Most Mentioned Bible Characters Quiz

How many of the 50 most-mentioned people in the Bible can you name?
Quiz by Quizmaster
Rate:
Last updated: December 11, 2019
First submittedMay 28, 2011
Times taken91,450
Rating4.17
6:00
Enter bible character here:
0
 / 50 guessed
The quiz is paused. You have remaining.
Scoring
You scored / = %
This beats or equals % of test takers also scored 100%
The average score is
Your high score is
Your fastest time is
Keep scrolling down for answers and more stats ...
#
Person
1370
Jesus
968
David
784
Moses
516
Jacob
335
Saul
333
Aaron
278
Abraham
274
Solomon
206
Peter
192
Joshua
186
Joseph
173
Paul
124
Jeremiah
#
Person
122
Isaac
121
Samuel
121
Joab
117
Hezekiah
99
Judah
92
Absalom
91
Elijah
88
Nebuchadnezzar
87
John
83
Jonathan
81
Esau
79
Ahab
79
Jeroboam
#
Person
77
Daniel
69
Manasseh
67
Jehoshaphat
61
Eleazar
59
Balaam
57
Isaiah
56
Pilate
54
Zedekiah
53
Asa
53
Abner
52
Gideon
51
Benjamin
#
Person
49
Josiah
49
Sarah
47
Noah
46
Reuben
46
Jehu
44
Levi
44
Rachel
43
Jesse
42
Zadok
42
Jehoash
41
Jehoiakim
41
Balak
+15
Level ∞
Dec 3, 2013
Mary didn't make the cut. Same with Adam and Eve. Joab is NOT the same as Job. Job doesn't make the cut either.
+8
Level 80
Apr 15, 2016
Very interesting which famous Christian characters don't make it into the top 50 Bible characters, and yet do make it on the top 20 characters in the Quran
+3
Level 80
Dec 23, 2013
Why'd all the comments get deleted? I can't imagine there was an update to this. Were people flaming each other over Mary and Job?
+1
Level 80
Jan 16, 2014
This time I almost got everybody in the first column- I guess I misspelled Jeremiah. After that I missed a bunch.
+2
Level 18
Jul 25, 2014
Probably
+1
Level 54
Jan 16, 2014
Out of curiosity, how was "mentioned" determined?
+1
Level 80
Jan 16, 2014
You can click on the link that redirects to the source.

Which I just did and ... hey... I typed Pharaoh and he was not on the quiz but he appears on the list! :P
+2
Level 80
Mar 5, 2015
That's not made clear from reading the Bible. It's used as a proper name.
+7
Level 34
Jun 17, 2015
That's the same as saying "King" is mentioned many times in the bible without saying which King
+2
Level 80
Jun 19, 2015
^Read previous comment.
+6
Level 78
Jul 22, 2015
Depends on how you read it, I guess. 'Pharoah' is a title, just as 'Caesar' is a title, and scripture uses both in that sense.
+5
Level 35
Apr 14, 2016
I think the bible is pretty clear that Pharaoh is a title. After all, the half dozen pharaohs refered to (thinking of pharaohs in Abraham's time, in that of Joseph, Moses, Ahab, as well as in the prophetic books) are always referred to as pharaoh except in Exodus 1 where the account speaks of a 'new king'. But it introduces him directly as Pharaoh later, without explanation (no 'and his name was Pharaoh'). Its a bit like 'Ben Hadad' for kings of Damascus. Of course, the distinction between name and title isn't always clear.
+1
Level 80
May 27, 2016
It's not that clear. And besides, the source counts him as a character so there still seems to be a conflict IMO if you are using that source.
+1
Level 80
Aug 7, 2016
The source cited by a quiz would seem like a pretty good authority when trying to make a point about the quiz, IMO, whether it's found online or not.
+12
Level 16
Nov 24, 2017
I thought Good Sir Kal was smarter than this...
+2
Level 80
Feb 2, 2018
Research suggests that gaging the intelligence of those more intelligent than yourself is difficult.
+2
Level 16
Apr 18, 2018
@kal - Um... okay...? Just, just... What point are you trying to make?
+2
Level 46
Jul 8, 2018
kalba actually it does say, right at the beginning of the book of Exodus, that a different Pharaoh had arisen by the time Moses was born, and he did not remember Joseph or his family. He was much more cruel than his predecessor(s), as evidenced by his order to throw all Israelite babies into the Nile. The Old Testament is mainly a history of the nation of Israel, so it wasn't seen as necessary to include the specific names of the Egyptian Pharaohs, although specific kings of other nations are mentioned by name. Their existence and details of their reigns are corroborated by plenty of extra-biblical sources.
+1
Level 80
Jul 8, 2018
okay but how is that Bible character referred to?
+2
Level 52
Jan 23, 2019
Don't you love it when someone comments on their comment, which comments on yet another one of their own comments? ...And yet they sadly wonder why some are deleted.
+4
Level 59
Feb 14, 2019
You do know that if comments after the second comment in a chain are deleted, the ones following still remain, right? And that comments from users who never made any quizzes and have been inactive for over a year are automatically deleted along with the entire account? And that @kalbahamut has been on this site for over five years? It's no wonder really that some of his comments are left consecutive and appearing to follow in from nothing.
+1
Level 77
Jan 16, 2014
If we are calling these people "characters" shouldn't God be on the list?
+3
Level 50
Jan 16, 2014
The description says "people."
+2
Level 18
Jul 25, 2014
Isn't God considered a person, because he is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit...
+3
Level 83
Aug 11, 2014
In the trinity, only the Son is considered a person.
+3
Level 58
Mar 25, 2015
The Trinity is made up of three Divine Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. I'm assuming this quiz means human persons. Jesus is fully divine, but He is also fully human...so He is a Person, and a person. :)
+1
Level 65
Jul 28, 2017
Let's just bring back Arius of Alexandria's version..... it was simpler
+2
Level 50
Jan 16, 2014
Spelling Nebuchadnezzar is just as challenging as spelling Schwarzenegger
+4
Level 30
Oct 5, 2016
I'm Dutch and my Bible spells it as "Nebukadnezzar"... It didn't work 😂
+2
Level 70
Aug 31, 2018
I bet you have fun with all the other quizzes in English also.
+2
Level 69
Jan 19, 2014
Looks like most of the weird-named kings have been removed. Well, that makes it a little bit easier. Thankfully, they kept Jehoshaphat.
+3
Level 72
Oct 22, 2015
Jumpin' Jehosaphat...i never knew he was a Biblical character. Thought it was just a silly phrase that cartoon characters said.
+1
Level 37
Jul 8, 2018
There's an actual valley named after Jehosaphat.
+1
Level 44
Aug 1, 2014
the source link does not match up to the quiz list
+1
Level 39
Aug 16, 2015
the source link doesn't work AT ALL!!! Plz fix!
+2
Level 50
Sep 8, 2014
3:44, thank you, thank you very much. No autographs please. XD
+1
Level 83
Aug 7, 2016
Are you Elvis?
+1
Level 25
Nov 30, 2014
I knew the Hebrew versions of pretty much all the names, but could not figure out the English versions
+1
Level 64
Dec 28, 2015
I feel you.
+1
Level 27
Jan 21, 2015
unless you really know you are bible?
+1
Level 21
Feb 5, 2015
Only got 21 correct, but at least it beats the average.
+1
Level 21
Apr 9, 2015
Beat my record after taking it like 20 times. 47/50. Always forget Balak, Jehoshaphat, and Manasseh. Otherwise, I would've gotten all correct.
+1
Level 67
Jun 13, 2019
Yea I havent heard of the bottom 15 ones (at least not how they are written here, maybe in my own language they ring a bell, like jehoiakim looks like joachim, but not sure if that is who they mean) only absolom I have heard of.
+1
Level 62
Jan 2, 2016
11/50 :-(
+1
Level 63
Feb 2, 2016
Why would anyone be surprised by Adam and Eve not making it to the list? I tried them but as they're only mentioned in the beginning of the OT it wasn't very likely.
+1
Level 54
Aug 23, 2017
There are phrases like 'second Adam' though, so maybe people thought those would bump it up enough.
+3
Level 55
Mar 15, 2016
no kanye?
+1
Level 83
Aug 7, 2016
Or Trump?
+2
Level 77
Apr 20, 2016
Is that Joseph of Technicolour Dreamcoat fame, or Jesus's not-father fame?
+1
Level 37
May 24, 2016
Idk why Esav (Trad. Jewish spelling of the name Esau) Is not accepted also, I think a lot of people won't spell Nebuchadnezzar right
+1
Level 59
Aug 7, 2016
No Donald?!
+2
Level 59
Aug 7, 2016
Duck or Trump?
+1
Level 83
Aug 7, 2016
Or Sutherland?
+1
Level 80
Feb 27, 2020
Fairly egregious omission. Especially considering at the national prayer breakfast this year he gave a speech announcing that Jesus was wrong about forgiveness and loving your enemies. And also prayer.
+3
Level 65
Feb 27, 2020
If he straight up told his allegedly Christian supporters that Jesus is wrong and they should just listen to him, I think like 60% of them would just roll with it.
+1
Level 80
Feb 27, 2020
He did. He might not have realized that's what he was saying, because he obviously has never opened a Bible in his life, but he got on stage after the guy before him who was quoting Jesus and said basically "yeah, that guy is wrong"
+9
Level 59
Aug 7, 2016
Featuring the quiz: "Unless you really know you're Bible, you'll be very surprised." I really know I'm not Bible.
+1
Level ∞
Aug 7, 2016
Finally fixed
+1
Level 65
Aug 7, 2016
Very interesting and fun quiz! Thanks.
+1
Level 70
Aug 8, 2016
19/50... not bad for a guy who was excommunicated.
+1
Level 67
Aug 8, 2016
Taken this quiz 3 times. Each time I've gotten Jehosaphat and Nebuchadnezzar. That's more often than I've gotten Paul, Solomon or many other much more famous people.
+1
Level 79
Nov 1, 2016
Are these numbers based on mentions in the Protestant or Catholic Bible? i.e. does it include the books of Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, and Baruch?
+2
Level 64
Jan 13, 2017
I win excomunication by 3 faults on spelling nebuchadennazer, missing Abraham and trying to put Mary in all sort of ways, including "that so-called Virgin" and "mother of dragons". I suggest an easy version with Most Popular Names, in order of appaerance and including Ben Hur or Charlton Heston. (Richard Gere played a bible character also, didnt he?)
+2
Level 57
Aug 6, 2017
Jew here. I got 29/50 but didn't realize there were New Testament characters as well. I was horrified that I couldn't get the number one person, because I think I know the Bible pretty well! So I was frantically worried and then when the time ran out I saw it was Jesus. lol
+7
Level 66
Oct 4, 2017
No Brian? Surely some mistake. I know he's not the Messiah, just a very naughty boy.
+1
Level 67
Dec 19, 2018
This comment needs more recognition.
+1
Level 73
Oct 25, 2017
Jumpin' Jehoshaphat! I forgot Moses!
+1
Level 23
Nov 17, 2017
Mhh, the name of God (Jehovah/Jahve) occurs nearly 7000 times in the old Hebrew scriptures and it's not in that quiz. :( Please edit that quiz to be more accurate.
+4
Level 78
Dec 3, 2017
It's a very silly book isn't it? Full of silly contradictions and silly story's about people with silly names doing silly things which only a silly person would consider anything other than silly. Personally, I prefer the pagan gods of old Europe, they too were very silly and fickle, but at least they had the good grace to not pretend they were anything else. Silly bible.
+1
Level 75
Jan 22, 2020
I do like your style mrnafe :-)
+2
Level 53
Dec 28, 2017
I swear the 1% that got 100% correct cheated; or they're priests. Probably the hardest quiz on the site.
+1
Level 37
Jan 20, 2018
I agree, but it's one of the many things that have been taken out of many bible translations. Often Lord or God is substituted for Jehovah. I say, "one of the many..." because I will not believe that Jehovah is a misogenist or that there is any reason why Jesus could not have been married. Yet no mention is made of this in our present bible.
+1
Level 59
Sep 17, 2018
It could also be that what was originally said in the Bible just wasn't true.
+3
Level 70
Feb 24, 2018
I notice Reuben is sandwiched between Noah and Jehu.
+2
Level 59
Feb 24, 2018
The reason God isn't on the list is that only people count.
+1
Level 44
Apr 11, 2018
Too bad there is no way to distinguish the two Josephs without obviously giving it away.
+1
Level 62
Oct 28, 2018
I'm atheist, knowing the name of only three Bible books, and having read only the first page because I was bored once. I got 6/50, and I'm happy with that.
+1
Level 67
Jun 13, 2019
I got 19, though there were about 15 more names that I have heard of.
+1
Level 43
Dec 20, 2018
No Brian ?
+2
Level 53
Mar 4, 2019
No Job? He's got a whole chapter!
+1
Level 67
Jun 13, 2019
Trying to think of a no job joke, but cant think of any ( good ones)
+2
Level 75
Dec 2, 2019
No Job?
No skills?
No morals?
Apply to become a priest today

Or something like that.
Yeah, I can't think of a good one either
+1
Level 65
Feb 27, 2020
There are a lot of people with their own chapters that did not make this list. I kept trying them and none worked.
+1
Level 80
Aug 25, 2019
Awesome discovery of the day: this quiz is secretly filed under fictional somethings, though it doesn't appear in the list of tags to the right.
+1
Level 80
Nov 13, 2019
except now it does
+2
Level 35
Feb 28, 2020
@QM, I am appalled at the decision to group any religous quizzes under the fictional somethings. If you personally are not a man/woman of any faith, I ask that you at least respect the massive amount of the population that does. To declare as fact that a religion is fiction will severly undermine your credibility on this site for thousands and thousands of people. On a less severe note, I also ask that you encourage Kalbahamut to refrain from his insulting language towards people of faith. The majority of people respect his decision, and he should respect theirs. As for those that openly criticize him, it is often of his own provocation.
+1
Level 80
Feb 29, 2020
Honesty is not the same thing as disrespect. It is not disrespectful to argue over a difference in opinion; nor is it disrespectful to unapologetically state something that is factual. Disrespectful would be to pretend that something someone believes is factually sound, when it is not, just because you are afraid that they won't be able to handle the truth, or that they will find truth provocative or insulting. *that* would be disrespectful.
+1
Level 35
Mar 9, 2020
Honesty? To claim that in a cosmic scale zero can equal five? I'm sorry, but nothing will never yield something. And unless you want to also claim that time, space and matter are infinite, this math, which I assumed was simple, will quickly prove your honesty to be nothing but arrogance and lies.
+1
Level ∞
Mar 9, 2020
Zero doesn't equal five, but there's a very good chance that time, space, and matter are all indeed infinite. If you're extremely smart and you want to have your mind blown, read The Hidden Reality by Brian Greene. Cosmology and quantum physics make no sense at all.
+1
Level 35
Mar 10, 2020
I haven't had a chance to read The Hidden Reality yet, but hope to soon. Back to time, space, and matter being infinite. If time is infinite, it has no beginning and no end. This makes for an interesting time trying to find out what the present is. If a football game never starts, it cannot get to halftime without breaking the laws of time. If time breaks the laws of time, it ceases to be time! The deeper we go, the wierder and more philosophical we get, so I'm going to back up a little. Space and matter cannot exist without time, and vice verse. They are all bound to one another in harmony. A reality that is missing one of these elements is beyond our comprehension. If any one of these elements is infinite, they all must be, and is any one is not infinite, they all are not. Time cannot be infinite without ceasing to be time, and when it ceases to be time, space and matter cannot exist. This, at least, is how I rationalized it. I'm interested to see your take on this.
+1
Level 75
Mar 11, 2020
^Infinite doesn't mean that it doesn't have a beginning. An event / process / whatever that causes time and space to come into existence - for example the Big Bang - can mark the beginning of a Universe which, if it has the right amount of internal pressure expands eternally, i.e. infinitely.

What's the point of your football analogy? Are you suggesting there is a point in time at which the Universe will be exactly half it's final age, so it must have a beginning, in order to have a final age, in order to have a "half-time" age,....? That is a little logical fallacy called begging the question.

Your whole bit about inextricably linking space with time needs some more explaining before I understand what you're trying to say but just because something is beyond our comprehension doesn't make it false and why do you think time would no longer be time if it were infinite?
+1
Level 35
Mar 13, 2020
To claim that an event/ process caused space and time goes back to my 0 = 5 argument. If time has a beginning (I'm pretty sure this is what you are saying here) something had to start it. This means something had to be there. If nothing was there, nothing will come from it. Nothing will happen. If something was there, it very well could have 'created' or caused the creation of time. This promotes the idea that something WAS there, that something did create time. Hence religion. Time cannot come from nothing, so either space, matter, or something else created time. If space created time, it would have to be able to exist without time. The same applies with matter. So, if matter and/ or space created time, they have to be able to exist independantly.
+1
Level 35
Mar 13, 2020
For space and time to exist independantly creates a whole new problem. In the reality we live in, time exists with matter and space. They are constantly affected by time. As beings made of matter, the reality we live in can provide some insight into the effects of time on matter. We cannot conceive of a reality apart from time. As you pointed out, this does not mean that this does not exist. But it does mean that we cannot exist in our present form apart from time. If you do a quick google search, you will find a lot of conflicting answers on "Can matter exist apart without time," but the most common argument seems to be this: Time can only be measured using matter, and matter cannot take form without time, so they cannot exist without each other. Space is the same way. According to Wikipedia, space is the boundless three-dimensional extent in which objects and events have relative position and direction. Matter is entirely dependant on space.
+1
Level 35
Mar 13, 2020
Because of this dependancy, space cannot be measured without matter. It ceases to have any meaning if there is no matter to occupy it. The occupant of space is entirely dependant on time to exist, and so, space, meaningless without an occupant, cannot exist without matter, which cannot exist apart from time. All three portions of the cosmos we know are entirely dependant on each other. Take one away, and reality ceases to exist. They bond together in perfect harmony, a perfect trinity. Also, I think you miss the meaning of my football analogy. I was not implying that the universe has a halfway point in that, I was merely stating that in order for time to reach the present, it has to have a beginning. If time has no beginning, it becomes impossible to reach right now, because there if an infinite amount of time that has to pass before it can get to the present.
+1
Level 75
Mar 15, 2020
You seem to be making a category error - you seem to be arguing:

P1- Everything that exists in the Universe had a cause
P2- The Universe exists
C- The Universe had a cause

Problems with this argument include the fact that the Universe is not in the Universe and so the conclusion does not follow the premises.

If you are trying to argue for God as a first cause (quote "hence religion") then your own argument precludes the possibility - if everything that exists had a cause, and God had no cause, then God does not exist. If God exists with no cause then it undermines your first proposition (that everything had a cause) and removes the necessity for God in the first place.

I don't know where you are getting this 0=5 thing from or what you are trying to prove with it, nor why you are trying to show that time cannot exist without space and vice versa. And again, just because the Universe had a beginning, does not necessarily mean it will have an end
+1
Level 35
Mar 16, 2020
You seem to misunderstand my argument. I was saying that everything that comprises the universe has a cause, and so, the universe had a cause. If the universe is not what is comprised of, that is the same as saying that a molecule of water is not two atoms of Hydrogen and one atom of Oxygen. My assuming that God is the first cause does not underming my first proposition. If my first proposition was that everything has a cause, it would, but that was not my proposition. Everything that comprises the universe has a cause. God is not a part of the universe, so he does not fall into the same rules. Since we are part of the universe, this is hard to comprehend, but as you pointed out earlier, "Just because something is beyond out comprehension doesn't make it false." I was using the 0=5 argument to portray that the universe could not cause itself to exist, which I think we agree on. I was linking space and time to prove that the universe cannot be infinite, which I think we also agree on.
+1
Level 35
Mar 16, 2020
Side note: How do you format your comments to make the empty lines? I would like to implement this structure in some of my comments but can't figure out how.
+1
Level 75
Mar 18, 2020
No, I understand - you are assuming that the Universe as a whole has the same properties as its constituent parts do. That is a category error, in this case a fallacy of composition - we have no reason to make that assumption.

You are even stating that your God, being a God which exists as an entity which is not part of the Universe, does not need a cause - why are you then assuming that the Universe does require a cause when it is not itself a part of the Universe?

We certainly do not agree that the Universe could not “cause itself” - I have no idea why the Universe came into existence (or even if there is a why), the difference is that you are stating that you do believe you know but you are basing that belief on knowledge which you cannot possibly have. I also haven't suggested that I don't believe the Universe can be infinite – quite the opposite, I have stated that just because it had a beginning does not mean that it must have an end.
+1
Level 75
Mar 18, 2020
To go to the next line type <br@> without the @
+1
Level 35
Mar 18, 2020
If the universe had a beginning, something had to cause it. This much we agree on. I do not what you mean when you say that the universe can cause itself. As our argument has come down to this, I think it may end here. I do not believe that the universe can cause itself because if it did, the parts that make up the universe would contradict themselves. While the universe may have different properties than its parts, its properties cannot blatantly contradict the fundamental aspects of them. Based on this belief, granted that this can be somewhat subjective, I do not believe that the universe is capable of creating its existance.

We seem to have different definitions of infinite. By my definition, infinite is going endlessly in both directions, past and present, like a line on a graph. By yours, infinite is going endlessly in one direction. It is irrevelant whose definition is right; we both are saying the universe had a beginning.

And thanks for the format info.
+1
Level 75
Mar 18, 2020
"If the universe had a beginning, something had to cause it. This much we agree on."

No, we do not. You are assuming it and I am saying that the assumption is not justified - we simply cannot know whether the Universe is subject to the same laws as what it contains.

You may find this interesting - First Cause
+1
Level 35
Mar 18, 2020
A very interesting article. I found one major flaw running through it: It 'disproves' God by saying he cannot be exempt from the first cause rule, and then provides an explanation for the universe by saying not everything has a cause. When they say that God cannot be exempt, they forget that, if there is a God, he created the reality which we live in. Reality for us is not reality for God. Anything outside this reality could be subject to not follow any laws of reality, hence God's omnipresence, omnipotence, and omniscience.

This, I think, is your argument for the universe. Since it is beyond our level of understanding, and probably always will be, it could also be exempt from the laws of reality. This I cannot deny. The universe could be outside the laws of our reality, but it just doesn't make sense to me. Granted it is not hard to confuse me, but I can't believe in what seems impossible without any evidence to support it.
+1
Level 75
Mar 19, 2020
It describes more problems with the idea of God as a first cause than just that one... I was just presenting one of them (the category error) which was fallacious in your reasoning.

But anyway, if you are going to talk about an omnipotent God then we can disprove that right now - could an omnipotent God create a rock too heavy for that God itself to lift? No: not omnipotent as it can't create the rock. Yes: not omnipotent as it can't lift the rock.

"You can't believe in what seems impossible without any evidence to support it" - but that is exactly what belief in a God is...
+1
Level 35
Mar 19, 2020
This argument is based a wrong definition of omnipotence. Omnipotence is, "the quality of having unlimited or very great power." This does not mean God can do anything. There are a great many things he cannot do, for example, he cannot lie, he cannot deny himself, and he cannot sin. Back to the rock. God has infinite power. For a rock to exist that was too heavy to lift with infinite power, it would have to be an infinite rock. This is contradictory, as a material thing cannot be infinite.

The real question is can God create a contradiction. He cannot.

As to a belief in god being without evidence, I will pull from Psalm 19: "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." If you found a pencil laying on the ground, you could reason that a tree didn't grow around a stick of lead and then break off forming a sharp point, which then fell onto a precisely accurate piece of cylindrical rubber encased with metal. No, someone made it.
+1
Level 75
Mar 29, 2020
There is no basis to the teleological argument - it is founded on an argument from incredulity, suggesting that because the arguer cannot see how something complex could arise naturaly it must have been consciously designed. But saying "I don't understand how something could happen, therefore it can't happen" is erroneous and actually quite arrogant.

You raise a good point with the first part of your post though - if we were going to have any kind of sensible discussion about religion, God, etc then we would first need to define what your supernatural beliefs are, including what you believe the nature of your God to be. Until we do that we cannot be sure that we are talking about the same thing and it would be tempting to think that defining words after an argument is raised could potentially be a case of moving the goalposts
+1
Level 35
Apr 7, 2020
I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried; He descended into hell; on the third day He rose again from the dead; He ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from there He will come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of Saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting.

I am a Protestant believer. I believe in the total depravity of man, and that it is by God's grace alone that any men show some semblance of good. I believe that all men are condemned by sin, and that we can be justified before God not by our works, but by the works of our Messiah, Jesus Christ, who died and took ownership of, and responsibility for, my sins.
+1
Level 35
Apr 7, 2020
And I believe that, by his death, I his righteousness was imputed to me lawfully. I believe that the son of God the Father Almighty, Jesus Christ, who was fully man and fully God, died for me. I believe in the Trinity, that I serve one God, who consists of three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. I believe firmly in the absolute sovereignity of God, and that everything that comes to pass is preordained by God, whether it be people like Martin Luther King, Jr., or events like the Holocaust. Yet I also believe that God has imparted to man their own free will, that while God watches over and guides them, they are responsible for their own decisions. But I believe that the total depravity of man prevents them from doing any good apart from God. God, by his Holy Spirit, supernaturally regenerates the hearts of men so that they are willing to accept his free gift of grace.

I am not ashamed of these beliefs, and am willing to defend them, by the grace of God.
+1
Level 75
Apr 8, 2020
Well that's just silly, and actually very insulting.
+1
Level 75
Apr 8, 2020
Please share any empirically derived justification whatsoever that you have for these beliefs which are, by your own admission, supernatural in nature (read: "fairy tales").

If you truly believe that you do indeed have even a semblance of empirically evinced evidence for the existence of any form of supernatural truth, then please explain why you hold the specific beliefs which you have purported to be true - i.e. why you are a Christian (and seemingly a staunch Bibliolatrist) rather than a Hindu, Parsi, Jedi, Pastafarian or other. I mean really, the tripe that your last 2 posts consists of reads like a supernatural, horror B-movie at best

Where do you get off presuming the "total depravity of man" and how dare you condemn others with such a sweeping statement? You may be that psychologically damaged but you have no justification in assuming that others are similarly tarnished.
+1
Level 75
Apr 8, 2020
Do you believe in free will or not? You claim that your God has "imparted to man their own free will" and that "they are responsible for their own decisions", while at the same time claiming that "it is by God's grace alone that any men show some semblance of good" and that "everything that comes to pass is preordained by God". So which is it? It seems that with your God it's a case of being damned if you do and damned if you don't. That is not the mark of any kind of God that I would want to put any faith in.

Make your mind up - are you Catholic ("I believe in ... Holy Catholic Church") or Protestant ("I am a Protestant believer")? You can't truly be both.

+1
Level 35
May 27, 2020
Apologies for the late response.

As for empirically derived justification, I believe in two forms, that is Natural and Special revelation. Natural revelation can be seen all around us- it is the convincing factor for spirituality in general. Before fancy science came about, everyone believed in a god of some type. Now I'm not saying science is bad; in fact I believe that science further justifies belief in God- but more on that later. Natural revelation, or simply nature, defies the theory of evolution(which is oddly recognized as fact by the scientific community despite their claims that science cannot prove fact) and rebukes the idea that Earth was a cosmic accident. The biodiversity found on Earth portrays not random mutations of genes, but life that was created to survive and thrive.
+1
Level 35
May 27, 2020
Evolution is geared towards saying that life changes as it reacts to stimuli. The problem with this philosophy is that nothing should ever happen. If something comes about that is drastic enough that only the creatures that are properly equipped will survive it, the creatures can only become properly equipped after natural selection weeds out the ones that aren't. Also, Evolution allows no room for morality, perception of beauty, or humans- for humans have no advantages over creatures they supposedly evolved from and have no means to kill other animals except by outside means(weapons).

Special Revelation, or the Bible, convinces me more or natural revelation and is the reason I am not a Hindu, starwarsguy, Buddhist, etc. I simply believe that everything in the Bible is true, and after reading it and many other things written by men, believe that there is simply no comparison between the writing.
+1
Level 35
May 27, 2020
As for total depravity, men would continue to be so totally depraved if not for the widespreadness of Christianity in earlier centuries. The fundamentals of Christianity were imparted to the whole world, and as a result, every nation on Earth has laws promoting morality. To highlight the spread of Christianity, look to the Aztecs. The Inca. The Goths. The Franks. The Celts. The Mongols. People who ravaged countries without giving a second thought. Yet even these were not totally given over to themselves. God limits the depravity of man in every circumstance, so that even though this world is fallen, the average joe is not an animal.

Speaking of animals, surely you can see the difference between humans and animals? For one, clothing. Humans cover their dishonorable parts, and no animals do likewise. Humans make complex contraptions to simplify work. Humans domesticate animals. Harness animals. This is not the work of evolution. If so, what sets us apart? Brain size? Thumbs?
+1
Level 35
May 27, 2020
I believe that men cannot do good without God's help. Thankfully for the world, God helps us out a lot. I also believe that everything that happens is an indirect result of God. God, being omnipotent, can work in evil people to create good. I believe that Men(as a race, not a gender) choose their own paths- as we all think independent thoughts- and are responsible for that path. So, it is a little of both, and hard to understand, but Men choose the path they want to take- to follow God or to cast him out- but they cannot do so without God's help.

As for being Catholic or Protestant, you are mistaken. Catholic means worldwide, so when I say I believe in the Holy Catholic Church, I believe in the worldwide fellowship of believers. Very different from Roman Catholic, in which I agree- you cannot be Roman Catholic and Protestant.
+1
Level 52
Jun 6, 2020
StealthyNinja, very well said. Great points and lots to think about in your posts. Be prepared for a rebuttal from the Kalster.
+1
Level 35
Jun 13, 2020
@Fishbone: Thanks! I am grateful for the opportunities God has given me and hope I can use them for His glory!
+1
Level 75
Jun 23, 2020
No need to apologise - this is a comment section on a quiz site.

Wow, where to start... Revelation, special or natural, is not evidence - it is merely assertion. You "feel like" the only explanation for Life, the Universe and Everything is your God, and the world "looks like" it couldn't exist without your God, therefore you believe your God is the only explanation. That is not evidence.

Natural revelation is not "simply nature” - that is a fallacy of equivocation and if we are being generous then we can assume that you were not intentionally being misleading. Scientific observations of biology in nature very strongly support the theory of evolution, of which much of what you wrote is not even wrong. And FYI, evolution has now actually been observed taking place - Lenski experiment.
+1
Level 75
Jun 23, 2020
Regardless, why are you talking about evolution? If you would like a discussion on evolution then we can do that in a more appropriate quiz forum but we were talking about your beliefs in your God; whether you believe in evolution or not is irrelevant. If you think that attacking evolution strengthens your argument for your God then you are falling foul of a very common false dichotomy So, moving on from that..

What makes you Christian - other religions purport special revelation and have their own sacred texts so that is really no explanation, again it is no more than assertion. Considering the historical and scientific inaccuracies, the frequently self-contradictory details and the terrible moral teachings, the Bible clearly can’t be empirically true (inaccuracies) or relatively true (contradictions), and even if it were consistent and accurate any reasonable person wouldn’t want it to be true (bad morals).
+1
Level 75
Jun 23, 2020
“Depravity” born from original sin is an example of this – it is contradicted many times in the Bible, clearly cannot be scientifically or historically accurate and shows God in a terrible light morally. Cursing all future generations before they are even born for something that someone else did? How can you believe that the story is “true”, and that the God of the story is the one who “helps us out a lot”. To believe that such a ridiculous doctrine is truthful and justified is very insulting and speaks volumes about your own moral shortcomings - how can you suggest that cursing all future people for something that they did not do is anything short of morally reprehensible?
+1
Level 75
Jun 23, 2020
Every society has rules, even those that existed before Christianity came along. Further, Christianity often promotes some immoralities, and fails to condemn many others. Suggesting that Christianity is morally superior to all other creeds and cultures is blatantly absurd.

What are you talking about? Humans are animals – Genus: Homo, Family: Hominidae…. Kingdom: Animalia. That’s a really weird argument - just because we learned to wear clothing (which incidentally we did a long time before Christianity existed) does not make us special in the eyes of some prudish sky censor. Also, we may generally do it better, but other animals have learned to use tools and even farm other animals – as an example, there is a type of ant which farms aphids but I can’t remember what it is called.

TL;DR - assertions are not evidence and attacking one side of a false dichotomy does not promote the other side.
+1
Level 80
Jul 18, 2020
Let me summarize Ninja's argument here:

If you observe the things that science generally supports and describe them, this is arrogance, dishonesty, and intentional provocation deserving of punishment and censure.

On the other hand, if you believe yourself to know more about the origins of the Universe than the most brilliant and knowledgeable astrophysicists and cosmologists in the world, discarding their theories in favor of the invisible-magic-man-did-it hypothesis, that's not arrogant at all.

As to honesty- I said nothing at all about zeroes or fives. And the origin of the Universe is irrelevant. The Universe has been around for billions of years. Human religions started to be invented a few thousand years ago. We know pretty well how, where, and why most of these religious traditions began. We can test the empirical claims that each make and find them to be false. And we can acknowledge that, yes, they are all fictions.
+1
Level ∞
Mar 9, 2020
It's not intentional. Bible is filed under religion and book. Book is filed under fictional something.
+1
Level 35
Mar 10, 2020
Thanks for clarifying this. So, hypothetically, if there was a quiz asking what Leroy Jenkins (A hypothetically famous historian on the Vietnam War) stated were major battles in his book, Vietnam for Dummies, would it also be listed under the fictional somethings?
+1
Level 80
Jul 18, 2020
Right because the Tet Offensive and Noah's Flood... both equally credible historical events.
+1
Level 33
Feb 27, 2020
Adam and eve was like mentioned 10 times in all
+1
Level 65
Feb 27, 2020
Upon seeing there were fifty answers, I instantly regretted starting the quiz. That said, apparently only getting half them is a pretty good score on this one!
+1
Level 33
Feb 29, 2020
I'm not religious and it definitely shows here (I only got Jesus, Moses, Abraham, and John), and then when I gave up I did an actual facepalm because I forgot how so many people I know are named after people in the Bible. It really do be like that sometimes.
+1
Level 67
Mar 1, 2020
What about my homeboy, Lucifer?
+1
Level 80
Mar 2, 2020
Not mentioned very often and also not human.
+1
Level 37
Jun 2, 2020
You should mention that you refer to both old and new testaments. For jews, the word "bible" only refers to the old Testament. Christianity uses this word to describe both.
+1
Level 31
Jul 17, 2020
What about god
+1
Level 71
Jul 18, 2020
Here we go again .every time I do a religion/ Bible quiz on jetpunk the same monotonous people on both sides of the argument show up in the comments with their long winded boring tit for tat arguments .who really cares . this is a fun quiz site so live and let live. I am not a religious person myself but respect peoples right to believe in what they want no matter how ridiculous some of it seems. on a lighter note if Noah was in the desert in the middle east waiting for a flood how did he find two kangaroos,platypuses ,wombats or koalas don't think they walked and swam from oz.
+1
Level 61
Aug 12, 2020
18/50 gets 4/5 points. That's how tough this quiz is.