Jesus doing right now? According to Catholic Tradition, what is Jesus doing right now?

Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit is among us on Earth.
Catholics believe that God the Father listens to our prayers and intervenes in human affairs from time to time.

But what is Jesus doing?

The most relevant sections of the Catechism of the Catholic Church seem to be 662 and 664.  The first focuses on Christ's priestly ministry:

  Jesus Christ, the one priest of the new and eternal Covenant, "entered, not into a sanctuary made by human hands. . . but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf." There Christ permanently exercises his priesthood, for he "always lives to make intercession" for "those who draw near to God through him". As "high priest of the good things to come" he is the centre and the principal actor of the liturgy that honours the Father in heaven.

Through the prayer of his people, Jesus is in communion with his body, and acts as their priest, hearing their prayers and interceding on their behalf. (cf. CCC 2565)

Section 664 deals with Christ's rule over his kingdom:

  Being seated at the Father's right hand signifies the inauguration of the Messiah's kingdom, the fulfilment of the prophet Daniel's vision concerning the Son of man: "To him was given dominion and glory and kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed." After this event the apostles became witnesses of the "kingdom [that] will have no end".

Thus, according to the catechism, the two primary activities of Christ during his session are a) intercession as our high priest and b) ruling over his kingdom.

The Nicene Creed (a summary of Catholic beliefs written at the Council of Nicea and recited at most celebrations of mass) states that Jesus has ascended into heaven, where he sits "at the right hand of the Father" and waiting "to come again in glory to judge the living and the dead".

In short, nothing.


Since God provided for the forgiveness of sins in the Old Testament, why do we need Jesus? I thought of this when I was researching this question.

Leviticus 4 goes into great detail about the sacrifice that must be made in order for a sin to be forgiven.  However, we see here that God actually provided a way for these sins to be forgiven.

Specifically, Leviticus 16 shows that this sacrifice and the Day of Atonement did provide forgiveness of sins:

  Leviticus 16:30 (NIV)Emphasis added
  because on this day atonement will be made for you, to cleanse you. Then, before the LORD, you will be clean from all your sins.

Now, Jews no longer provide sacrifices for the forgiveness of sins, however God has still provided a way for these sins to be forgiven. (See Why don't Jews sacrifice animals anymore? for more information.)

So, if God has previously given us a way to have forgiveness of our sins, why did he send Jesus to be our ultimate sacrifice?

Edit:
I believe that there is some doctrinal basis for this.  I'm not sure which specific doctrine would best be applied to this, but I am seeking a mainstream Protestant doctrine on the matter.

Actually, it never worked.

  Hebrews 10:4 (ESV)
  For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

All the OT sacrifices were useless in an of themselves. What they did all along was not actually solve something but point people to the idea that something needed to be solved and the way that had to happen was through sacrifice. All the OT sacrificial rules only served to point us to Christ, who was already arranged as the Lamb to come.

In other words, the forgiveness for sins that God "provided" in the Old Testament was through Jesus from day one, so you can't just take him out of the picture. There isn't another way.

See also: How were people saved before ~33AD?

The answer is clearly found in Deuteronomy 30 which is referenced by Paul in Romans 10. And how was Abraham declared righteous? Romans said we are justified the same way Abraham was and that the gospel was preached to Abraham before hand. I encourage you to seek this out and you will see the gospel and the blood of Christ from Genesis to Revelation.


Are there any denominations that do not require pastors to be college educated? I am curious if there are any denominations that do not believe in college education for church leaders such as pastors, missionaries, etc. There are many churches that do. I am asking because I do not agree with college education. I strongly believe in God-given talents and that the Holy Ghost teaches.  I know I am called, but I do not like college education.  It's too arm-chair education.  I prefer action. In another words, hands-on. That way I can apply to be the pastor of a church.

Educating yourself to be wise is foolish, as said in the scripture (Romans 1:22-23), but lately, many denominations require college education.

Amish and some Mennonites practice this. I met a Beachy Amish pastor several years ago who was selected by "lot" without needing to go to college. This practice, I believe, is based on Acts 1:26 where Matthias was selected as an Apostle by lot. This guy was not dumb or stupid by any means - he knew his Bible well, but perhaps not as much Shakespeare.

Jehovah's Witnesses ordain non-college graduates as Elders. See this answer to this question: How trained are the elders in the Jehovah's Witness denomination?

In my experience I have found that there are many denominations that do not require a college education in order to be a Pastor, indeed, many just skip Pastor and go right to Bishop (sounds more impressive).  Indeed, all you need to do is find someone to fallow your teaching.  Many denominations profess and believe that the Holy Spirit leads the individual rather than the Church to Truth. I believe that if you want to be a Pastor of a church you can simply go out and start one, Your success or failure would depend I suppose on your oral presence or your overall constitution and ability to come across as holy or pious.  Some Church shoppers will search and find you and buy what you are selling.

Discipleship however, is something entirely separate from College education, but not in opposition to it.  Disciples of Christ who wish to become Sheppards, should fallow the teachings passed on from those who have come before.  That is the biblical understanding of discipleship.  The discipleship of Christ is different only in the complete commitment of the disciple to the ministry of Christ.  To give everything to Christ, renouncing worldly things, renouncing the lust of the Eyes, the Lust of the Flesh and the Pride of life.  In the Church started by the apostles, these three principles have grown to Priestly Celibacy, in opposition to the lust of the flesh, the renunciation of luxury and alternately to a life of charity, an opposition to lust of the eyes, and a life of Prayer, which is humility.  These three things are in contrast to the fall of Adam. Unfortunately, that church requires more of it's Paster's than just love of Christ, and obedience to these ideals, but an education to to better serve the laity.

It is clear that outside the Catholic Church, just about anything is possible, only your imagination and ability to convince others is required for success.  Faith, shaped to the ego, rather than Faith, shaped to humility.

There are more denominations than can be counted that do not require education of the Pastors.


Age of accountability? I have been raised in Prodestant church all of my life and I have heard several times from members of various churches about an age of accountability—which is an age once a person reaches it they are solely acountable for their own sins. For example, if they died before reaching this age they wouldn't go to hell for any sins they have commited. I have heard various ages for this such as 10 and 13. Considering this my question is:

Is there scriptural evidence that states the age of acountablality? Does it even exist?

We are accountable for our actions, words, teachings and judging.
No such thing for age accountability.

it is just another man made doctrine to bound people by their laws, doctrine and beliefs.

  Matthew 12:35-37 ESV
  The good person out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure brings forth evil. I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”

Unbelievers will give an account

  Romans 14:10-12 ESV
  Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; for it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.” So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.

Let the people who judge give an account for their judging

God Bless


Was Jesus a separate god? The New World Translation of John 1 seems to indicate that Jesus was a separate god from the Father.

1 In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.
2 This one was in [the] beginning with God.
3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.

How does the concept of the trinity fit with this concept of Jesus being a separate God?

The verse in question is:

  Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ
  λόγος.

That bold part is, somewhat literally, "God the word was".

The issue here is the lack of the indefinite article in Greek. They had no word for "a, an". Depending on context, it is acceptable and even necessary to insert those words into a translation. The question is whether or not it is appropriate here.

I think not, for lots of reasons. John and all the apostles were Jews, monotheists, and if they were teaching some new polytheism, wouldn't it have shown up in more places than an ambiguous Greek sentence?

edit in response to @Sotiris' comment:

Greek usually uses the definite article in front of proper nouns, which is probably what you're getting at. But in this case the lack of the article before θεὸς is easily explainable. A word-by-word translation would be "God was the word". Word order is flexible in Greek, and since both θεὸς and λόγος are in the nominative case, it would be impossible to determine which is the subject and which is the predicate nominative except for the placement of the article. ὁ λόγος clearly identifies λόγος as the subject, but ὁ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος would be ambiguous (God was the word, or the word was God?).

The concept of "Trinity in Unity," where the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are a mysterious 3-in-1 composite being, is not Biblical and has no actual justification anywhere in scripture.  Aside from the introduction to John, look at the baptism of Jesus, where Jesus is shown to be in the water, the Father in Heaven, and the Holy Ghost descending upon Jesus in the form of a dove, as three separate and distinct entities.  See also the Crucifixion, where Jesus cries out in anguish at the Father "forsaking" him, leaving him to suffer alone.

The notion of the Trinity comes from Greek philosophy, which was greatly in vogue in the Roman empire during the early Christian period.  The Holy Trinity as "Trinity in Unity" bears a much closer resemblance to some of Plato's notions about Deity than it does to anything in the Bible.


Where was Jesus before the events of the New Testament? For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son..

I only thought about this when recently explaining the difference between Old and New Testament to somebody.

Did the Son of God appear in the OT? Was his name Jesus?
Was Jesus present in Heaven (or at God's side) before he appeared on earth? Did God "send" his son to earth or was Jesus "created" on earth for the first time?

I can list many more, but limiting it to these two, I hope my question is clear.

It seems that the Second Person of the Trinity took on the name of Jesus when He entered into creation and was born of Mary.  Prior to this, He was with the Father and the Spirit.

When Jesus prays in John 17, He mentions the glory He had with the Father before the world began.

  And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with
  you before the world began.  John 17:5 NIV

Jesus, God the Son, certainly may have been the One who appeared in the Old Testament from time to time, walking in the garden with Adam and Eve, speaking to Abraham about the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah, the fourth Man in the fire with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, perhaps Melchizedek, the "angel" who wrestled with Jacob, etc.  However, He was not called Jesus until He was born into the world.

The receiving of the name "Jesus" identified the purpose for which God the Son entered into creation.  "Jesus" or "Yeshua" literally means "The Lord Saves".  So, Jesus was called "The Lord Saves", because He (the Lord) would, in fact, save His people from their sins.

  She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will
  save his people from their sins.”  Matthew 1:21 ESV

The original question.Where was Jesus in the events of the Old Testament....in 3 parts.  1. He was back and forth between 3rd heaven and earth.  There are at least 118 names that refer to Jesus in the KJV Bible. One name for Him is "the angel of the LORD".  Another is the Angel of His Presence which is plainly seen in Isaiah 63:9.   2. Yes he was sent." I do the will of my father". 3.He was created in heaven before he created the World Revelation 3:14. Then much later, at the beginning of the New Testament he was born on this earth.....you know the story.  Please, Don't ask for proof from some scholar as people like to do.  It is All proved in the Bible.   Those were VERY GOOD QUESTIONS!


Did Adam and Eve ever practice animal sacrifice? Genesis 8:20 (NIV) Then Noah built an altar to the Lord and, taking
  some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt
  offerings on it.

Noah sacrificed burnt offerings. What about Adam and Eve? Did they ever perform animal sacrifice?

Premise

We cannot conclusively say that Adam and Eve performed the any sacrifices, but the evidence is very heavy that they did and it was ordained by God and likely that He instructed them in it or even did the first one Himself.

It is definitely clear that sacrifice was instituted very early.

Abel and Cain apparently performed sacrifices, Abel bringing animal material and Cain bringing plant material. The ensuing rivalry between the two led to the infamous 'first murder'. It has been argued that Cain knew animal material and animal life was the requirement and his obvious 'cannot be wrong' attitude and jealousy was what led him to murder his own brother.

But did Adam and Eve sacrifice?

One should think that Cain and Abel were told by someone that it was necessary. It is possible that God Himself told them to do so, considering they were also on the same plain speaking terms, demonstrated when God questions and subsequently curses Cain. However, Genesis 3:21 is curious stating just after God declared punishments for the fall:

  The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them.

God Himself made the garments for Adam and Eve. Depending on your views of whether there was death before the fall this may or may not be significant. Since you do not specify a tradition I will stick to literal Bible interpretation, in which this view, that there was no death mentioned until this verse, therefore, no death before the fall, is well supported.

So many have hypothesized that God Himself actually performed the very first sacrifice for Adam's and Eve's sins. This site argues that for example. Always leading by example, Adam and Eve then mimicked God's righteous actions and began performing sacrifice. Whether you take this view or not it is indisputable that God approved of the animal's killing so that would leave only Adam or Eve to actually perform the sacrifice. It really does not matter, though, who did it first because just one generation later Cain and Able are sacrificing as if it is a regular thing, showing that it was already instituted and the most likely time was Genesis 3:21. Also, if God did this first sacrifice, He did not do any others, again leaving the task to Adam and Eve.

Now it is not until the reveling of the Law that frequency and reasons for sacrifice were known to us at least. This is more than 1000 years later. It is clear that there were thanksgiving reasons, as Noah did in your example, and it is implied that Cain and Able were performing a possibly annual or other time frame sacrifice as required by God. There are also a few examples of reasons for sacrifice in the story of Abraham. The most notable being told to do so by an angel of God when Abraham was told to sacrifice his own son Isaac. So there may have been very well understood reasons by the ancient persons for sacrifice that may have even been started with Adam and Eve shortly after the fall, but the only indication of those 'rules' becoming written is Leviticus with Moses. It is entirely possible that those sections in Leviticus were only parroting what had been done since the beginning.

Conclusion

So we cannot conclusively say that Adam and Eve started the sacrifice rituals, but the evidence is very heavy that they did and it was ordained by God and likely that He instructed them in it or even did the first one Himself.

Did Adam and Eve ever practice animal sacrifice?
The biblical answer is Yes!
After the Fall of Adam and Eve. God had shown His Infinite Mercy by clothing them, it means God had clothe Adam & Eve to protect them.
What particular symbol that the clothing of Adam & Eve with an animal represents?
In the Garden of Eden, before the Fall, Adam & Eve are offering to God their "sinless bodies" as a living sacrifice to glorify and worship God.

A Living Sacrifice
12 Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship. (Romans12:1)

After the fall of Adam & Eve, they can no longer offer their "corrupted bodies" to God. So, what is the replacement offerings acceptable to God?
In view of the Lamb of God that St.John the Baptist called Jesus Christ at the Jordan river, it would be wise to use typology that Adam & Eve was taught by God to offer an "unblemished lamb" as a pleasing sacrifice to God.
Is the animal sacrifice a burnt offering acceptable to God for the atonement of the sins of Adam & Eve?

Taking a closer look at the Passover ritual described in Exodus 12, it is possible to discern three distinct movements: the selection and subsequent sacrifice of the victim (Ex 12:3-6), the blood rite (Ex. 12:7) and finally the sacrificial meal (Ex 12:8-10). The victim is specially mandated: an unblemished, one-year-old male. It is interesting to consider this a little further. The term “unblemished” comes from a Hebrew word meaning positively whole or complete. “Unblemished” expresses the idea that this lamb should be perfect: nothing but the best should be offered to God. It is easy to see that without this stipulation, one might be inclined to offer an old or sickly lamb, one no longer useful, rather than a healthy, strong lamb. But the significance of “unblemished” goes further because the Hebrew word “tamim” later acquires a moral sense. In Psalm 101:2, the king speaks of “persevering in the way of perfection” (tamim), i.e., to live according to God's commandments. Job is called to be “tam” indicating that he is blameless before God (1:1). In a deeper but related way, our Lady is called “immaculate” meaning “without stain” because she is all-holy and conceived without Original Sin on account of her unique call as Mother of God.
The Supper of the Lamb
FR. MATTHEW CARR
https://catholicexchange.com/the-supper-of-the-lamb

The question is, do Adam knew how to offer a "sacrifice" to God? Yes, why? Adam is a priest, a High Priest.

Adam: High priest of humanity
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resources/sacraments/holy-orders/adam-high-priest-of-humanity


Why did God tell Moses to make a bronze serpent on a stick? In Numbers 21:4-9, Moses makes a bronze serpent on a stick to heal the Hebrews' snake bites, as per God's instructions. They don't worship it, but they are to look at it in order to live. Isn't this sort of like an idol, or a graven image? Or could it be a reference to something learned from Egypt, like possible Hermetic disciplines?

Also, is it related to the image of a serpent coiled around a staff, seen commonly today in the medical field?

I think in order to answer this question, a short detour needs to be taken to John's Gospel, because in it Jesus Christ himself refers to this incident with Moses and the bronze serpent.  In John 3:14-15, Jesus tells Nicodemus, "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life."

Then, Jesus continues by noting that out of love God sent His Son into the world to save it, not to condemn it (John 3:16-17).  Jesus then says, though, that the world was already condemned: "Whoever believes in him [i.e. the Son, Jesus Christ] is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God" (John 3:18).

The point in Jesus' discussion with Nicodemus is that he came into the world to save a world that was already condemned, and that this salvation comes through him being "lifted up."  The world, and us in it, are "condemned already" due to the sin of Adam and Eve, and Jesus saves us through his death on the cross (i.e. he was "lifted up").  All who look on Christ in faith receive this redemption from death; those who do not are not condemned by Christ, because they were already condemned due to sin.

So, getting back to Moses and the bronze serpent in the book of Numbers.  To put some context around it, the people of Israel had been in slavery in Egypt.  Through Moses, the Lord has delivered them up out of slavery, redeeming them from their captivity.  He is now leading them to the land He has promised them.  Yet, the people continually rebel against the Lord.  They finally "spoke against God and against Moses," accusing them of bringing the people out to the wilderness to die.  Then, they call the manna which the Lord had been sending them "worthless."  Thus, they despise the Lord's grace and mercy in delivering them out of captivity (cf. Numbers 21:4-5).

Therefore, the Lord gives them what their sins deserve: death.  He sends "fiery serpents" to them, which bite the people and kill them.  Sin came into the world through the serpent, Satan, and now here in Numbers the people are suffering the consequences of sin, namely death; they are "condemned already" (Numbers 21:6-7).

However, the Lord provides a means to save the people.  He has Moses make a bronze serpent, the symbol of death, and raise it up on a pole.  All who look on it will live (Numbers 21:8-9).

Jesus connects this event with his own crucifixion.  He is raised up on the cross to die for our sins.  He dies on the symbol of death, apparently "bitten" by the serpent Satan, dying the death we deserve.  Yet, through this symbol of death we have life; everyone who looks on the cross of Christ in faith will live, even though we have been bitten by the serpent and are therefore sinners (cf. Numbers 21:9).

That's a lot of words to say basically that Christ interprets the event in Numbers in light of what he came to do; he came to die by being raised up on the cross in order to save people who were "condemned already" by the serpent Satan and the sin he brought into the world.  So, what happens in Numbers points forward to what Christ was coming to do on the cross for all people.

Indeed, Christ came to save not only us, but also his entire creation.  He died and rose to save a world that was "condemned already," restoring it to the perfection in which he had originally created it (cf. John 1:1ff). This will come on the "Last Day" with his return and the resurrection.

The Serpent,or Satan, is symbolic for the desire that stands as the foundation of the building block(constructive or destructive) within each individual soul. To be, is for the soul to desire to be, therefore letting us live out this journey of the 3 dimensions of Time & Space occurring around the mind in order to experience exactly what it is we desire in the first place. We are here because we wanted to be here. We desired to be here. And so the oneness of this God force provides us with the fullest potential of the CHRIST consciousness that exists, and there is no higher consciousness of this sort in this plane. The Bronze Serpent represents that higher form of consciousness, the CHRIST consciousness, where man whom once desired (the serpent-the self gratification and ego behind desire) can know this is to be overcome as our individual souls grow to these realizations in the given dimensions. The Crucifixion of Christ is mans destiny to not desire, but to be as selfless as He....and through these channels of thought, this will be the second coming....and we will make our way to "heaven" or higher realms or back to our original source of ONENESS with this force we refer to as GOD through these studies...let the occurrences through the adjustments and observations in Quantum Physics help those understand this process more clearly....the mind and matter.


What happened to the apostle John after the Biblical account of his life ends? There is a legend that says that John traveled to Ephesus where he took care of Virgin Mary and that he lived there until the end of his life.

Is this legend true? Are there any historical accounts that support the legend? Are there any other theories about the later life of apostle John?

We know from scripture that he was exiled on the Isle of Patmos near the end of his life - reliable understandings of when his epistles and the book of Revelation were penned indicate it was around the year 90 AD.

Where he was between ~50AD and 90AD (with 50 being a plausible time for Paul's early writings, and the original disciples/apostles to still be in Jerusalem), I don't believe we're ever told.

Also, Jesus' mother Mary would have been fairly old by then - she should have been at least mid 40s when Jesus began to preach (if she was ~15 when he was born). By the time of the early church and Paul's appearance on the scene (after his time out of the record when he was apparently studying and learning), she would have been at least in her mid 60s, if not older.

We do not know what happened to the apostle John after the biblical account of his life ended. One of the New Testament gospels now bears his name as author, although it was anonymous until later in the second century, in which case he not only preached the gospel but wrote an account of the mission of Jesus. However, as John Carroll says in The Existential Jesus, at page 228, most scholars assume that John did not write the gospel. Burton L. Mack says in Who Wrote the New Testament, page 215, that before what is now known as John's Gospel was attributed to John, it had already become popular in gnostic circles where it was said that Cerinthus, the founder of a gnostic school, had written it. One way or another, we can say that the apostle John did not write the Gospel or epistles that became attributed to him.

Mack says (ibid, page 197) at some point, the Revelation to John of Patmos was associated with the writings of the Johannine school solely because of the common name. This is two stages removed from the apostle John, first by the assumption of common authorship with the Gospel in spite of very different theology and style, second by the assumption that the apostle John wrote the fourth gospel. Once again, there is no reason to believe the apostle John wrote this book, and many scholars now refer to its author as 'John of Patmos' in order to avoid confusion.

Thus, we can not say that John, son of Zebedee, spent his latter years writing. We have no reliable information as to where he went to preach, if at all. There is no historical evidence that he travelled to Ephesus where he took care of Virgin Mary or that he lived there until the end of his life.


A Christian view of Mohammad I would like to present a summary of the Muslim point of view about Christ and in return I ask for the same: Who was Muhammad according to Christians? It's not about who is right or wrong. I just want to know the general point of view.

According to Muslims:

  Jesus was born to Mary as a result of virginal conception.  To the reaction of people who thought that she had committed a sin, Jesus told them he was a messenger of God and his mother was chaste. He was given scriptures, the 'Injil', and also the powers to heal the blind, deaf, and dumb. He did not die from crucifixion, rather he was raised up to heaven.

What do Christians think about Mohammad and of how the Qur'an come into being?

To our Muslim friends, please do not be offended:

Christianity has no official view on Mohammed or the Quran, nor could it because Mohammed and the Quran came about hundreds of years after Christianity.

Christians do have opinions though. To most Christians, Mohammad is no different than any other non-christian who started a religion. They are false prophets and their revelation was a lie from Satan, a delusion, or non-existent.

There are reasons for this. The primary one is the Muslim view on Christ, right in your question. Plenty of Christian Theologians have evaluated Mohammad as a prophet. As far as I know, he has always been found wanting. Mohammad claimed in his writings, the Quran, that Jesus didn't even die. The death and resurrection of Christ is the central point to 99.999% of the various forms of Christianity. This Muslim claim alone is enough for most Christians to reject Mohammad as a prophet. After hearing that, there is very little chance for a committed and educated Christian to take anything from the Quran seriously.

Additionally, most Christians hold the Bible in as high regard as most Muslims hold the Quran. It is the word of God and is without error. The Quran and the Bible stand in contrast on quite a few points other than Christ. They cannot both be from the same God, and since the Bible was first and is already believed to be from God, the Quran, therefore, cannot be from God. That leaves Mohammad as a false prophet.

Similarly, Jews view Christians and Jesus this way. Some teach that Jesus had some good things to say, but he was not even close to what Christians say he was and he certainly was not the Messiah. The revelations of his disciples who started his religion after his death were either lies from Satan, delusions, or non-existent.

There may be a few groups that call themselves Christian that have a favorable view of Mohammad, but I do not know of any. If they exist, they are small in number and it is likely that your average Christian would not consider them Christians.

at Fred's (not fredsbend, heaven forbid that i call out some other participant in this SE site) request, i am answering briefly what one Christian's view is of Mohammad.

Mohammad's story seems to revere the notion of redemptive violence which is fundamentally not the revered value in the story of the Suffering Servant who preceded Mohammad by some 5 centuries.  similarly for the Old Testament vis-a-vis Jesus saying "... but I tell you ...".

essential Christianity has a different value system than what i understand is essential Islam.  but all of the Abrahamic faiths have some things in common besides some notion of monotheism (both Jews and Muslims are critical and sorta dubious of the Christian version of monotheism, a critique i sometimes identify with) is some concern for restorative justice and for the poor.  there is a notion in all three of the divine preference for the poor and of forgiveness and mercy.  dunno how much to attribute to Mohammad about those values, but since devout Islam seems to embrace those values, too, for the ignorant Christian (that's me), this Christian does not view Mohammad as some sorta satanic figure like Hitler.  but I don't view Mohammad as on par with Jesus nor even the early Christian leaders (some of whom have writings in the canon).


What was the Angelic Psalter that Our Lady told St. Dominic to preach? In St. Louis de Montfort's The Secret of the Rosary he quotes the Blessed Virgin Mary talking to St. Dominic:

  "I want you to know that, in this kind of warfare, the battering ram has always been the Angelic Psalter which is the foundation stone of the New Testament. Therefore if you want to reach these hardened souls and win them over to God, preach my Psalter."

At a recent FNE Timberwolf meeting my brother leader, Mang says that the Angelic Psalter is the Rosary prayed 150 times and the other leader Ricki Ticki says "Oh I thought that was the Psalms themselves".  The boys were a bit confused, but we muddled through without intense theological debate.

Now, (not to get all technical and worried about consistencies like I would over Star Wars) if she said that the battering ram has always been the Angelic Psalter, and the Angelic Psalter is the Rosary, then wouldn't the Rosary have had to have pre-existed St. Dominic.  But, if it is actually the book of Psalms that Our Lady was talking about, where did tell St. Dominic explicitly to pray the Rosary?

The Angelic Psalter is the rosary.
See the "6th Rose" section of The Secret of the Rosary, where he contrasts "The Psalter of Jesus and Mary" / "Angelic Psalter" / "Our Lady's Psalter" (i.e., the rosary) with David's Psalter (the Psalms):

Ever since Saint Dominic established the devotion to the Holy Rosary up until the time when Blessed Alan de la Roche re-established it in 1460 it has always been called the Psalter of Jesus and Mary. This is because it has the same number of Angelic Salutations as there are psalms in the Book of the Psalms of David. Since simple and uneducated people are not able to say the Psalms of David the Rosary is held to be just as fruitful for them as David’s Psalter is for others.
But the Rosary can be considered to be even more valuable than the latter for three reasons:

Firstly, because the Angelic Psalter bears a nobler fruit, that of the Word Incarnate, whereas David’s Psalter only prophesies His coming;

Secondly, just as the real thing is more important than its prefiguration and as the body is more than its shadow, in the same way the Psalter of Our Lady is greater than David’s Psalter which did no more than prefigure it;

And thirdly, because Our Lady’s Psalter (or the Rosary made up of the Our Father and Hail Mary) is the direct work of the Most Blessed Trinity and was not made through a human instrument. …

The rosary did predate Dominic by around 150 years. And, of course, Dominic himself never prayed the rosary. Nor is there any mention whatsoever of the rosary by his immediate contemporaries or close disciples.


What do people fear in Jude 1:23? I know fear can mean multiple things. But what I'm getting out of Jude 1:23 is that people saved others by fearing something. Do they fear Satan? Or do they fear God? The whole time, I was assuming fear was a bad thing.

120 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost, 21 keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life. 22 And of some have compassion, making a difference: 23 and others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.
[KJV] my emphasis

I think Jude is encouraging his readers to fear the temptation of the flesh, which explains the following statement "hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.". Look at how it's phrased in the New Living Translation:

  Jude 1:20-23 NLT But you, dear friends, must build each other up in your most holy faith, pray in the power of the Holy Spirit, and await the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ, who will bring you eternal life. In this way, you will keep yourselves safe in God’s love. And you must show mercy to those whose faith is wavering. Rescue others by snatching them from the flames of judgment. Show mercy to still others, but do so with great caution, hating the sins that contaminate their lives.

Instead of the fear, it's saying the word caution. This is similar to the passage in Galatians 6:

  Galatians 6:1 NLT Dear brothers and sisters, if another believer is overcome by some sin, you who are godly should gently and humbly help that person back onto the right path. And be careful not to fall into the same temptation yourself.

It looks like it is a cautionary fear.

I believe Jude is speaking of teaching the "fear of The Lord"  which Proverbs calls the behinning of wisdom. Most of us have no clue what the fear of The Lord is.
Secondly I think we should recognize the wording of the verses. We....
BUILD ourselves up in holy faith (faith is steadfast/steadiness in the faithfulness of God, faith is action)
PRAY in the Holy Spirit
KEEP yourself in love (of God)
LOOK for mercy
HAVE COMPASSION
MAKE A DISTINCTION
SAVE WITH FEAR
SNATCH from the fire
HATE garment stain with flesh

There is an "order" in these verses. We are not instructed to fear sin or flesh but to save with fear, and HATE flesh/sin.

The order given here is an example of walking in the fear of The Lord. Isn't this what creation is granting to see manifested in the sons of God?


Who were the Sons of God who seem to have begat the Nephilim? Genesis 6:1--4 tells about the "sons of God" marrying whomsoever they pleased, and the Nephilim---"the heroes of old, men of renown"---were begotten then. How is this to be interpreted?

Dr John Millam, on the Reasons to Believe website, has this to say on the Nephilim (about 1/2 way through, the section entitled The Sons of God/Giants):

  Historically, the most popular way of understanding this passage was
  that the "sons of God" refer to angels or to the descendents of the
  godly line of Seth, Adam's son. The translators of the Septuagint,
  however, biased interpretations toward one standpoint by substituting
  "angels" for "sons of God". (The sons-of-God-as-angels view was
  fashionable in Jewish circles at that time. It appears in the
  apocryphal Book of Enoch, so the translators of the Septuagint were
  simply reflecting popular thinking.) This helps explain why the angel
  interpretation held exclusive dominance in the church for the first
  two centuries. A second example can be found in this same passage
  where the Septuagint translated Nephilim (literally "fallen ones") as
  "giants" (Greek gigos). As a result, the view that the Nephilim were
  "giants" was rampant in the early church.

Most people I have read on the matter agree that it is highly uncertain who these "Nephilim" actually were, and as a result, speculation abounds.  In my thinking it seems problematic to consider that angels, who are purely spirit beings could mate and produce offspring with humans who are a distinct creation of body into which God breathed spirit.

From the wikipedia article:

  Some individuals and groups, including St. Augustine, John Chrysostom,
  and John Calvin, take the view of Genesis 6:2 that the "Angels" who
  fathered the Nephilim referred to certain human males from the lineage
  of Seth, who were called sons of God probably in reference to their
  being formerly in a covenantal relationship with Yahweh (cf.
  Deuteronomy 14:1; 32:5); according to these sources, these men had
  begun to pursue bodily interests, and so took wives of the daughters
  of men, e.g., those who were descended from Cain or from any people
  who did not worship God.

While the ca. 6th century The Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan (a Christian pseudepigraphical work found in Ge'ez) says:

  Certain wise men of old wrote concerning them, and say in their
  [sacred] books, that angels came down from heaven, and mingled with
  the daughters of Cain, who bare unto them these giants. But these
  [wise men] err in what they say. God forbid such a thing, that angels
  who are spirits, should be found committing sin with human beings.
  Never, that cannot be. And if such a thing were of the nature of
  angels, or Satans, that fell, they would not leave one woman on earth,
  undefiled... But many men say, that angels came down from heaven, and
  joined themselves to women, and had children by them. This cannot be
  true. But they were children of Seth, who were of the children of
  Adam, that dwelt on the mountain, high up, while they preserved their
  virginity, their innocence and their glory like angels; and were then
  called 'angels of God.' But when they transgressed and mingled with
  the children of Cain, and begat children, ill-informed men said, that
  angels had come down from heaven, and mingled with the daughters of
  men, who bare them giants.

Which seems to make sense to me.  Both wikipedia articles contain numerous references which may be of interest for further research and reading.

A second reference to Nephilim occurs in Numbers 13:32-33, but since all of mankind was destroyed in the flood of Gen 9 ff, I don't see how they could be of the same bloodline.  So that suggests that Nephilim might be more of a general than specific descriptive term.  It may be significant that both groups of men are described as "giants" (note also that Goliath and his kin, "descendants of Rapha in Gath" were described as having six fingers and six toes, which indicates some sort of genetic deformity).

My answer is these "Sons of god" were men who had advanced in their level of participation in the organized and authoritative bodies of priesthood governance by making covenants to live their lives in a particular manner. And, evidently, as a part of these covenants, they were expected to only marry women that were sanctioned by the word of the Lord.

An example of this can be seen in the practice of the prophet Nathan to give the word of the Lord as to whom King David should receive as a wife. For David to receive a wife solely according to his own choice would in the eyes of the Lord be considered a sinful act that would put him under condemnation and in great danger. Such was also the downfall of David's son Solomon who took many wives and concubines that were not sanctioned by the word of the Lord through the Lord's Anointed Prophet at the time.

Things are much easier to understand when you take the identities spoken of as Adam, Cain, Abel, Seth, etc. as the collective bodies of priesthood that individual men could become members of by covenant. So, all of the "Sons of God" or the "Sons of Eloheim" are in fact members of these societal bodies that had their own collective identity. Their covenant into a priesthood body makes them all in union and therefore collectively "one flesh". They together form a single body, an Eloheim.

Likewise, Adam is a host of men enlightened to the state of the fulness of priesthood authority in order to receive the dominion, glory, etc. of God in God's own image and likeness. Unfortunately, Adam became beguiled through the counsel of Eve (the Bride or the Church) who was beguiled by the adversary.

Looking at things this way enables you to put aside all of the strange and mysterious alien encounters or non-physical beings. These are normal people who are functioning at a high level of accountability who bring severe cursing upon their posterity for violating their sacred oaths and covenants.

This becomes more clear if you read the Book of Enoch and learn that these men were the "watchers". These are who are referred to in the Book of Jude and in 2 Peter chapter 2. They were regular men who were under covenant in the ancient times who conspired to act sinfully and reaped the consequences.


How were people saved prior to 33 AD? The exact date isn't important but at some point about 2000 years ago Christ died on a cross. Since that point Christians everywhere have put their faith in Him. He claimed to be the Way, the Truth and the Life and that nobody could get to the Father except through faith in Him (John 14:6).
That's great for everybody since then, but how were people saved before that? There are many more years of history before that date than after. Was there a different savior for them? Did they just believe in God but not in Jesus?
In very broad strokes, what does Christianity say on this matter (general doctrine) and more specifically, are there differing views on this held by major branches of Christianity? If so, what is a summary of the different doctrinal positions?

Before Christ, people were saved by believing in God's promise of the Messiah who was to come, as we are saved by believing in the Messiah who has come.

Hebrews 11:39-40 (ESV)

  And all these [Old Testament saints], though commended through their
  faith, did not receive what was promised, since God had provided
  something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made
  perfect.

There is some speculation that because Jesus is the only way to the Father, OT saints were kept in a comfortable "holding place" (cf. Abraham's bosom in the parable of the rich man), and that when Jesus died he joined them and brought them with him to heaven

Eph. 4:7-10 (ESV)

  But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of
  Christ’s gift. Therefore it says, "When he ascended on high he led a host of captives,    and he
  gave gifts to men."

  (In saying, "He ascended," what does it mean but that he had also
  descended into the lower regions, the earth? He who descended is the
  one who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill
  all things.)

Who saved people before ~33AD? In most cases people were required to save themselves by applying the law. For example if someone was ignorant to you and poked out your eye, you where to reply with the same reaction, therefore saving you from future confrontation.
Still though even in those days God decided to come down and save the people. With Moses for example, the 10 plagues, splitting the water, the manna in the dessert, etc. And many man other times and places, God finds his glory in coming down and knocking people straight. One instance that I thought was really cool, is as follows:

2 Chronicles 14:2 - 16:12

The exact date isn't important but at some point about 2000 years ago Christ died on a cross. Since that point Christians everywhere have put their faith in Him. I feel that many have put the wrong kind of faith in him, and/or expressed it poorly, including myself.
He claimed to be the Way, the Truth and the Life and that nobody could get to the Father except through faith in Him (John 14:6). Yes, Yes he did.
That's great for everybody since then, but how were people saved before that? To points out how few will be really saved read (1 Peter 3:18-20). Also again Jesus himself states how few (Luke 13:23-24). Yet still, depending if this message is to those that have already died, or those that are spiritually dead I do not know but it is written:

For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to human standards in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit. (1 Peter 4:6)

So either the spirit of corpses can return to happiness, or the spirit of depressed one (which I favor) will return to happiness. For it is also said:

He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!" (Mark 12:27)

There are many more years of history before that date than after. Was there a different savior for them? No the Same God has been here to save us.
Did they just believe in God but not in Jesus? This is that same thing. So no.
In very broad strokes, what does Christianity say on this matter (general doctrine) and more specifically, are there differing views on this held by major branches of Christianity? If so, what is a summary of the different doctrinal positions? Catholics put their faith in the Eucharist and the prayers of Mary, baptists put their faith that Jesus died for them regardless of repentance, Some put their faith on both, Mormons put their faith in what they do, and Jehovah Witnesses put their faith in saying a name. These are all avenues of faith, and it is not a point of right or wrong or which faith is correct. It is that faith must grow to produce the fruits.
But who humbly accepts the truth, and does not reject the spirit?

“You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors: You always resist the Holy Spirit! (Acts 7:51)

Who knows how fearful the truth is to rest on you! Who gets severely angry when they learn the offensive truths! Why do they get angry? Because pride is in their heart, and they separate themselves from Love, and they can't believe what has happened, so they call for death. In the ignorance, they call themselves to the grave. Humility however, it has been said:

He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God. (Micah 6:8)
Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did. (1 John 2:6)

Otherwise we trip on the stone of truth and fall into depression and anger, then after tear apart what God has put together.
Clearly I say to you that the Kingdom of Heaven stares you in the face! And hard it is to enter without humility and faith that you are forgiven, and also faith that God will fight for you against the lie.
For in days of old Mom and Dad argued, and the children cried out for it to end. And the only thing that can save us, is the Jesus, his teachings, his way, and our change within.
For if you gain no understanding of the spirit while you are alive, how will you be able to use the spirit to reconstitute your body?

For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted. (Matthew 23:12)

Amen.