Is this age the only opportunity for salvation? The majority of mainstream Protestant churches in the U.S. proclaim this age is the only opportunity for salvation.  There's a prominent minority, mostly non-denominational, that claim the period after the second resurrection is another opportunity for salvation.

The implications today concern evangelism efforts.  My experience with Baptist churches are they need to reach people before they die in THIS age, otherwise they are lost forever.  My experience with the non-denominational churches (who believe otherwise) are many simply are not called in this age (e.g. John 6:44), they will be given a chance for salvation in the second resurrection (e.g. Rev 20:5, barring the obvious that those who've received, then rejected Christ, are impossible to redeem thereafter, e.g. Heb 6:6).

Although I was reared around the Baptist and Methodist churches, I don't know their scriptural basis for their belief if you die in the life never knowing Christ you are lost forever.  The churches proclaiming that is not the case point out a lot of scriptural support.

Some examples:

the Lev 23 Holy Days, an annual reminder of the milestones in God's annual plan of salvation for mankind.  For example, TO THE DAY Christ was crucified on Passover, TO THE DAY the Holy Spirit was made widely available to mankind on Pentecost.  To come: Trumpets (Christ's return), Atonement (Satan's binding), the Feast of Tabernacles (1,000 year of Christ on earth), and the Last Great Day (8th day of Tabernacles, is the Great White Throne Judgement).
birthright and firstfruits theme throughout scripture.  This is way too long to post here.  But, I'll reply if requested.  But, it is throughout scripture from Genesis to Revelations.
lots of scripture showing God is not calling everyone in this age, even causing them to be spiritually blind and deaf so that they cannot respond to the gospel.
and various other scriptures supporting this, e.g. Isaiah 49:8's proper translation is "a" day of salvation, not "the" day.

and more.

My question: what is the Baptist/Methodist/same Protestant scriptural basis the age we are currently living in is the only age for salvation?

What is the Biblical basis for the Baptist belief in a singular day of salvation

Here is a description of one Baptist view.

Those who were saved before the cross are saved by faith, but receive their eternal life at the first resurrection.

  Hebrews 11:39-40  And these all, having obtained a good report through
  faith, received not the promise:  God having provided some better
  thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

  Revelation 20:6  Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first
  resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall
  be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand
  years.

Those who trust in Jesus since the cross have immediate eternal life.

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

Those who died in faith before the cross will have a single day of salvation (when they receive eternal life). Those who die after the cross each have a particular day when they are saved.

The second death is reserved for those of the second resurrection. This is a resurrection for the judgment of works.

This age is the only opportunity for salvation

(Hebrews 9:27) And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after
this the judgment
(Daniel 12:3) And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth
shall awake, Some to everlasting life, Some to shame and everlasting
contempt.
(Romans 1:20) For since the creation of the world His invisible
attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are
made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without
excuse

The number of parables on this topic are worth considering:
Parable of the Rich man and Lazarus
Jesus told the parable of the rich man and Lazarus to show that salvation is only in this life time. If the mercies given in this lifetime are not treasured in the heart, there is no second probation.

(Luke 16:26) between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that
those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from
there pass to us.’

Parable of the Ten Virgins
Ten virgins set out to wait for the coming of the bridegroom. All carried lamps but five did not bring enough oil. When the bridegroom came, the door is shut forever, even though they went to buy oil.

(Matthew 25:10-12) And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came, and
those who were ready went in with him to the wedding; and the door was
shut.
“Afterward the other virgins came also, saying, ‘Lord, Lord, open to us!’ But he answered and said, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, I do not know you.’

Parable of the Wedding Feast
A king invites his subjects to his wedding feast, but they did not care for it. So he invited people out in the highways and hedges, both good and bad. However, at the wedding feast, one was found without having put on a wedding garment. This man was bound and thrown out, there was no second wedding feast.

(Matthew 22:12-13) So he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you come in
here without a wedding garment?’ And he was speechless. Then the king
said to the servants, ‘Bind him hand and foot, take him away, and cast
him into outer darkness

Parable of the Wheat and Tares
Jesus told this parable to show that God permits the wheat to grow together with the tares until the final judgement. However, at harvest time, the true character of the seeds are shown, and there is no second probation for a tare to be spared.

(Matthew 13:30) Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of
harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather together the tares
and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my
barn.'
(Matthew 13:39:40) the harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are the angels. Therefore as the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of this age.

Interestingly, right before Jesus tells of the parable of the tares, He says "For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, And their eyes they have closed. (Matthew 13:15)" You see, though God permits it, it is the people who have closed their own eyes, worked against the Spirit of God, and did not want to be healed.
The Holy Spirit works in everyone's life time to believe. The reason He has not yet come is because there are still sinners who want to repent.

(2 Peter 3:9) The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some
understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting
anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.


Did God create Adam and Eve with free will and knowledge of right and wrong (good and evil)? I just want to confirm based on scripture if God made Adam and Eve with both free will and knowledge of good and evil (right and wrong) or if one came after the other when they ate the forbidden fruit?

Genesis 3 answers this question pretty definitively:

  Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”  Genesis 3:22 NASB

Adam and Eve were not created with the knowledge of good and evil.  They were innocent--not righteous, but innocent.  After they sinned, they knew both good and evil.

God knows good and evil, but not from the same perspective, as He has never committed any sin or done anything unholy.

The woman had knowledge to know about the tree b4 she ate,                                            yet the Lord say's it is about when the man has “knowledge”,                                                   that “knowing” when he “knew knowledge”,                                                       = eyes opened.

God told the man he would have knowledge if he ate, then God gave him a woman.                                                           Genesis 2:16-17  the Lord God commanded ---the man---, saying,                                                                         of  the tree of the ---knowledge---of good--and--evil
 Genesis 3:6-7 and 22  ---and--- he did eat.                                                                                ---And---the eyes of them both were opened,                                                                                and they---knew---that they were naked
 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us,
to ---know---good and evil

the Lord God said  the man would have knowledge of evil when he ate,                                                                                the serpent said  God knows the woman would be knowing evil when she ate,                                                                                scripture says--they--knew evil--after --the man ate, not when she ate,                                                                                God says  the man now knows evil, just as God had told him would happen.


Why don't Reformed Christians consider it necessary to confess to a priest? Reformed Christians, like Presbyterians differ from the Catholic and Orthodox Church in their understanding of forgiveness of ones' sins. One way in which they differ is not having the sacrament of Penance.
Why don't Reformed Christians consider it necessary to confess to a priest?

Firstly, penance was rejected at the time of the reformation because the doctrine was based on a mistranslation of the Greek word metanoia - "repentance". The Latin Vulgate had, poenitenitam agite - "doing acts of penance". Martin Luther was the one who originally made this discovery.
Secondly, although James 5:16 says "confess your sins to each other", the New Testament does not contain anything to do with confessing to a priest or doing penance for confessed sins. Protestants believe that confession is something which is a good thing to do in the Christian community, individually and corporately, but it is not something which believers have to do to a priest. Which leads onto...
Thirdly, there is an important difference between Protestant understandings of priesthood and the sacraments. For example, Protestants would reject a pastor being a "priest" (because of the priesthood of all believers, e.g. 1 Peter 2:9 "you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood". In the Church of England, the word 'priest' was retained but only inasmuch as it is derived from a medieval contraction of the Greek word presbyter - elder). Protestants also believe in only two sacraments - the Lord's Supper and Baptism (e.g. 39 Articles, article XXV).
In sum, to answer the question properly you really have to explore the much bigger difference of priesthood in Catholic and Protestant understandings as well as the Sacraments, Scripture and Tradition. And, because repentance is such a big part of the Christian life, it goes even further back to what Catholics and Protestants believe about the Christian life (e.g. sanctification and justification). So it's no small question!

I think Reformed Christians believe that salvation is a one and done event accomplished by Christ without intervention by man.
If one believes that you are once saved always saved, then nothing you can do, confessing or being an atheistic mass murderer can unsave you.
My personal opinion is that this cannot be supported by either scripture or the traditions of the apostolic churches.
But this is what they believe. Im eastern catholic and I do believe that the apostles were clearly given authority to administer ministries to bind and lose in the Church.


If miracles stopped after the Apostles, then why are there admonitions to pray over people? There are a number of groups who believed that after the time of the Apostles, God withdrew miracles from the world (please correct me if that is the wrong understanding). But the book of James clearly says,

  Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. (James 5:14, ESV)

For those who believe miracles were limited to the times of the Apostles, then why does James say this? Why would there be an anointing if no miracles are even possible? Or do I misstate their definition of miracles?

It is important to distinguish between cessation of spiritual gifts being bestowed on individuals, and cessation of all miraculous events entirely. Cessationists consider the first case (individual bestowment of spiritual gifts) to have ceased, but not all miraculous events entirely.
See B. B. Warfield's Counterfeit Miracles, in the section titled Faith Healing:

  "In the healing of every disease of whatever kind," writes Doctor
  Henry E. Goddard, "we cannot be too deeply impressed with the Lord's
  part of the work. He is the operator. We are the co-operators. More
  and more am I impressed that every patient of mine who has ever risen
  up from his sick bed onto his feet again has done so by the divine
  power. Not I, but the Lord, has cured him. And it is this fact that
  the Lord does so much, that gives to different systems of healing
  their apparent cures. He has healed many a one in spite of medicine,
  in spite of mental healers, in spite of ignorance, in spite of
  negligence and poor and scanty food. Nineteen out of twenty cases of
  grippe will get well without doing anything for it, if we are willing
  to bear it until that time. Pneumonia, even, is what the physician
  calls a self-limiting disease, and many cases will recover alone if we
  are willing to run our chances with it. The arm may drop into boiling
  water and become scalded. Nine times out of ten it will take care of
  itself and heal. But if that arm is mine it is going to have an
  outward application which will make it feel better the moment it
  touches it. And more important by far, it is going to be dressed
  aseptically to prevent blood poisoning. It might get well itself,
  probably would; but it is going to have my little co-operation, the
  most intelligent that I can render, that the Lord may have the open
  door through which He can come in and bless it." It is the very spirit
  of James, I take it, that speaks in this Christian physician. If you
  are sick, you will use means, all the means that exist; but you will
  use the means in the name of the Lord, and to Him you will look for
  the issue. (172–173)

In short, cessationists hold that the sovereignty of God is such that all healing of any sickness is the result of God's working, and also hold to the miracle of salvation as the pre-eminent form of still-continuing miracle. Indeed, the miracles that have ceased are those apostolic-era gifts used only for the purpose of spreading the gospel in the early church; those that were bestowed on individuals, rather than purely by God's working.

In James 5:14, no individual has been bestowed with a gift of healing. Rather, with prayer foremost, and secondarily medical care in the form of anointing of oil (historically considered to have medicinal value), a group of the elders of the church were to care for the unwell individual. The hope is that God would then miraculously heal the individual. However, this is quite a different circumstance to that of the apostles and those granted the gift of healing, who could "at will" heal anyone they chose.

With that in mind, cessationists would encourage this practice (perhaps not with oil specifically, but the best available medical care), but would not consider any of the elders to have been bestowed any spiritual gift of healing in the event of a miraculous healing.

It is worth noting that John Calvin, in his commentary on James 5, considered the anointing with oil, prayer, and resulting healing to be an apostolic sacrament which has passed. This is no longer the predominant position among cessationists, to the best of my knowledge. However, even at the time he wrote, others considered the anointing with oil to be medical (a common view today as well), and thus only the prayer was efficacious, in as much as God chose to heal the sick in that instance.

James does not even hint that a special spiritual gift is involved, nor that a miracle would be performed.  Garden variety elders are called (not someone with the gift of healing), and answers to prayer are anticipated, that's all.  And that is enough.  An answer to prayer need not be a miracle nor even miraculous.

The interaction between God's sovereignty and our wills and desires is a mystery, and there is comfort in knowing that the laws of physics need not be suspended every time the Lord intervenes for us, which I believe is every moment of every day.


How did the Holy Spirit come into existence? Who created the Holy Spirit? Did the Holy Spirit exist from the beginning or was it God who created the Holy Spirit? If it was God, then why is it said that the members of the Holy Trinity is independent of each other but form an eternal  Triune God?

According to mainstream Christianity, the Holy Spirit is a person of the Trinity - loosely speaking a part of God. Therefore he was not created. He is eternal, without beginning and without end. This is best (though not necessarily most understandably) summed up in the Athenasian Creed:

  Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated.

Something around 98% of Christians adhere to this view.

For those that do not believe in the Trinity, the Holy Spirit is usually considered to be an 'impersonal force', or the action of God, or simply another way of referring to God (as opposed to a separate person). In these cases there is also no question of "who created the Holy Spirit". He has always existed.

In most languages other than English the word for Spirit and the word for breath are the same word.  The creation story tells us the earth was without form and the "spirit," or "breath" of God hovered above the waters or abyss.  According to the Gospel of John, Jesus was the "word of God that was with God and was God."  When God spoke creation into being the word spoken was Jesus and the Holy Spirit is the breath that makes the word active creating cosmos from chaos.
The Holy Spirit is present and observable because it is the fundamental aspect of God (the Trinity) that transforms matter (God's creation) to be what God intends it to be.  The Spirit, breath or wind of God is actually God breathing life into his creation.


Verse that mention Jesus eating meat? My wife asked me this question last night, and I didn’t know the answer, so I thought I would ask it here.

The question:  Besides fish, is there any passage in the Gospels that directly mentions Jesus eating meat?

My assumption is that He would have followed Jewish dietary laws, but I couldn’t think of any specific passages off of the top of my head.

Jesus definitely ate lamb because lamb is eaten at the Passover festival.

  Then came the day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb had
  to be sacrificed. Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, “Go and make
  preparations for us to eat the Passover.”  (Luke 22:7-8, NIV)

A goat could also be used instead of a sheep for the Passover.

  The animals you choose must be year-old males without defect, and you
  may take them from the sheep or the goats. (Exodus 12:5, NIV)

Jesus was a Jew and Jews are meat eaters. Except the Unclean Animals (pork,snake,shellfish etc.), Jews eat varieties of meat and Jesus was not an exception.

no proof that Jesus ate meat of any kind. Starting with genesis 18 abraham prepared for him (jesus) a bread, milk, butter and meat. But you should note that it is customerly when we have special guests we usually prepare for them something delicious most often meat inclusive, but no proof that Jesus or any of his companion angels who visited abraham ate meat as they were saved a variety of food stuff. The angels and heavenly beings eat the heavenly bread (psalms 78:25), they do not feed on meat, so it is most likely that those three abraham's guests from heaven only ate bread and didnt take meat. likewise in Luke 24:42-43 it says: And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. And he took it, and did eat before them. Now if you are smart enough you will be able to tell what Jesus ate before them. Jesus was given two things, a fish and an honeycomb, but the forewords say ...he took "it" and ate before them. That means he took one of the two things that  he was given, and it is obvious that he took "an honeycomb" and not "a fish" and he ate it. Now go to Luke 24:44 you will find that Jesus tells us that it is written in the torah that he will eat of an honeycomb. Prove for yourself by reading Isaiah 7:15. Somewhere else in the Bible wherever you find a verse speaking of Jesus and meat, just be careful to read it fully and you will note that Jesus never ate fish or any meat but rather he prepared and even blessed it for others. The word doesnt say anywhere in the bible that Jesus "ate" fish or Jesus "ate" meat


What is the origin of the Good Friday tradition? As suggested by this question and this answer, it seems possible that Jesus actually died on a Wednesday, not on a Friday.

In light of these competing theories, what is the origin of the Good Friday tradition?

The idea that Jesus died on a Wednesday is a fabrication. It is nothing more than an attempt to force a modernistic interpretation onto Matthew 12:40. In the early church the common understanding of "three days and three nights" did not require "three full days and also three full nights".
Fourth century scholar/priest St. Jerome explains in his Commentary on Jonah:

But we ask ourselves this: how was he three days and three nights in the belly of the earth. Some scholars take the view according to paraskeuen, because of the solar eclipse from the sixth to the ninth hour when night followed day, this would be two days and nights, and adding the Sabbath, believe that we should count this as three days and three nights. But I prefer to understand this by reason of synecdoche, seeing the whole as a part: where he is dead in paraskeuen, let us count one day and one night; two with the Sabbath; the third night which arises from the day of the Lord, let us take that as the beginning of the next day, for, in Genesis the night is not of the preceding day, but of the following day, that is to say the beginning of the next day, not the end of the previous. To understand this better I will say it more simply: if a man leaves his house at nine and the next day he arrives at his other house at three. And if I say that he has been two days in travelling, I will not be reprimanded as a liar, because he has not used all the hours of two days, but only a part for his journey. Nonetheless this seems to me to be the interpretation.

Sixteenth century reformer Martin Luther agrees in a sermon on the resurrection:

The question now arises: How can we say that he rose on the third day, since he lay in the grave only one day and two nights? According to the Jewish calculation it was only a day and a half; how shall we then persist in believing there were three days? To this we reply that be was in the state of death for at least a part of all three days. For he died at about two o'clock on Friday and consequently was dead for about two hours on the first day. After that night he lay in the grave all day, which is the true Sabbath. On the third day, which we commemorate now, he rose from the dead and so remained in the state of death a part of this day, just as if we say that something occurred on Easter-day, although it happens in the evening, only a portion of the day. In this sense Paul and the Evangelists say that he rose on the third day.

Furthermore, this view ignores the testimony of the rest of the New Testament. The Gospel of Mark, in fact, describes Jesus' activities every day of the week leading up to his arrest and crucifixion.

Day 1 (Mark 10:32) "They were on the road, going up to Jerusalem..."
Day 2 (Mark 11:12) "On the following day..."
Day 3 (Mark 11:20) "The next morning as they passed by the fig tree..."
Day 4 (Mark 14:1) "Two days before the Passover..."
Day 5 (Mark 14:12) "On the first day of Unleavened Bread..."
Day 6 (Mark 15:1) "As soon as it was morning..." >>This is the day of the crucifixion
Day 7 (not mentioned) >>This is the sabbath
Day 8 (Mark 16:1) "When the sabbath was over..."

Jesus was active on each day up to and including the day of the crucifixion. Jesus fulfilled the law; he did not violate the sabbath rest except to follow a higher law such as healing the blind, so none of these six days could have been a weekly sabbath. There is simply no way to squeeze six consecutive non-sabbath days into the calendar without the final one being a Friday, so that puts Palm Sunday on a Sunday, the crucifixion on a Friday, and the resurrection on the next Sunday.
Christian Tradition, going back to New Testament times, consistently testifies that Jesus would be raised, not "after three days", but "on the third day". Here are some examples from the New Testament:

Matthew 16:21 ...and on the third day be raised.
Matthew 17:32 ...and on the third day he will be raised.
Luke 9:22 ...and on the third day be raised.
Luke 18:33 ...and on the third day he will rise again.
Acts 10:40 ...but God raised him on the third day and allowed him to appear
1 Corinthians 15:4 ...and that he was raised on the third day

If the gospel consisted of nothing but Matthew 12:40, we might be able to interpret the "three days and three nights" differently, but against the weight of the rest of the New Testament and the history of Christianity, it's hard to argue for a Wednesday crucifixion.

The myth of a Friday crucifixion came about because of Mary's inability to go and tend the body of Christ on the Sabbath. The confusion came about because it was not the weekly Sabbath the scripture was referring to. It was High Sabbath it was referring to. See                  (  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Sabbaths for a thorough explanation.
)    People often reject this because they think it was invented by Seventh Day Adventist. Not so. And by the way I'm not Seventh Day Adventist.
In reference to this being something that has only been around 200, or 300 years....Please consider it has only been roughly the same amount of time people have believed in a rapture occurring.
    Because the Catholic church grew into a state of apostasy during the middle ages, this important information was lost. It has taken hundreds of years for us to rediscover these truths.


Where can I find scans of original Biblical manuscripts? I want to study different translations of Bible and compare them to Bible in Hebrew and Greek. Can any one tell me where can I find the pictures of original Biblical manuscripts online?

The original manuscripts are not believed to be in existence any more, and most manuscripts we do have aren't easily accessible. But some important ones can be viewed online:

Aleppo Codex
Codex Sinaiticus
Codex Vaticanus

Because there are so many manuscripts, most scholars rely on critical texts: the editors of these texts choose which variations they think are most likely to be authentic, and then in footnotes list the alternatives and which manuscripts support each. The most widely regarded critical text for the New Testament is the Nestle-Aland, whose text can be read online, but without the critical apparatus (footnotes). It looks like this:

Original manuscripts, you can't.

The Bible is riddled with alterations that have accrued and been passed down over thousand years.
Nobody owns the actual original autographa of the books in the Bible you know of today. Even the oldest manuscripts found are still not original.

But still all these copied manuscripts can be studied, and compared.

Before you start my first recommendation is usually James Kugel's How to Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture, Then and Now . It's an appropriate introductory text that gives most people a pretty good understanding of the general approach to biblical scholarship and to what degree scholars interact with the biblical texts.


In which language is the Bible most read today? In which language is the Bible most read today? In a recent discussion, we surmised that the most read language translation of the Bible would be English. I am hoping to have a more definitive answer than a probably prejudiced guess.

This type of research would be incredibly hard to get accurate data about. But we can still get a good idea of what the most used languages are.

I have taken the spreadsheet of data from the Joshua Project and put it in a Google Doc. Google Docs has some nice data processing tools!

The first set of statistics is the number of Christian adherents per language. This means the number of people who identify somehow as Christian, such as ticking the Christian box on a census. It doesn't indicate anything about how they practice their faith, if they even do. In the case of the Chinese, it is grouping together many different languages, but as most use the same written language, I think this is legitimate. The Swiss German are grouped together with Standard German. I'm not actually sure if they would use the same translations or not.

Spanish: 381 million adherents
English: 258 million
Portuguese: 195 million
Chinese: 110 million
Russian: 85 million
German: 47 million
French: 38 million
Tagalog: 38 million
Italian: 37 million
Polish: 36 million

Now these numbers will include many millions of people who never actually read a Bible. Unfortunately there's no good way to estimate that. Many people who identify as Christian are very nominal (they don't really practice in any way) while some branches of Christianity do not emphasise personal Bible reading much.

What I can present from the Joshua Project's data is the number of Evangelicals for each language. As Evangelicals do emphasise Bible reading their numbers could be closer to how many actually regularly read it. But I know that there are many non-Evangelicals who do read their Bibles! Just as there are millions of Evangelicals who don't. Four of these languages are African, and may have lower literacy rates (though to be fair that could be the same for many of the languages in the first list too). Do they balance each other out? I have no idea.

English: 86 million evangelicals
Chinese: 85 million
Portuguese: 51 million
Spanish: 47 million
Yoruba: 13 million
Igbo: 9.8 million
Korean: 9.1 million
Gikuyu: 5.1 million
Tagalog: 4.9 million
Oromo: 4.5 million

All of this is also completely ignoring the fact that most of the world's people are bilingual and may read the Bible in a language other than their primary language (especially English), especially as there are thousands of languages without a Bible translation. In which language is the Bible most read? Probably Spanish, English, Portuguese or Chinese.

This graphic http://www.unitedbiblesocieties.org/what-we-do/distribution/ suggests that Spanish might be the language in which the Bible is read most, since most of the inhabitants of the Americas have Spanish as their mother tongue...


If Jesus is "God's Only Son" then how can we all be God's children? In the Apostle's creed it states that "I believe in Jesus Christ God's only son our Lord" (ELCA). But many Christians say that we're all God's children, which is contradictory.

What does the Bible have to say about this?

Or are we God's grandchildren and Jesus' children?

The Latin text of the Apostle’s Creed (Symbolum Apostolicum) states,

Credo in Deum Patrem omnipoténtem, Creatórem cæli et terræ, et in Iesum Christum, Fílium Eius unicum, Dóminum nostrum, qui concéptus est de Spíritu Sancto, natus ex Maria Virgine, passus sub Póntio Piláto, crucifixus, mórtuus, et sepúltus, descéndit ad ínferos, tértia die resurréxit a mórtuis, ascéndit ad cælos, sedet ad déxteram Dei Patris omnipoténtis, inde ventúrus est iudicáre vivos et mórtuos.

While the Latin word unicum (lemma unicus) can certainly be translated into English by the word “only,”1 St. Jerome also used it in the Latin Vulgate to translate the Greek word μονογενὴς,2 meaning “only-begotten.”
For example, in Luke 7:12, it is written,

ΙΒʹ ὡς δὲ ἤγγισεν τῇ πύλῃ τῆς πόλεως καὶ ἰδού, ἐξεκομίζετο τεθνηκὼς υἱὸς μονογενὴς τῇ μητρὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ αὐτὴ ἦν χήρα καὶ ὄχλος τῆς πόλεως ἱκανὸς σὺν αὐτῇ TR, 1550
XII cum autem adpropinquaret portae civitatis et ecce defunctus efferebatur filius unicus matri suae et haec vidua erat et turba civitatis multa cum illa Vul

Other times, he translated μονογενὴς by the Latin word unigenitus,3 which is the Latin equivalent of “only-begotten.”4
Therefore, we could properly translate the Latin word unicum in the Apostles’ Creed as “only-begotten” (rather than “only”) without causing a contradiction, since Christians are also children (sons and daughters) of God,5 just as angels are sons of God.6
The important point to emphasize is the Lord Jesus Christ is the only-begotten (or, only-born) son of God the Father, by an eternal generation. The Lord Jesus Christ said, “I came out of God and have arrived.”7 This is the only instance where the Lord Jesus Christ says ἐξῆλθον ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ. In the LXX, this phrase, the lemma ἐξέρχομαι + the preposition ἐκ, is used in reference to the generation of offspring.8
On the other hand, Christians are sons of God by regeneration, i.e. being born again.9

References
Lewis, Charlton T.; Short, Charles. A New Latin Dictionary. New York: Harper, 1891.
Footnotes
1 Lewis & Short, unicus, p. 1932
2 Luke 7:12: unicus; Luke 8:42: unica; Luke 9:38: unicus
3 Jdg. 11:34: unigenita; John 1:14: unigeniti; John 1:18: unigenitus; John 3:16: unigenitum; John 3:18: unigeniti; Heb. 11:17: unigenitum; 1 John 4:9: unigenitum
4 Lewis & Short, unigenitus, p. 1932
5 cp. John 1:12: τέκνα θεοῦ
6 cp. Job 1:6. The LXX translates the Hebrew בְּנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים into Greek as οἱ ἄγγελοι τοῦ θεοῦ.
7 John 8:42
8 cp. Gen. 15:4, 35:11

Interestingly many who claim they know/understand who the Son of God is, may not know/understand him from Adam. It is written, "My Father has given me all things. No one knows who the Son is except the Father, and no one knows who the Father is except the Son and those whom the Son chooses to reveal him." Luke 10:22 (GNB).

The above-mentioned verse states that it will take only revelation to really know who the Son or the Father is, or the claimant is just making false claims that he/she knows and understands God. Now the reason man fell from actual sonship and stopped being a child of God, was because of sin in the garden of Eden. In other words man ceased to become son; he lost the sonship. God operates differently from man. His principles are not same as ours. God had spoken of Isaac of being the only child of Abraham, whereas Isaac already had an elder brother Ishmael, by a slave woman. This will bring to your understanding that God considers children had in wedlock and sees them as the sole heir, not the other way.

Is it not written that Adam is the son of God in the genealogy of Jesus in Luke 3:23-38: "... Adam, which was the son of God"? I have pointed out earlier that man was God's son initially, but for sin that destroyed that connection, and now man through the blood of Jesus Christ has to be reconciled to God and be adopted as son, because he is no longer a son for sin. This is the wisdom of God and to the self-conceited wise people, this may sound or seem foolish.

To say that Jesus is the Only Son of God is wrong. The translation is not precise enough. But thank God for more accurate translations which have it that Jesus is "the only-begotten Son of God". Begotten is the operative word here; it makes all the difference. It shows that Jesus, although Son, is the only one the Father gave birth to directly. The world and everything in it were all created by the Son the Word of the Father. So the only thing the Father ever begot was His Son. How lovely and how loving such a Son would be in the eye of His Father.

God is not just living, He is life Himself. Even His spoken word is life and it was that life that was made flesh and dwelt amongst men. You may now see that Jesus was in the bosom of the Father until He was spoken forth, being the word of the Father. He was the Word the Father spoke forth in the beginning that did not return void, but created all things according to the will of God. So this Word is eternal and has been with the Father for all eternity. Is he not the Word of God, the only-begotten of the Father?


Why was God not angry with Solomon's Census In 2 Chronicles 2:17 we are told "Solomon took a census of all the foreigners residing in Israel, after the census his father David had taken; and they were found to be 153,600." Why was God not angry about this Census, yet furious with David for taking a Census?

Maybe it was because Solomon took a census of all the foreigners, while David numbered the children of Israel without making this offering:

And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, When thou takest the sum of the children of Israel after their number, then shall they give every man a ransom for his soul unto the LORD, when thou numberest them; that there be no plague among them, when thou numberest them. This they shall give, every one that passeth among them that are numbered, half a shekel after the shekel of the sanctuary: (a shekel is twenty gerahs:) an half shekel shall be the offering of the LORD. Every one that passeth among them that are numbered, from twenty years old and above, shall give an offering unto the LORD. The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less than half a shekel, when they give an offering unto the LORD, to make an atonement for your souls. [Exodus 30:11-15 KJV]

God wanted the children of Israel numbered only so that they would know how much to give to the Lord. David just wanted to know, with Satan's influence, how big his army was; he was putting his trust in his military might rather than in the promises of God.

A word of caution needed here for the speculations made by me here.  I have not spent a large amount of time meditating on these scriptures and opinions are based on my limit experience with what I have studied in the Bible.

The Bible does not explicitly state why Solomon's census was good or bad but because there is no text concerning God's disappointment you could conclude that it was good.  When David conducted the census in 1 Chronicles 21:1-16, the Bible does not spell out what exactly caused God to be displeased with David's census other than Satan rose up against Israel that caused David to conduct a census.  Some sin was occurring and it could have been anything from building an army instead of trusting God to just wanting more money from taxes.

In Solomon's case and from the text in 2 Chronicles 2:17 - 3:1, the census was to aid in determining the types of jobs people would need to be assigned to build the 'house of the Lord' / temple for the name of the Lord.

Conclusion: Solomon's motives for taking a census was for good or righteous reasons but in David's case, it was because of Satan.

Your brother in Christ.


Does God punish babies and children who die in sin? I've always wondered this. Before they even have a chance to think for themselves, and they die in sin, does God send them to Hell?

If we can determine what sin is, we can determine if God would be able to punish a child for it.  Fortunately Jesus will never leave us in the dark.  He gives us a definition of what sin is in the book of 1 John 3:4 which states “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.” 1  Sin is the transgression or the breaking of God’s law, His Ten Commandments.  Because of this we must ask which of the Ten Commandments has a child violated?  Has an infant murder, lying, theft, adultery, Sabbath-breaking or blasphemy?  Certainly not.  Is crying a sin?  “Jesus wept”.  (John 11:35) Jesus gives us great insight into how God judges sin when He said…

  “If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you say, ‘We see.’
  Therefore your sin remains.” (John 9:41)

Listen closely, children are born with a sinful nature that is we have this inward pull or desire to sin but we are not born sinners.  Sin is the breaking of God’s law.  And we have concluded that babies have not broken the Ten Commandments.  Even if they did, Jesus told us in John 9:41 that were there is no understanding, there is no sin. Again Jesus said

  “If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin, but now
  they have no excuse for their sin.” (John 15:22)

Where there can be no knowledge, there can be no sin.

Imagine if one day a group of police officers showed up at your door.  They quickly handcuffed you, you were taken to a courtroom and declared guilty of war crimes.  “War crimes, I’ve never fought in a war!” you plead.  The judge responds and says “your great grandfather committed war crimes in World War 1 and we are punishing you for the crime, I hereby sentence you to death”.

Certainly a human judge would never make such an unfair sentence.  How could you be judged for a crime that occurred when you never even were alive? Yet would God throw someone in hell because of the sins of their parents, or grandparents?  Or because of the sins of Adam in the garden of Eden?  Does the guilt of one generation pass on from generation to generation through a bloodline?  The Bible gives us the answer in Ezekiel 18:20 when it says

  “The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the
  father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of
  the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked
  shall be upon himself.“

Here the Bible says the son shall not bear the guilt of the father.  Again the Bible says “Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their fathers; a person shall be put to death for his own sin.” (Deuteronomy 24:16)  You are not punished for the sins of any past generation.  “God is a just judge” (Psalm 7:11) and God is much fairer than any human court.  It is true, sin does have consequences. If your parents were abusive you may have suffered the consequences, when Adam sinned the earth received the curse of death, but the guilt of one generation does not pass from generation to generation.  This would be unfair.  Only those who have sinned will be condemned.

The book of Isaiah chapter 65 tells us that yes, infants will be in heaven for it is written

  “For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth;  And the former
  shall not be remembered or come to mind. I will rejoice in Jerusalem,
  and joy in My people; The voice of weeping shall no longer be heard in
  her, nor the voice of crying.  No more shall an infant from there live
  but a few days”. Isaiah 65:17,19-20

When Exodus 20 talks about visiting the iniquities to the third and fourth generation, it means sinful tendencies are transferred from generation to generation (example, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob all struggled with lying, David and Solomon struggled with women, etc).  It does not mean people are thrown in hell for the sins of their grandfathers.

The Catholic Church professes that unbaptized infants go to a part of Hell where there is no fire, known as The Limbo of the Children

Pope Gregory X, Council of Lyons II, 1274:  “The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to Hell, but to be punished with different punishments.  (Denz. 464)

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, July
6, 1439, ex cathedra: “We define also that… the souls of those who
depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go
straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.”
(Denz. 693)

St. Augustine, A.D. 415: “Anyone who would say that infants who pass from this life without participation in the Sacrament [of Baptism] shall be made alive in Christ truly goes counter to the preaching of the Apostle and condemns the whole Church, where there is great haste in baptizing infants because it is believed without doubt that there is no other way at all in which they can be made alive in Christ.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3: 2016.)

However the current hierarchy claims that there is no such thing as limbo and it in fact was never defined,   "[There are] reasons to hope that there is salvation for these babies", quoting the Rev. Luis Ladaria, a Jesuit who is the commission's secretary-general to The Associated Press.


Why are thighs important? I know it sounds like a silly or weird question, but I'm serious.

  Genesis 24:2

  One day Abraham said to his oldest servant, the man in charge of his household, “Take an oath by putting your hand under my thigh.

  Genesis 47:29

  As the time of his death drew near, Jacob called for his son Joseph and said to him, “Please do me this favor. Put your hand under my thigh and swear that you will treat me with unfailing love by honoring this last request: Do not bury me in Egypt.

  Leviticus 7:33

  The right thigh must always be given to the priest who offers the blood and the fat of the peace offering.

  Revelation 19:16

  On his robe at his thigh was written this title: King of all kings and Lord of all >lords.

Why is the thigh important?

The usages you give here are varied and not necessarily related. In today's English would could use the word hand as in to 'offer a helping hand' or to 'hand something over' or 'hand something out' or any number of other expressions. In the same way not every instance of the word 'thigh' necessarily refers to the same thing.

The first two cases you give in Genesis have to do with oaths. Placing a hand on the thigh of someone while you made a promise was a sign of submission and the seriousness of the oath. Such an action could also be taken on ones self as a sign of remorse. There several other examples of these two usages throughout the OT.

In your Leviticus passage the meaning is entirely different and you need look no farther than the prices of different cuts in your local butchers shop for an explanation. Some cuts of meat are considered more valuable. Breast and thighs were considered the best portions.

I don't know what the significance in Revelation is. For this one the suggestion to ask on Judaism.SE might be a good one because It think it has to do with a specific piece of clothing, the Tallit. The tassels have significance and where on the garment the name is inscribed corresponds to something about the tassels.

I have my own idea while looking at the Torah in the original Hebrew...in particular the first book Beresheet or Genesis....the answer lies in mathematics.  Look up "PHI" or the "GOLDEN MEAN" if you're not familiar with them.  Then look at the total number of verses in Genesis and the verse numbers that have this hand and thigh mentioned.  I found that they are the golden mean from each end of Genesis... or Beginning and End.

When I found this out... I went to the wall of my home and had my height marked on the wall...then I marked where the end of my fingers touched the wall in a normal standing posture.  I then measured from tip of my head to tip of my finger and found that it is exactly the golden mean of my body.  So, you see... this line runs from fingertip to fingertip through the bottom of the scrotum across the body...and has an important mathematical significance...that the ancients were very aware of.

You can verify what I've said here with this nifty database:
http://www.biblewheel.com//GR/GR_Database.php
Just type in the word "thigh" under the "search by words" and do the math yourself...
(1-sqrt5)/2 * total verses in Genesis.  Then you'll get an idea why the weird symbolism of Jacob wrestling all night and hurting his thigh.

I also found reference to 7 upper chakras and 7 lower chakras..and the mid thigh deals with anger or revenge where the bottom of the foot deals with murder or malice... the 7 upper chakras being good and the 7 lower being bad...according to this site... so there is a chakra just at or above the navel that is the golden mean of the body from the soles of the feet to the tip of the head.  I personally had experience with that and know that the spirit attaches to the body in that location.  It seems the lower golden mean mark of the body is more to do with animal type instincts where the upper are more spiritual / godly.

This is my ideas.  I pray they are not misleading in any way.  They are just my present level of understanding..and that changes quite a bit quickly over time..so take it for what it's worth please.


Why do literalist Protestants reject transubstantiation? In both Orthodox Christianity and Catholicism, the words of Jesus, "This is My body" and "This is My blood" referring to communion bread and wine, respectively, are taken literally, and transubstantiation is believed to occur.  I know that many Protestants do not believe this.  For non-literalist Protestants, this is not surprising.  However, there are many Protestants, of course, who regard the Bible as the literal word of God.  One might think that all of the literalist Protestants accept transubstantiation.  But I think that is not true.

So my questions are:

Do all literalist Protestants accept transubstantiation?  Do most of them?  Do any of them?
For the ones who don't, how do they explain what appears to be the plain words of Jesus on this?

To understand this answer, we will look at just two aspects.

One, Christ speaks literally about many things many times, yet no one believes He turned into a literal door or into a nebulous ghost of a concept like truth.

Two, Protestants disagree with transubstantiation not because they don't believe the bible, but because they believe that Christ's sacrifice was done once for all time.

Literalism

When Christ said, I am the way, life, truth, what did those three things look like?  What ghost can one conjour to represent truth?  Rather, they looked stedfastly at Christ who was clearly standing there in front of them.

  Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man
  cometh unto the Father, but by me.
  John 14:6

When Jesus said, I am the door or you are a sheep, do you take this literally?  Is He wood, rock, blanket, or what as that literal door?

  Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.
  John 10:7

So likewise when Jesus said this, did He disappear and become a loaf of bread?

  And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.

So, it is clear enough that Christ speaks specifically at all times, but that is not to say literally at all times.

Sacrificial

With lovely irony, when the bible does literally say Christ sat down as an offering priest because of His own one sacrifice, Protestants believe this, while Roman Catholics do not.

  But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
  Heb 10:12

There is no priest presuming to be Christ on earth who offers the "same" sacrifice that Christ did some 2,000 years ago.

Though time wouldn't permit, it is interesting enough to view this contrast between the two views of a literal piece of bread and a literal ongoing sacrifice done daily versus a metaphor and one sacrifice of Christ's body done once for all time.

So for Protestants, the plain words of Christ about this is My body and what it represents are clear enough.

I want to answer your question thoroughly, but first, I just want to point out that there is no category of Literalist Protestants and Non-literalist Protestants.  I have been an insider [member of about 11 Protestant denominations] in 10 states and 3 countries.
There are Evangelical Protestants who hold a higher view of scripture and also traditional or conservative Protestants, - which many would consider extremist or legalistic, but even these very strict, fundamentalist Christians understand the importance of symbolism, metaphor and allegory, and parables. You can't interpret poetic or apocalyptic literature literally.  It's the same way with Christ's many uses of parables and word pictures using common objects in an agricultural context to illustrate a heavenly principle.  No one thinks Jesus actually became a Grape vine with leaves on his arms. No one actually thinks Jesus became a walking door, with hinges and a handle.  Furthermore, even Catholics understand this was symbolism. Do any Catholic Bishops or priests teach or believe that Jesus transformed into a lamb with wool that talked and chewed grass? I don't think so, and I lived in a very Catholic country for 13 years. Protestants look at all these metaphors Christ used and interpret them consistently.
How do we know that it wasn't his literal flesh and literal blood? How can we know that it was symbolic?  Because Jesus didn't ask them to eat part of his arm, or drink blood from a  wound he inflicted on himself.  What did he give them, or what were they eating ? They were eating the Passover, - the ultimate symbol - a perfect spotless lamb - unleavened bread -Matzo - because leaven is a picture of sin - so they had to cleanse their house of all yeast, and their barns and all their storage.  This was literal yeast, and this was to prevent disease from mice and rats and also a picture of not hiding sin in any part of our lives.
Is there a way that anyone can know that this was really symbolism- a picture of the Christ as the sinless Passover lamb, who reconciled us to God with his substitutionary death on the cross?  Yes, Absolutely !! How do we know exactly? What is the evidence that they weren't actually eating his blood. Because the Gospels are historical accounts and the text plainly says that Christ took the bread, and he blessed it/ gave thanks, and broke it, and then took the cup/wine. It was the same actual physical wine and unleavened bread [Matzo] used in Passover for thousands of years.
Most importantly - the Bible very explicitly states that no one should eat or drink blood, and the laws even stated how animals had to be killed and the blood drained out, so this would be a direct contradiction to the very laws that God himself gave.
Lastly, scripture is explicitly clear that Christ paid the penalty once-for-all-time. He doesn't keep dying over and over, and He isn't crucified over and over. This is clear- all   a person has to do it simply read the book of Hebrews - Christ is our high priest, who paid the penalty for all mankind once, never to be repeated, and the veil in the temple was torn in two - that was to the Holy Place- which only the high priest could enter once every year- and this gave everyone - man, women, Jew and Gentile - direct access to God.


Does Roman Catholic doctrine recognize a moral distinction or difference between abortion and birth control? Understanding that birth control is renounced in Catholic doctrine, is there a sense that abortion is weightier because in involves the death of a person in addition to the ethical problems Catholics recognize in birth control in general?

Yes, there is a difference.

On the matter of abortion, the Catechism and Canon Law is explicit. It is a grave offence with instant excommunication. The penalty applies to everyone involved, including the mother if she consents and any medical personnel.

  Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense.
  The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life.
  "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"76 "by the very commission of the offense,"77 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.78
  The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy.
  Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

  Catechism of the Catholic Church

However, prophylactic contraception does not attract such a penalty, although any act is intrinsically evil.

  Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.157 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:158

    Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality ... the difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle ... involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.159

  CCC

The Church holds that abortion is murder; it is the extinction of an existing life, with a soul. The prevention of life being created, although contrary to the natural order and the purpose of marriage and sex, is not murder.

Because abortion (including abortifacient contraception) brings a latae sententiae excommunication, the penalty can be lifted if the offender sacramentally confesses to a bishop (Canons 1355, 1357). Prophylactic contraception is an evil which can be confessed to and absolved by a priest.

76 CIC (Code of Canon Law), can. 1398.
77 CIC, can. 1314.
78 Cf. CIC, cann. 1323-1324.
157 Humane Vitae 16.
158 HV 14.
159 Familiaris Consortio 32.

To be short, abortion is murder, of a very bad type: it's so bad, that a normal priest cannot forgive anyone connected to an abortion (mother, nurses, ecc) for that sin - only a bishop is allowed to absolve that sin, and a confessor must send the sinner to the bishop as quick as possible.

Contraception, otherwise, is not necessary a sin: it depends on intention, mode, and a lot of other things - but it's never a mortal sin.


At what time of day was Jesus crucified? Mark 15:25, 18 KJV

  And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.

and

  And began to salute him, Hail, King of the Jews!

John 19:14-16 KJV

  And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!
  But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.
  Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him away.

How can Jesus be crucified on the 3rd hour but Pilate asked for his crucification at the 6th hour?

John operates on a different chronology than Mark.

Matthew 26:17, Mark 14:12, Luke 22:7-9 all have the disciples asking Jesus where to prepare the Passover supper on first day of the feast of unleavened bread, with the crucifixion the next day.   But John 19:14 has the crucifixion itself taking place on "the preparation of the passover" which is the first day of the feast of unleavened bread.   So the day that Matthew, Mark, and Luke tell us Jesus had the disciples prepare the Passover, is the day he was crucified according to John.  So John makes the whole thing take place a day earlier than the Synoptics.  Once you realize that, it won't seem so important to be stuck on a difference of 3 hours.

There's an obvious theological reason why John does this. We are told in Mark 14:12 that the passover lamb is killed on the preparation day

  "And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover?"

In the Synopics, then, Jesus' death does not correspond directly to the killing of the Passover lamb.  Rather, on the day the lamb is killed, the disciples are preparing for the Last Supper, and Jesus then eats an actual Passover seder with the disciples that night.

But John, who alone among the gospel writers speaks of Jesus as "the Lamb of God" (John 1:29, 1:36), wants Jesus' death to correspond exactly to the time that the Passover lamb is killed.   So John moves the Last Supper to a day earlier, thus having Jesus' crucifixion on the day of preparation when the lamb is killed.  Or does he?

The question is which is historical and which is merely theological spin.  Its possible the Synoptics are historical here and John is the spin because he wants Jesus' death to correspond exactly to the Passover lamb.  However, its also possible that John is historical and the Synoptics are spinning because they wanted Jesus to eat a real Passover meal as his last meal. [In John he's crucified while Passover is being prepared, so he doesn't get to eat a Passover meal.]  You will note that in John, there is no institution of the Lord's Supper (Communion, Eucharist) at the Last Supper as in the Synoptics.  Rather, John deals with this subject in John 6 when he has Jesus declare in the Synagogue at Capernaum that he is the bread from heaven.  It could be that the Synoptics moved the date of Jesus' crucifixion in order to accommodate having Jesus institute the Lord's Supper at the Last Supper during a real Passover, or it could be that John moved the date in order to have Jesus' death correspond to the killing of the pascal lamb, and we'll never know this side of heaven which it is.

Jesus was crucified at noon

He was led unto the hall of judgment in the morning, the gospels are quite clear here:

  Matthew 27:1 (KJV)

  1 When the morning was come, all the chief priests and elders of the
  people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death:

  Mark 15:1 (KJV)

  1 And straightway in the morning the chief priests held a consultation
  with the elders and scribes and the whole council, and bound Jesus,
  and carried him away, and delivered him to Pilate.

  Luke 22:66 (KJV)

  66 And as soon as it was day, the elders of the people and
  the chief priests and the scribes came together, and led him into
  their council, saying,

  John 18:28 (KJV)

  28 Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it
  was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest
  they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover.

However, there seems to be some problem with the time of the crucifixion. Was Jesus crucified at noon, third hour, or sixth?

  Matthew 27:45 (KJV)

  45 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto
  the ninth hour.

  Matthew 27:45 (NIV)

  45 From noon until three in the afternoon darkness came over all the
  land.

  Mark 15:25 (KJV)

  25 And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.

  Luke 23:44 (NIV)

  44 It was now about noon, and darkness came over the whole land until
  three in the afternoon,

  Luke 23:44 (KJV)

  44 And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all
  the earth until the ninth hour.

  John 19:14 (NIV)

  14 It was the day of Preparation of the Passover; it was about noon.
  “Here is your king,” Pilate said to the Jews.

  John 19:14 (KJV)

  14 And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth
  hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!

There is a conflict somewhere between the third and sixth hour. More information about this subject is given in this question, and also the comment below explains this more.

If we look from the other way, it was dark for three hours before he died. Jesus was buried before sundown, because it was the preparation day for the sabbat, and at sabbat it was not allowed to work.

Therefore Jesus was crucified around noon, making it possible to be dark for three hours, the crowd to leave the site, and Josef to take the body before sabbat.


How is Jesus descended from David? As I understand from OT kings of Judea, there was always a biological paternal line between the kingship and David. However if Jesus was the son of God and not of Joseph, how was he descended from David? Furthermore why are there two different accounts of who Joseph's father was?

There is no discrepancy.
Greek syntax
First, in the genealogy encountered in the Gospel of Luke,1 the very syntax of the Greek text seems to argue against the notion that Joseph is the son of Heli.
Consider Num. 36:1 in the LXX. When the translator wished to state that Gilʿad (גִלְעָד) was the son of Makhir (מָכִיר), and Makhir was the son of Menashe (מְנַשֶּׁה), he translated this into Greek as «Γαλααδ υἱοῦ Μαχιρ υἱοῦ Μανασση». Notice that the Greek word υἱοῦ (“son of”) precedes the name of each father. So, it is understood as Gilʿad the son of Makhir, and Makhir the son of Menashe, i.e., A son of B, B son of C.
Another example is Num. 16:1. The idea is that Korach (קֹרַח) is the son of Yitzhar (יִצְהָר), and Yitzhar is the son of Kehat (קְהָת), and Kehat is the son of Levi (לֵוִי). The translator of the LXX expresses this in Greek as «Κορε υἱὸς Ισσααρ υἱοῦ Κααθ υἱοῦ Λευι». Again, the translator precedes each father in the genealogical series by a declension of the Greek word υἱός.
The problem is that a declension of υἱός does not precede the name of each father in Luke’s genealogy. In a genealogy, where there’s a series of names, this seems quite the anomaly. Certainly it’s not unusual to see υἱός absent before, say, a single father in a narrative.2 But, for it to be missing before every father in a genealogy, I know of no other examples.
A Rule, You Say?
When we see one name preceded by another in a genealogy, we tend to think that the preceding name is the son/daughter of the following name. Hence, when people read the following in Luke 3:24,

24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph, KJV, 1769

they interpret it to mean that Matthat is the son of Levi, and Levi is the son of Melchi, and so forth, all the way until the end of Luke 3:38, which states,

38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. KJV, 1769

and thus, it is believed that Adam is the son of God, since Adam precedes God in the genealogy. However, this rule is not absolutely true. Consider the example of Gen. 36:2:

2 Esau took his wives of the daughters of Canaan; Adah the daughter of Elon the Hittite, and Aholibamah the daughter of Anah the daughter of Zibeon the Hivite; KJV, 1769

We must ask, “Who is the daughter of Zibeon the Hivite?” Based on the aforementioned rule, you might say, “It is Anah, since Anah precedes Zibeon in the genealogy. Therefore, Anah must be Zibeon’s daughter.” Such would be unequivocally wrong, for Anah is a male, not a female, and thus he could not be anyone’s daughter.3 So, the genealogy in Gen. 36:2 is actually stating that Aholibamah is the daughter of Anah (her father), and the same Aholibamah is also the daughter of Zibeon (Anah’s father4 and thus, Aholibamah’s grandfather).
Therefore, there is no reason to assume, especially in light of the absence of υἱοῦ before each father, that Luke is saying A is the son of B, B is the son of C, C is the son of D, and so forth. In other words, what reason is there for assuming that Luke is saying that Joseph is the son of Heli, or that Adam is the son of God? I have shown you using the example of Aholibamah that a name simply preceding another name in a genealogy is not evidence of such a rule.
If Joseph is not Heli’s son, Then Who Is?
I have demonstrated that it is absolutely normal for the daughter of a man to also be reckoned as the daughter of the same man’s father. Naturally, this would also apply to a man’s son. For example, Jesus is not only the son of David,5 but also the son of Abraham,6 even though neither were Jesus’ direct, biological father.
In Luke 3:23, it is written,

23 And Jesus himself was being about thirty years [old], being [the] son (as was supposed) of Yosef, of Eli,
ΚΓʹ καὶ αὐτὸς ἦν Ἰησοῦς ἀρχόμενος ὡσεὶ ἐτῶν τριάκοντα ὢν υἱός ὡς ἐνομίζετο Ἰωσὴφ τοῦ Ἠλὶ NA28

Let us consider the notion that Luke intentionally omitted υἱός from each father and only included it after Jesus (Ἰησοῦς) and before Joseph (Ἰωσὴφ). Again, it wasn’t normal for it to be omitted before each father in a genealogy. Either it is an anomaly, or Luke intended to do so. My belief is that Luke does not want us to understand Joseph as being the son of Heli, but Jesus as being the son of Heli, and Jesus being the son of:

Matthat
Levi
Melchi
Janna

all the way to...

Enos
Seth

and likewise, Jesus is the son of Adam, and Jesus (not Adam) is the son of God.7
The Nativity
Is Jesus the son of God? The books of the Bible unanimously declare him to be so. In fact, if we actually take a step back and read the narrative, one will see that it was Luke’s very intent to declare Jesus as the son of God, rather than Adam.
First, Luke begins his gospel describing the very nativity of our Lord Jesus. And, what does Luke tell us?
In Luke 1, it is written,

26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, 27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. KJV, 1769
31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: KJV, 1769
35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. KJV, 1769

The angel says that Jesus will be “the Son of the Most High” (υἱὸς ὑψίστου) and “the Son of God” (υἱὸς θεοῦ) because ⇨ God the Father is Jesus’ actual father. To reiterate, Luke commences his gospel by demonstrating that Jesus is truly and literally the Son of God. But, he does not stop there.
In chapter 2, Luke describes the birth of the Lord Jesus.8 He writes that “Joseph and his mother marvelled...” (rather than “his father and mother”),9 and he writes that Jesus tells his mother, “...I must be about my Father’s business...”10
Baptism
Luke also emphasizes the fact that Jesus is the son of God during the baptism narrative in Luke 3.

21 Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened, 22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.

Of course, it was God the Father who declared to Jesus, “You are My beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.” Then, just one verse later, Luke begins the genealogy. Again, looking at the big picture, one can see that Luke’s very intent was to describe Jesus as being God’s son. This is accomplished in the narratives of the nativity, baptism, and finally, the genealogy (Luke 1–3).
Not only does Luke focus on Jesus being God’s son, but he also focuses especially on Mary. On the other hand, if you read Matthew’s narrative, he focuses especially on Joseph. Hence, we need to understand that Luke’s genealogy is of Mary, and that Jesus is the son of God (not Adam). Accordingly, Jesus is Heli’s son, because Heli is his grandfather (Mary’s father).
This may be corroborated by the Jerusalem Talmud which speaks (albeit in a vile and derogatory manner, as can be expected) of a מרים ברת עלי (“Miryam, daughter of Eli”).11
In his commentary on Luke 3:23, John Lightfoot wrote,12

Joseph is not here called the son of Heli, but Jesus is so: for the word Jesus must be understood, and must be always added in the reader’s mind to every race in this genealogy, after this manner: “Jesus (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, and so the son of Heli, and of Matthat, yea and, at length, the son of Adam, and the Son of God.” For it was very little the business of the evangelist either to draw Joseph’s pedigree from Adam, or, indeed, to shew that Adam was the son of God: which not only sounds something harshly, but in this place very enormously, I may almost add, blasphemously too.
For when St. Luke, verse 22, had made a voice from heaven, declaring that Jesus was the Son of God, do we think the same evangelist would, in the same breath, pronounce Adam ‘the son of God’ too? So that this very thing teacheth us what the evangelist propounded to himself in the framing of this genealogy; which was to shew that this Jesus, who had newly received that great testimony from heaven, “This is my Son,” was the very same that had been promised to Adam by the seed of the woman.
And for this reason hath he drawn his pedigree on the mother’s side, who was the daughter of Heli, and this too as high as Adam, to whom this Jesus was promised. In the close of the genealogy, he teacheth in what sense the former part of it should be taken; viz. that Jesus, not Joseph, should be called the son of Heli, and consequently, that the same Jesus, not Adam, should be called the Son of God. Indeed, in every link of this chain this still should be understood, “Jesus the son of Matthat, Jesus the son of Levi, Jesus the son of Melchi”; and so of the rest...

Jesus is descended from David via his mother Mary, who was of the tribe of Judah and thus physically descended from David. This fulfills God’s promise to David that the fruit of his loins would reign on his throne forever. Jesus cannot actually inherit the throne from his mother. Tribal status, and thus the right to the Davidic throne, is actually passed paternally. So, how then does Jesus inherit the throne of David? Adoption, in the same way that Christians inherit our throne and reign with Jesus.13

References
Lightfoot, John. Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae: Hebrew and Talmudical Exercitations. Trans. Gandell, Robert. Vol. 3. Oxford: UP of Oxford, 1859.
Footnotes
1 Luke 3:23–38
2 cp. Luke 6:15. However, he includes the definite article τὸν which is shorthand for τὸν υἱὸν.
3 cp. Gen. 36:24
4 ibid.
5 cp. Matt. 1:1
6 ibid.
7 Luke 3:38
8 Luke 2:7
9 Luke 2:33
10 Luke 2:49
11 Tractate Chaggiga, Chapter 2, Folio 11a, Halakha 2, Gemara; cp. Lightfoot, p. 55
12 p. 54
13 Rom. 8:15–17

When you count the generations in Matthew 1 you will find one missing in the last set of 14. There are only 13. The reason is verse 16 which reads "Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary who bore Jesus who is called Messiah." in most English Bibles. Both the Aramaic and the Hebrew manuscripts of Matthew read "Jacob begat Josef the father of Mary ..." which solves our problems: we now have 14 generations from Babylon to Christ and we have the unbroken kingly line through David's son Solomon right down through Mary, Jesus' only earthly parent. Jesus - YESHUA is truly the SON OF DAVID, ISRAEL'S ANNOINTED KING. So you see, Mary's father was named Joseph and she married a man named Joseph ...


What is the mark placed on Cain? "And the Lord put a mark on Cain, lest any who found him should attack him." Genesis 4:15 ESV

What is the mark placed on Cain?

It seems to have been a mark of warning, not of protection, to those who may think to harm him. The mark was a sign of God's mercy for this murderer. Unfortunately, others warped the meaning of the sign and applied it to themselves later in the same chapter:

Genesis 4:23-24

  Lamech said to his wives: “Adah and Zillah, hear my voice; you wives
  of Lamech, listen to what I say: I have killed a man for wounding me,
  a young man for striking me.   If Cain’s revenge is sevenfold, then
  Lamech’s is seventy-sevenfold.”

Mankind misconstrued God's mark of mercy to be a mark of license, and had no problem killing others who bothered them. To them it was a mark of "revenge" not mercy. Thus, mankind grew worse and worse, since there was no fear of God in them. So the Flood was necessary, and after the Flood, came God's clear command so we would not make the same mistake:

Genesis 9:6

  “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for
  God made man in his own image.

They did not seem to see the mark as a physical mark; it appears that they just applied it to themselves as a matter of principle: "I killed a man, so I am marked by God, too."

The only people who survived the flood were Noah, his wife, their 3 sons and their wives, 8 people (Genesis 7:13, 1 Peter 3:20).  None of them were descendants of Cain, so the mark of Cain has died out, whatever it was.  (Some believe it was the Neanderthals.)   Many people, however, confuse the mark of Cain with the curse of Canaan in Genesis 9:25 "Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren."  That's a completely different thing.  The descendants of Canaan were the Canaanites, as you read in Genesis 10, and also the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were populated by them.  So the curse of Canaan sets up the story for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah as well as the Israelite conquest of the land of Canaan.


Did Jesus ascend to Heaven twice? While studying the book of John I came to:

  Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. (John 20:17, KJV)

Jesus would not allow Mary Magdalene to touch him after his resurrection until he had ascended to God the father, and in:

  Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. (John 20:27, KJV)

Because he tells Thomas to stick his hand into his side, does it indicate that he had already ascended to God the father in Heaven?

Then in Luke we have the account of him ascending into Heaven as he was blessing the disciples.

Are there any other passages which might help answer my question?

The Gospels, Matthew and Luke, are based off of the gospel of Mark and the gospel of John is based independently on its own source.

The Savior said He was not to be touched until He has ascended to God. Perhaps He was to present Himself Resurrected to His Father. As far as we can tell by His conversation with the disciples versus His conversation with Mary, this had occurred by the time he was with the disciples.

Also, I believe it is implied in Acts that the Savior visited people after that ascension after Mary saw him. So yes, he had ascended before the time they saw His final ascension in the first chapter of Acts.

Edit:

Places where the Savior shows up after resurrection (not comprehensive):

Matthew 28:9-10 (held him by the feet),
Matthew 28:16-20,
Mark 16:12 =? Luke 24:13-33,
Mark 16:14 =? Luke 24:36-49 =? John 20:26-29,
John 20:19-23,
John 21,

Acts 1:3
Acts 7:55
Acts 9:5
Acts 9:10
Acts 9:27
Acts 10:40
Acts 13:31
Acts 18:9
Acts 22:18
Acts 23:11
Acts 26:16

1 Cor. 15:6

"Touch me not, for I have not yet ascended to my Father in Heaven", could be interpreted more as "Don't worry, I'm not going leaving for Heaven just yet.  You don't have to cling to me like that."


What is the basis for understanding commandments to be anything other than compulsory? People come with the impression that everybody has a choice to do something or not (choices all around everybody), but where in the bible do we as people get the right of choices?

In the Bible I can give a list of commandments and what is expected/what we should do, and if it is done any different it is seen as sin. So where does society come of that we have free of will to make our own decisions as we already were given commandments?

Legally, as God's creation, it could be expected that His created creatures are required to follow His laws.  Yet, in Scripture, there are many cases in which the wicked seem to prosper, and people in foreign lands are allowed to worship their own gods without retribution.  Why is this the case?  What is it in God's nature that affords a tolerance for those who do not keep God's commandments?

1. Bilateral Covenants afford rights

After the conquest of Canaan, Joshua has an interesting proposition for the Children of Israel.  Reflecting on their tendencies to fall into idolatry and syncretism, he says in Joshua 24:

  “Now therefore fear the Lord and serve him in sincerity and in faithfulness. Put away the gods that your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the Lord. 15 And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”

Non-unilateral Covenants - and this was a reiteration of the Covenant - are legal agreements in which each party surrenders certain things to the other in exchange for certain privileges.  The 10 Commandments with which you are familiar is such a covenant - often formulated as "You shall be my people, and I shall be your God."

Regardless of whether or not as the Creator God already has a legal right over his people, God chooses to enter into a covenant with His people, thus affording them simple privileges.

2. Love is the desired thing - not obedience

Historically, theologians have attributed this to a problem of power disparity.  As God, God has ultimate power to demand reverence and devotion, but in practice, this tends to overwhelm the less powerful party. Instead, God chooses to woo those whom he would have love Him - and requisite to taht would be both free choice and the ability to reject the suitor.

Jesus makes this explict in John 14:15 where he says:

  "If you love me, keep my commandments."

As such, God phrases these as choices, in order to get what he wants - which is that sincere faithfulness which only comes from a free exchange.

Indeed, Jesus is often quoted against the Pharisses, but in one of his most damning indictments of disobedience, he tells them:

  "Go and learn this saying - I desire mercy and not sacrifice."

Jesus is pointing them back to Hosea, wherein God reveals that his character is to love and to woo, not to overwhelm.  In making such a god of the law, the Pharisees have perverted its purpose.

3.  Judgement is coming, but love delays it

The Parable of the Wheat and the Tares in Matthew 13 is probably the best biblical support for tolerance.  In the story, the enemy comes and sows weeds amongst good grain.  When the farmhands discover this, they ask the master if they should tear up the weeds.  The Master declines, saying:

  ‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’”

Note that judgement will come to those who are not following the commandments - but the love that the Master has for his chosen compels him to afford all the opportunity to grow in love.  Waiting until their fruits are fully known affords a time for everyone to come to love of the One who came "too seek and save the lost."  Affording a chance to repent necessarily means affording a chance not to - thus allowing for some to reject God, but having the choice to do so in the first place.

people in foreign lands are allowed to worship their own gods without retribution. Why is this the case?

Clearly the Ten Commandments, which prohibit worship of other gods, apply to Jews and Christians, but what about people who have their own scriptures, such as Hindus and Buddhists?

The Catholic Church teaches that it speaks for God, so the pronouncements of Vatican II are important for Catholics, if not for other Christians. The following extracts show that, following the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church holds, as a matter of divine revelation, that it is within the teachings of Christ for people to be free to seek religious truth under any suitable means such as by non-Christian worship:

The Declaration On The Relation Of The Church To Non-Christian Religions (Nostra Aetate), promulgated in 1965, states, "The Church reproves, as foreign to the mind of Christ, any discrimination against men or harassment of them because of their race, color, condition of life, or religion."
The Declaration On Religious Freedom (Dignitatis Humanae) states (clause 3): "[E]very man has the duty, and therefore the right, to seek the truth in matters religious in order that he may with prudence form for himself right and true judgments of conscience, under use of all suitable means." Further (clause 9): "this doctrine of freedom has roots in divine revelation, and for this reason Christians are bound to respect it all the more conscientiously."

The Baptist World Congress in 1939 in Atlanta, Georgia issued a Declaration on Religious Liberty which included the statement, “No person…has the right the dictate how another person may worship God or whether that person should worship at all.” Ten years later in Copenhagen the BWA issued a statement “God…calls upon us today…to maintain this God-given freedom not only for ourselves but for all people everywhere.”

These are just two examples in which significant pronouncements have been made, affirming that it is a God-given right to sincerely hold non-Christian beliefs or no religious belief.


If Hell does not exist would God have sent Jesus to die? There have been several comments on this site which tend to deny the existence of Hell.

But Jesus tells me that the lake of fire is the place of Eternal punishment that God created for Satan and the rebellious Angels, and that the unsaved will also be cast into it.

Matthew 25:41  KJV

  Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

Revelation 20:12 through 15

  12  And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

  13  And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

  14  And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

  15  And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

And Jesus himself spoke of Hell 15 times in the Gospels and one time in the Revelation.

But by far there is one question that haunts me the most, and that is that if there was not the most horrendous of all punishments awaiting the unsaved, why would God send Jesus to be tortured and die on the Cross?

You say it is because of his great love for us, but that doesn't pass the smell test; in that if he loves us that much why would he love his own son less.

To take him from Heaven and make him go through what he went through on Earth has to be a lot worse than us just dieing.

Even beyond that unless he was saving mankind from a fate worse than his torture and death on the cross, why would Jesus voluntarily go through it?

It depends on how you interpret the word "perish" in John 3:16.

  For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that
  whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
  (John 3:16, NIV)

Physical death: To say that the word 'perish' here means physical death would mean that the moment we believe in Jesus Christ, we will become immortal and we will never die; which is obviously false. One might also interpret this as the resurrection at the last day, which would mean that non-believers will never be raised again, they will remain in the dust forever, which is again in contradiction to Revelation 20:5, which has resurrection of the unjust after the Millennium.

"Hell/Lake of fire/ Second death:" We will go to Hell after we die if we do not accept the salvation offered by Jesus Christ. Revelation 20(NIV) has something to say about this.

  [4-6] I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given
  authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded
  because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God.
  They had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received
  its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and
  reigned with Christ a thousand years. (The rest of the dead did not
  come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first
  resurrection. Blessed and holy are those who share in the first
  resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will
  be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand
  years.

  [11-15] Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it.
  The earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no
  place for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before
  the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is
  the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done
  as recorded in the books. The sea gave up the dead that were in it,
  and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each
  person was judged according to what they had done. Then death and
  Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the
  second death. Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of
  life was thrown into the lake of fire.

I was born and brought up in the Assembly of God Church. Most of the preachers always interpret John 3:16 as,

  Those who believe in Jesus will not go to Hell. After the fall of Adam and Eve, everyone is destined to go to Hell because we no
  longer belonged to God and we are now children of Satan. When God saw
  that all men are going to Hell, He could no longer stay where He was. God then came down from Heaven to earth, to pay the death penalty of sins for
  us, so that we may escape the fire of Hell by accepting Jesus Christ as our savior.

No wonder why the Apostles' Creed states  "Jesus descended into hell".

This answer has been edited

I am going to start of by saying Hell is a term put together by mankind for mankind. It is only a figurative “place”.

  What do I mean? God has created Heaven and God has created Earth and
  God has created all of creation. But God has not created some “place”
  or “location” called Hell. There is no record in the entire Bible of
  God creating Hell. It is a term mankind has used to describe the final
  state of the wicked and unconverted.

  Quoting Christian Theology by Millard J. Erickson, pg 456 -
  “Throughout life, a person says to God, in effect, “Leave me alone.”
  Hell, the absence of God, is God’s simply giving that person at last
  what he or she has always asked for. It is not God, but one’s own
  choice that sends a person to hell.”

  Hell is not a ‘place’, it is being apart from God, which most of the
  following is trying to say.

Now I believe some will follow this question and read that and say, “exactly!”. But the problem is, the substance of their conclusion and mine is totally opposite.

  Quoting from Dr. Deffinbaugh’s article - “A Hell to Shun”: “No one
  really wants to talk about hell. The person who finds some kind of
  satisfaction in exploring its horrors must have a problem. Many do not
  wish to believe that some will suffer eternal torment. One survey over
  ten years ago indicated that 58% Methodists, 60% Episcopalians, 54%
  Presbyterians, 35% American Baptists, 22% American Lutherans deny it
  is a specific place after death.9 It is not difficult to understand
  why some choose to believe there is no such thing as eternal torment.
  After all, such a fact would have dramatic implications!”

  “The cults have generally tended to distort biblical teachings on
  eternal punishment: Christian Science believes there is no final
  judgment. The Jehovah’s Witnesses hold that lost men will have a
  second chance and that those who reject this offer of salvation will
  be annihilated. Mormonism maintains that all non-Mormons will be
  sentenced to eternal torment, along with those Mormons who are thus
  judged worthy of it. Unity refuses to believe in the finality of
  death, but believes that through mind action we resurrect ourselves
  from the dead. Modern theology insists that a loving God could never
  subject anyone to such punishment.”

  So according to Mr. Deffinbaugh, there are those who will say,
  “exactly - there is no hell”. I now go on to show the substance behind
  their conclusion cannot be correct. Though there may not be a “place”
  called hell, there certainly IS a condition for it, that of being
  apart from God.

He is Creator, I am created.

He is Holy and lives without sin because His nature cannot sin.
My nature makes possible my own suffering and the suffering of others.

Belief in His Son provides my Salvation and moves me into His realm.
With Him, I can now relish this blessing and strive to live like Jesus Christ.

His realm is one of beauty and righteousness and awe and wonder. We know this because we see His handiwork in the earth and the heavens. There are many incredible things God has created around us which we have learned from over the years. And in God’s realm, there is an eternity MORE of things to learn and experience.

But you cannot be part of this realm and presented with this boundless goodness unless you choose now that Jesus Christ provides the way to this realm. There is the issue. There is the stopping point for many. Presented with an eternity that FAR surpasses any and all that has been experienced on this planet, there are those who don’t want to get there through Jesus Christ. But that is not a problem.

God is going to go out of the way to make sure that is your final decision. He is going to allow suffering like you have never known just to make sure you really want to live with your decision. But this suffering will come by the hands of mankind, not God. It will be mankind who invokes such suffering upon mankind. At some point in time God will have to step in or all would be destroyed. But he is going to allow mankind to do this because He would much rather you choose salvation through Jesus Christ then live apart from Him.

At some point in the future, there will be a separation. Those who accepted Jesus Christ will go to live in God’s realm, the kingdom of God, ruled by Jesus Christ. What about the rest? Where will they go?

Those who choose not to accept Jesus Christ will get to live outside the realm, outside the kingdom of God. Where is that place? One term mankind has put together for this is “hell”.

  All created beings are to face a final judgement before Jesus Christ.
  At this judgement, some people will be turned aside as they have
  desired all their life while others will receive the blessings and
  rewards God chooses to bestow upon them. There will be no other
  judgement after this. Those who are turned aside will reside in “hell”
  - being without God. You really do not want to be in that group so accept the salvation God offers through Jesus Christ.

  See: “The Future Judgment of the Believer” by Lehman Strauss

Now to answer the question. If we permit “hell” to be a term that does not describe a “literal place or location”, we must yet realize there will be a separation of people based upon their choice of believing Jesus Christ is their Savior. We must also realize there will be a group who rejects a kingdom based upon “love, joy, peace, patience, goodness, faithfulness, and self-control” and who will not be in that kingdom.

Though dispensing with the term, Jesus Christ would still have had to come to provide salvation for those who will be allowed to live eternally in the kingdom of God. We are created, therefor not perfect, as is the Creator, and still have need of a Savior.

  At the start, I showed “hell” as a term created by mankind rather than
  a “place” or “location” created by God. But we must realize we are
  created beings and being created, are not perfect. Since this is the
  case, Jesus Christ would still have had to die because nothing else
  would have been sufficient in God’s eyes to bring us into the perfect
  kingdom of the Son he Loves.

  See: “God’s Plan of Salvation” by J. Hampton Keathley III

One Final Point

If I am not created, I am perfect
If I am not perfect, I need a Savior
Yes, Jesus would have had to die for me.

Now points about the comments

First off, most of what I have written is from an Evangelical, Christian, Biblical point of view and not from any specific denomination. Perhaps I have stated what a specific denomination believes but did not do so with that purpose in mind.

Second, the scriptures mentioned in the comments suggest the word “Hell” be taken as authoritative. The problem is that the word “Hell” in Rev 20:13, according to English translations offered at Bible Gateway and Dr. Deffinbaugh’s article above, is more often translated as “Hades”. Further, “Hades” does not carry the idea of everlasting separation from God. Quoting Dr. Deffinbaugh: “As is seen by its usage in the New Testament, Hades has the same general reference to the abode of the dead, whether righteous or wicked.”

For Matthew 10:28, it seems “hell” is the term most commonly used by translators. But from the context, I would suggest it is really talking about eternal separation from God, as was mentioned above. Regarding this, all people should fear its meaning and seek salvation offered by God because, like you implied, Jesus was not a liar.

  The Edits: Seeing the down votes and disparaging comments, I recognize
  my answer lacked clarity. Due to this, I have added the highlighted
  text and references above in an effort to be better understood.