As I've looked around the internet at reactions to Athanasius' magnum opus *On the Incarnation*, I've seen some accusations of latent Apollinarism. The work was published before the Apollinarian heresy was formally defined and condemned, but they say that it was materially there in his writings. That's just background, it's not what my question is about. You need not defend his orthodoxy to me. Before the heresy was condemned at the ecumenical First Council of Constantinople, it was condemned at a local council in Alexandria headed by none other than Athanasius. So clearly Athanasius was as opposed to this heresy as he had famously been opposed to Arianism. But are there any surviving writings I can read where he lays out the case against Apollinarism?

It is an observable fact that most people, even most Christians, don't repent of every sin individually before they die. Even that really great guy at church who's everyone's best friend and is first to let you know he messed up probably has been in a tiff or two where he thinks he was completely right and, in a lack of charity, or even with just a hint of pride, he refuses to see that he may have handled things improperly. For Catholics and Orthodox, with their theology of purgatory/tollhouses, as well as the Sacrament of Penance, this is a non-issue. That guy has all of those "venial" sins forgiven when he makes a good, honest confession of at least all his mortal sins. And, even if some venial sins slip through the cracks before death and aren't absolved, or aren't fully properly repented of, he will spend some time suffering in purgatory temporarily, and then will enter heaven for eternity thereafter. However, for Protestants who specifically reject both the doctrine of purgatory *and* make no distinction between mortal and venial sins (I'm thinking of those for whom the statement "stealing $1 and stealing $1 million are both damnable offenses" is generally a thought to be a true statement), it would seem that unless a man manages to truly and fully repent of every single little sin he has committed in his entire life, he would end up going straight to hell. Do Protestants who deny both of these tenets of Catholic faith simply bite that bullet, or do they have another way of working out this theological problem? ## Clarification I'm confused as to why I am getting lots of answers about earning our salvation. I am presuming that those answering believe, like I do, that people must repent of all of their sins in order to go to heaven. What I am asking is what Protestants think happens to people who neglect to repent of a single sin or maybe two or three, but otherwise live holy lives, when they die. I feel I must add this because I must have communicated something unclearly in the original body of the question.

I asked this question on the hermeneutics SE but I was told it would be better to ask here. What I can say is I'm not looking for an answer explaining that salvation is through Christ only, because it is obvious and it was even my assumption for this question. What I'm wondering is more about what Jesus actually meant if we know He is the only way of salvation. In Matthew 23:13, we can read: >But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because **you shut the kingdom of heaven against men**; for you neither enter yourselves, nor allow those who would enter to go in - **Matthew 23:13 (RSV-CE)** In Catholic, Polish Bible "Biblia Tysiąclecia", there's a commentary to this verse (translated to English): >By imposing excessive requirements around the Law, **they made it impossible for people to observe it, thereby closing the way to salvation**. They also bear the greatest blame for the people's unbelief in Jesus the Messiah. Is this commentary accurate? I'm asking because in my opinion, someone could conclude from this verse that the Law could've been observed in a feasible way that leads to salvation which we know is actually impossible because humans are not able to observe the Law entirely and perfectly (that's why Jesus, who can do that, had to redeem us on the cross). And also, would observing the Law in a hard way be considered a sin if it "shuts the kingdom of heaven" or not so much sin as it leads to commiting one? If it is, who is actually responsible for that sin? Were people aware of it? If not, why would God close the heaven for such people if they did it unintentionally? Or were they kind of deceived, so both deceived and deceiver commited sin? The only interpretation that comes to my mind is it refers to observing the Law before Christ's death, but still those people couldn't observe the Law perfectly and needed redemption on the cross. Maybe it is just about observing in the right way as much as possible, not observing perfectly and entirely?

The main characteristic of Sabellianism is that God is only one hypostasis (one Person). Sabellianism is sometimes described as similar to Modalism, in which 'Father' and 'Son' are merely two names for exactly the same Person. Others say that Sabellianism did make a distinction between the Father and Son within the one hypostasis, like one can distinguish between the body, spirit, and soul within one human person. While the Trinity doctrine teaches three hypostases in God, Athanasius, like Sabellianism, held that the Father, Son, and Spirit are a single hypostasis: > "The fragments of Eustathius that survive present a doctrine that is > close to Marcellus, and to Alexander and **Athanasius**. Eustathius > insists there is **only one hypostasis**“ (Ayres, p. 69). > > The “clear inference from his (Athanasius') usage” is that “there is > **only one hypostasis in God**” (Ayres, p. 48). > > “Athanasius' most basic language and analogies for describing the > relationship between Father and Son primarily present the two as > intrinsic aspects of **one reality or person**” (Ayres, p. 46). He taught that the Son is an internal aspect of the Father: > “Athanasius' increasing clarity in treating the Son as **intrinsic to > the Father's being**” (Ayres, p. 113). > > “Athanasius' argument speaks not of two realities engaged in a common activity, but develops his most basic sense that the Son is **intrinsic to the Father's being**” (Ayres, p. 114). > > “Although Athanasius’ theology was by no means > identical with Marcellus’, the overlaps were significant enough for > them to be at one on some of the vital issues—especially their common > insistence that the Son was **intrinsic to the Father's external > existence**” (Ayres, p. 106). For Athanasius, just as the Son is part of the Father, the Holy Spirit is part of the Son and, therefore, not a distinct Person or hypostasis: > “Just as his (Athanasius’) account of the Son can rely heavily on the > picture of the Father as one person with his intrinsic word, so too he > emphasizes the closeness of Spirit to Son by presenting the Spirit as > the Son's ‘energy’” (Ayres, p. 214). > > “The language also shows Athanasius trying out formulations that will > soon be problematic. … ‘The Cappadocians' will find the language of > ἐνέργεια [superhuman activity] used of the Spirit … to be highly > problematic, seeming to indicate a lack of real existence” (Ayres, p. > 214). Athanasius opposed the concept of “three hypostases.” He regarded the phrase as "unscriptural and therefore suspicious” (Ayres, p. 174). For Athanasius, the enemy was those who taught more than one hypostasis (Person) in God. The similarity of their theologies allowed Athanasius to form an alliance with the leading Sabellian Marcellus: > “Athanasius and Marcellus now seem to have made common cause against > those who insisted on distinct hypostases in God” (Ayres, p. 106). > > At the time when both Marcellus and Athanasius were exiled to Rome, “they considered themselves allies” (Ayres, p. 106). > > “Athanasius ... continued to defend the orthodoxy of Marcellus” > (Hanson, p. 220). > > Contrary to the traditional account, “it is … no longer clear that > Athanasius ever directly repudiated Marcellus, and he certainly seems > to have been sympathetic to Marcellus’ followers through into the > 360s” (Ayres, p. 106). Athanasius, in writing, declared the Sabellians to be orthodox: > “About the year 371 adherents of Marcellus approached Athanasius, > presenting to him a statement of faith. … He accepted it and gave them > a document expressing his agreement with their doctrine” (Hanson, p. > 801). If Athanasius was not a Sabellian, how did he differ from them?

When Dr Vance Smith , a Unitarian, was appointed to the Committee to revise the Authorised Version, public opinion objected to the appointment and Drs Westcott and Hort (Hort, also, leaning towards Unitarianism) said that if Dr Smith was not allowed then neither would they be involved in the revision. All three were permitted to contribute to the revision and during that revision Drs Westcott and Hort approached other members of the committee, singly, seeking to influence them in regard to the Greek text being translated - the Received Text, also called the *Textus Receptus*. The ensuing revision resulted in the imposition of a new Greek text (that of Drs Westcott and Hort) in 1881, something not envisaged by the purpose of the revision. Many objected to this, among them Dean John Burgon who, in his book ‘*Revision Revised*’, pointed out that between the two manuscripts upon which the W&H text strongly depended, Codex Aleph (*Sinaiticus*) and Codex B (*Vaticanus*), there was disagreement in over three thousand places *in just the four gospels*. Hermon Hoskier , in his book ‘*Codex B and its Allies*’ demonstrated that there had been a recension (a supposed ‘reversion’ to the original) in the fifth century, based on Egyptian and Coptic influence, resulting in a corrupted text. The *correction* of this recension, of the fifth century, resulted in the Received Text . Hermon Hoskier further demonstrated that the two manuscripts upon which Drs Westcott and Hort so much relied were, in fact, *proof of the corrupt recension*. The reason they survived, say Dean John Burgon and Hermon Hoskier, is that they were recognised for their fault and were little used, just retained as reference. The resulting Greek text of Westcott and Hort can be seen to be weakened, compared to the Received Text, in many places where the Deity of Christ and where the relationship of Father and Son are in view. (See below for just a few of those places.) Overall, about 9,000 alterations, additions and deletions were made to the Received Text (see Dr Scrivener’s comparative text of 1881) amounting to about 7% of the text. And it is noticeable to anyone who studies these changes in detail that there is a definite bias appearing in regard to the deliberate favouring of Codices Aleph and B on these particular occasions. What is the response of those who favour the so-called ‘Critical Text’ above the Received Text to the overall changes in emphasis seen in these texts - the bias evidently towards Unitarianism ? ---------------------------------------------- A full explanation of the following texts and the effect of changing them is available here . (See the PDF version for a much better display of the Greek letters.) - ... and they **worshipped him** ... Luke 24:52 - ... the **only begotten Son** ... John 1:18 - ... the Son of man, **which is in heaven** ... John 3:13 - ... purchased **with his own blood** ... Acts 20:28 - ... Christ came, **who is over all, God blessed for ever** ... Romans 9:5 - ... neither let us tempt **Christ** ... 1 Corinthians 10:9 - ... singing to the **Lord** ... Colossians 3:16 - ... **God** was manifest in flesh ... 1 Timothy 3:16 - ... the dead ... stand **before God** ... Revelation 20:12 ----------------------------- Note (edit) I have used the word 'bias' in its second meaning as listed by the Oxford English Dictionary - 'to exert an influence unduly'. This is exactly, precisely, a description (as demonstrated in detail by Herman Hoskier in '*Codex B and its Allies*' and Dean John Burgon in his book '*Revision Revised'*) of placing undue preponderance on just two manuscripts against the vast weight of evidence contained in over 5,000 other Uncials and miniscules, the Patristic Citations, the Versions and the Lectionary quotations. It results in a bias introduced in the fifth century and reproduced in the Critical Text as the above examples clearly indicate.

The following information comes from *the Manual of Indulgences: Norms and Grants translated into English from the 4th edition (1999) of Enchiridion Indulgentiarum: Normae et Concessiones)* which I think is the most up to date edition. In addition to being a baptized person in the state of grace and performing these two pious acts with the intentions of gaining the plenary indulgences (one for the Day of New Years and the other for the day before)---as only one plenary indulgence can be gained in any one day for oneself, there are the other usual conditions: (1) sacramental confession, (2) Holy Communion, and (3) praying for the Pope's intentions, all within a few weeks of the act, and (4) with complete detachment from all sin, even venial. It would appear from the wording used (e.g., "assist"), that these prayers must be recited publicly (other sources of information also would confirm this). QUESTION: In order to possibly obtain both of these plenary indulgences which, the acts of which are done on separate days (such as before midnight and after midnight), are two sets of prayers for the intentions of the Pope, two separate sacramental confessions, and two receptions of Holy Communion required? Thank you.

Rather than busting out a KJV and a JST and comparing them verse by verse I am lazily hoping that there is, somewhere, a list which has already been generated providing all of the verses from the Bible which the JST has modified or allegedly 'restored'?

James Fodor released a new video on the Resurrection of Jesus Christ saying that the disciple hallucinated and the hallucinations were part of a shared social process that has been shown among faith and non-faith contexts, Jesus's body was reburied, the disciples were biased to believing His Resurrection and socialisation factors may explain the existence of belief despite counter evidence. From a Christian perspective how would you respond to his claims?

Mainstream Christians believe that Jesus was the son of God the Father and Mary, a virgin. So my question is, have any Christian theologians discussed whether Jesus only resemble his mother Mary, or whether he also resembled his adopted father Joseph? God could easily have arranged it so that Jesus resembled Joseph, even if Joseph played no role in the conception of Jesus.

I came across a blog post by a platonist in which he critiqued the traditional Christian understanding of God and evil given God's omnibenevolence and omniscience, saying: > Augustine's claim that evil is not a substance but a privation of good > was designed to absolve God of direct responsibility for evil's > existence. However, this position does not escape the more profound > paradox that God created beings who could lapse into privation and did > so with full foreknowledge of the consequences. The free will defense > only complicates the issue: if God grants free will knowing it will be > misused, the divine act of creation becomes entangled with the > emergence of moral evil. Moreover, if the will can remain oriented > toward the good only through divine grace, then free will itself seems > limited or dependent in a way that undermines its explanatory value. > The paradox intensifies when considering the role of Satan, whose > rebellious agency destabilizes the coherence of monotheistic > sovereignty. If Satan undermines God's purposes, divine omnipotence is > weakened; if Satan acts only with God's permission, then divine > benevolence is compromised. Either interpretation raises problems that > the privation theory cannot reconcile. These tensions reveal a more > profound structural paradox at the heart of Christian theodicy. In a > cosmos created ex nihilo by an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God, > nothing can exist independently of divine will or permission. > Consequently, all conditions that make evil possible, creaturely > freedom, vulnerability, corruptibility, and the existence of tempters > are ultimately grounded in God's creative act. Christian theodicy thus > attempts to balance divine goodness with divine sovereignty, but the > metaphysical architecture of monotheism forces a contradiction: either > God is powerful enough to prevent evil but chooses not to, or God > wills a world in which evil inevitably emerges, making evil indirectly > a by-product of divine creative intention. Augustine's partial > incorporation of Neoplatonic ideas helps articulate evil as a > metaphysical deficiency. Yet, even this philosophical refinement > cannot compensate for a more fundamental issue: Christian theology's > consolidation of causality in a single omnipotent agent ensures that > God remains tied to every aspect of cosmic order and disorder alike. > The result is a system in which the existence of evil perpetually > threatens either the goodness or the sovereignty of the creator, and > the tradition's attempts to resolve this tension never entirely > eliminate its underlying contradictions. > > (Flavius Julianus Mithridaticus, *Evil as Shadow, Heroism as Form: An > Indo-European View of Theodicy*, The New Platonic Academy) To restate his critiques: - God created people with the ability to be evil and knew of the consequences because of his foreknowledge. He created people knowing they would use their free will for evil which makes evil a by-product of his creation. This seems to bring his omnibenevolence into question. If I created a simulation with the parameters allowing for characters in it to be evil then I'm responsible, at least partly, for evil existing in my simulation. - If Satan can thwart God's purposes [such as his desire for everyone to have faith in Him and live according to His moral law (my comment)], then it calls his omnipotence into question. And if Satan only acts with God's permission, then God's benevolence is compromised. If someone is stealing something or hurting someone and I allow it to happen when I have the ability to stop it, then I'm being evil. In Catholicism, being able to prevent or stop something evil and not doing it is the sin of omission. A more accurate allegory with regards to Satan's acts that are permitted by God: I'm standing in the way of an assailant and their victim and when the assailant asks if they can attack their victim, I nod and step aside, allowing the evil to take place. Maybe my allegory is off, but I'm having difficulty seeing his omnibenevolence given this. My allegory somewhat reminded me of the book of Job where Job, who is a holy man has his life and loved ones destroyed after God gives Satan permission and if I'm remembering correctly, God didn't give Job an explanation and instead told him about the world He created. - In a world created by God as understood by Christians, nothing exists apart from God's will or permission. Either God is powerful enough to prevent evil, but chooses not to or God willed a world where evil would inevitably exist, making evil a by-product of his creation. He presents a sound critique of the traditional Christian understanding of God and evil and it completely stumped me so if you have any thoughts, please share them because I don't know how to rebut him. Thank you in advance to anyone who tries to tackle this.

Their 15 March 2005 *Watchtower* said that on pages 5 to 6, and I fully agree with that point, so this question is not meant to stir up any ‘for’ or ‘against’ answers. Let us please all take it as understood that only those in the New Covenant Jesus inaugurated the night before he died are invited by him to eat bread and drink wine every time they “do this in remembrance of me” – Mark 14:2-24 & Luke 22:19. Nor is this question questioning how often this act of remembrance should be done. The Jehovah’s Witnesses believe it should be no more than once a year, with 2025 seeing their global event on 12 April, after sunset. Please be assured, I am not questioning that either. **It is the number of people attending their annual memorial event this year who partook that I am interested in learning about**. Granted, it may be a couple of months before the world-wide total of partakers is collated, so I will keep this question open. However, it would likely be possible for every Jehovah’s Witness reading this, and who attended themselves, to say if a single person partook, or two, three or four, etc, as ***in the vast majority of congregations nobody partakes. Or has this changed in recent years?*** The tiny percentage of all memorial attenders who do partake is tied up with the belief that only 144,000 people will ever have ‘the heavenly calling’, to be part of the kingdom of heaven. As stated here: > “The same spirit is operating on Jesus’ ‘other sheep,’ but it is not > arousing in them the hope and desire for heavenly life.” *The > Watchtower*, 15 February 1998 page 19 para. 6 Again, I’m not wanting any answers disputing that. I understand that to be the reason why less than 1% of attenders partake, but ***if the numbers have gone up somewhat, I would like to know why.*** **Hence the request to first obtain the number of those partaking this year**.

It's a common trope among craedobaptists that the purpose of baptism is in order to make a public commitment to the Christian faith. For example, here's an excerpt from a *GotQuestions.org* article on baptism: > Christian baptism is the means by which a person makes a public profession of faith and discipleship. In the waters of baptism, a person says, wordlessly, “I confess faith in Christ; Jesus has cleansed my soul from sin, and I now have a new life of sanctification.” It's the only paragraph on the article without a Biblical citation (other than the summary paragraph at the end). I'm curious what the Biblical basis for the idea of "public profession" being associated with Baptism. *Please note I am specifically asking about the association of **public** profession with baptism, not about craedobaptism generally.* (As context, I recently returned to Lutheranism after several years as a Baptist. Even while I was a Baptist, I never felt like I understood the basis for connection of public profession of faith to baptism.)

[Alien abductions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_abduction) , [close encounters](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close_encounter) and [UFO sightings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_reported_UFO_sightings) have been widely reported by many individuals around the world. Many self-proclaimed alien abductees and first-hand eyewitnesses of close encounters have testified to this effect. For instance, the YouTube Channel [UFO HUB](https://www.youtube.com/c/UFOHub/videos) hosts multiple interviews with such people. But beyond eyewitness accounts and anecdotes, on a more serious note, the UFO phenomenon in particular has been deemed worthy of a more rigorous evaluation, as evidenced by the [Pentagon UFO videos](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_UFO_videos) and the [U.S. Intelligence UFO Report](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFO_Report_(U.S._Intelligence)) . What is an overview of Christian views on alien appearances and abductions? Do most Christian denominations and organizations tend to take an official position on this issue?

In light of ongoing global events—such as wars (e.g., the conflict involving Russia), geopolitical instability, and widespread moral and social upheaval—many Christians interpret these as signs that the “end times” are approaching. My questions are twofold: Imminence of Christ’s return: Within mainstream Christian theology, do these kinds of events meaningfully support the belief that Christ’s return is near? How have passages such as Matthew 24; Luke 21; 1 Thessalonians 5:1–6; and Revelation 6–16 traditionally been understood in relation to historical events versus recurring patterns throughout history? Christ’s presence before the Parousia: Is there any biblical basis for the idea that Christ is presently “walking the earth” prior to His return, possibly until all believe in Him as the Christ? How do texts like Matthew 28:20 (“I am with you always”), John 14–16 (the coming of the Holy Spirit), Acts 1:9–11, and Revelation 1:12–18 inform orthodox interpretations of Christ’s presence now versus His future, visible return? I am seeking answers grounded in Scripture and recognized Christian interpretive traditions (e.g., patristic, Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant), rather than speculative or purely contemporary prophetic claims.

Does a Christian apologist aiming to uphold the accuracy and reliability of modern Bibles require a strong understanding of textual criticism? Put differently, when making a comprehensive argument supporting the truthfulness of various claims within the Bible—such as the Genesis creation story or the historical account of Jesus's resurrection in the Gospels and Acts—would the Christian apologist need to rely on arguments from textual criticism to substantiate the claim that the content in our contemporary Bibles is indeed accurate and reliable, despite thousands of years of transcription, translation, and potential manipulation since the writing of the original manuscripts? If possible, I would appreciate answers referencing books that have been published at the intersection of Christian apologetics and textual criticism. --- *Food for thought for those who think apologetics is an irrelevant or unnecessary discipline* These are some of my previous questions on this topic. Some of the answers are quite insightful and worth the read: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/99924/61679 https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/100436/61679 https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/100928/61679

### Introduction The Law of Moses/Torah of Moses are a body of commandments and laws which were given to the nation of Israel at Mount Sinai by God. Observant Jews continue to follow these laws as understood through rabbinic traditions and interpretations, while most major Christian denominations more or less do not. The Old Testament/Hebrew Bible contains many scriptures which seem to indicate that the Mosaic law is eternal and uses the same word used elsewhere that describes God being eternal: **Exodus 31:16–17 (NRSV)** indicates observance of the Sabbath is an eternal activity: > Therefore the Israelites shall keep the Sabbath, observing the Sabbath throughout their generations, as a **perpetual covenant**. It is a sign **forever** between me and the Israelites that in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed. **Leviticus 16:29-34** indicates Yom Kippur should be observed forever: > This shall be a statute to you **forever**: In the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you shall humble yourselves ... This shall be an **everlasting statute** for you, to make atonement for the Israelites once in the year for all their sins. And Moses did as the Lord had commanded him. **Deuteronomy 29:29** seems to indicate that all the words of the law should be followed for all time by the children of Israel: > The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the revealed things belong to us and to our children **forever**, to observe all the words of this law. **Jeremiah 31:31** makes a promise that the Jews will have the Mosaic law written on their heart in the future: > The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant that I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt—a covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, says the Lord. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: **I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts**, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. No longer shall they teach one another or say to each other, “Know the Lord,” for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the Lord, for I will forgive their iniquity and remember their sin no more. ### Question Do Christians believe that the Hebrew Bible prophesied that the commandments it called eternal would one day end? Is there an Old Testament basis for believing observance of the Mosaic law would not be forever? Views from all denominations welcome.

Notable examples include: - [Does God Exist? William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens - Full Debate [HD]](https://youtu.be/0tYm41hb48o) - [The God Debate II: Harris vs. Craig](https://youtu.be/yqaHXKLRKzg) - [Does Math Point to God? William Lane Craig + Graham Oppy](https://youtu.be/8WE1y00bwCU) - [Is the Kalam Sound? Graham Oppy vs. Andrew Loke](https://youtu.be/a8NrTv-Durc) - [Are There Any Good Arguments for God? Ed Feser vs Graham Oppy](https://youtu.be/m-80lQOlNOs) - [William Lane Craig and Sean Carroll | "God and Cosmology" | 2014 Greer Heard Forum](https://youtu.be/X0qKZqPy9T8) - [DEBATE: Theism vs Atheism | Jonathan McLatchie vs Alex O’Connor](https://youtu.be/rnIQFI1pYLM) - [DEBATE Matt Dillahunty Vs Cliffe Knechtle | Is Christianity True? | Podcast](https://youtu.be/aAg3H1LU1Yw) - [Is Belief in the Resurrection Unreasonable? Mike Winger vs. Matt Dillahunty](https://youtu.be/Z2FGgkubhZM) - [Is belief in the Resurrection reasonable? Trent Horn Vs Matt Dillahunty Debate](https://youtu.be/7V6UNSvHVDM) Given the well-established practice among (some) Christians of engaging in formal intellectual debates with atheists and skeptics to defend core tenets of the Christian faith, such as the existence of God and the resurrection of Jesus, through philosophical arguments, reason, and evidence (as the examples above illustrate), what is the biblical basis for this? The New Testament enumerates various spiritual gifts and ministries (1 Corinthians 12:4-11, Ephesians 4:11-13, Romans 12:6-8), but I am unaware of any ministry fitting the role of a "professional intellectual debater." --- **Note**: there is some overlap with my previous question *https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/100436/61679* , although the focus here is on the debate aspect, and the scope is broader in terms of what can be defended (resurrection of Jesus, miracles, etc.)

The first mention in the Bible of the devil or Satan being judged is in Genesis 3, on the occasion of the fall of Adam and Eve, with the serpent generally accepted as either being Satan or being controlled by him. This Genesis 3 judgment may be eternal condemnation and imprisonment in hell or lesser punishment. What is the earliest prophecy (chronologically, according to traditional dating) in the Bible that states unequivocally that Satan will be cast into hell for eternity with no chance of repentance and forgiveness? I ask this so as to get closer to the answer to a larger question: was deceiving Adam and Eve or a prior rebellion in heaven the occasion of Satan's prison sentence without possibility of parole, or is it something that Satan did or will do later in history?

**Luke 2:34–35**: > (KJV) **34**And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against; > **35**(Yea, **a sword shall pierce through thy own soul** also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed. > > (NLT) **34**Then Simeon blessed them, and he said to Mary, the baby’s mother, “This child is destined to cause many in Israel to fall, but he will be a joy to many others. He has been sent as a sign from God, but many will oppose him. > **35**As a result, the deepest thoughts of many hearts will be revealed. And **a sword will pierce your very soul**.” Do any *non-Catholic* denominations (i.e. those that don't venerate Mary) attach any special significance to Luke 2:35, "a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also"?
(Other than of course the trivial obvious fact of having to watch one's son's being tortured and executed.)

The Book of Enoch mentions Gadreel as one of the Watchers, but the specific claim that Gadreel led Eve astray appears in 1 Enoch 69:6. Here's the passage from the Book of Enoch that mentions Gadreel: #### 1 Enoch 69:6 (from the Ethiopic text): >"And the third was named Gadreel: he it is who showed the children of men all the blows of death, and he led astray Eve, and showed the weapons of death to the sons of men." This passage suggests that Gadreel was responsible for leading Eve astray, which contrasts with the Genesis account where the serpent is the one who tempts Eve. #### Context of the Passage - In 1 Enoch, the Watchers are fallen angels who descended to Earth and corrupted humanity. They taught forbidden knowledge to humans, including how to make weapons of war, astrology, and the "secrets" of the heavens. - The reference to Gadreel is part of a broader narrative that associates the Watchers with the downfall of humankind, which includes the temptation of Eve. This is a key divergence from the canonical Genesis story where it is explicitly the serpent (often identified with Satan) who deceives Eve. The role of Gadreel in this context highlights the Book of Enoch's unique interpretation of the fall, is this the reason why it was excluded from the Bible, as it conflicts with the established narrative in canonical texts.