What is the basis for the position that the woman of Revelation 17 refers to Rome?

The basis of this identification comes from Revelation 17:9-10.

  This calls for a mind with wisdom: the seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman is seated; they are also seven kings, five of whom have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come, and when he does come he must remain only a little while.

The "seven mountains on which the woman is seated" of verse 9 appears to be a reference to the Seven Hills of Rome, while the seven kings of verse 10—in particular the one currently in power when Revelation was written—appears to refer to the Roman Emperor.

Supporting this identification of Rome with Babylon is 1 Peter 5:13 in which Peter, writing from Rome, refers to his city as Babylon.

  Your sister church in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark.


Exegesis (sort of)
I think you are spot-on with your analysis of what you call "axiom A".  There is objective truth, the Bible is a message from God with specific meaning, and it is possible to learn about objective truth through studying scripture.  Consider the following examples:

Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds," as referring to many, but rather to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ. -Galatians 3:16
Jesus said to them, "Is this not the reason you are mistaken, that you do not understand the Scriptures or the power of God?" -Mark 12:24

It is helpful to recognize that in both of these passages concerning specific, objective truth, the vast majority of the people studying the relevant scriptures missed the true meaning - and it wasn't for a lack of study!  Let's be honest - it was for a lack of relationship with God.  (See John 3:3, 1 Cor 2:14, Matt 13:11, etc.)  We should be cautious of hermeneutical approaches that are so impersonal that they can be followed by anyone of any spiritual condition.
This is tricky to articulate, but I once heard a Pastor say, "Words don't have meaning - people have meaning."  Honestly, I don't know if I have ever heard a statement more helpful in hermeneutics!  In the case of scripture, it is essential to recognize that it is God who has meaning, and not merely the text, or the author.  (See, for instance 1 Peter 1:10-11 or Hebrews 9:6-9.)
The Lion
Let me start by justifying the first part of the claim - "Words don't have meaning..."  (Bear with me in a little foolishness.)  Who (or what) does a "lion" symbolize in scripture?  Jesus, obviously!

and one of the elders said to me, "Stop weeping; behold, the Lion that is from the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has overcome . . ." And I saw . . . a Lamb standing, as if slain -Revelation 5:5-6

Sadly, David killed Jesus, as we can see from this next passage, but it was the Lord's doing.

Your servant [David] has killed both the lion and the bear . . . The LORD who delivered me from the paw of the lion and from the paw of the bear, He will deliver me from the hand of this Philistine -1 Samuel 17:36-37

OK, we're on to something - David obviously represents Israel, who slew Jesus, and Jesus brought about His own death... right?  But there are two lions, so there is another Jesus:

There were six steps to the throne and a round top to the throne at its rear, and arms on each side of the seat, and two lions standing beside the arms. -1 Kings 10:19

...this must represent His resurrection!  But wait... resurrection to what?  This next passage was written after the resurrection and talks about the "other lion".

Be of sober spirit, be on the alert. Your adversary, the devil, prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. -1 Peter 5:8

OK, I'll stop.  Hopefully it is clear, the "symbolic lion hermeneutic" led us down the wrong path.  You can do this with just about any "symbol" in scripture. My point is, it is extremely dangerous to assume that if a word is used symbolically in one context, that it must be a symbol everywhere else in Scripture as well. This is called "illegitimate totality transfer" in hermeneutics. This is essentially what people are doing when they interpret the fig tree of Matthew 24 as "Israel."
"Objection!"
I am sure someone will object on the grounds that we have clear evidence from other passages of symbols being used in scripture, for instance in the Parable of the Sower in Matthew 13:3-9, the seed represents the word of God.  I will quickly address this objection:

Jesus was trying to explain something.  He was using symbols which had specific meaning relative to His message.  There is no indication anywhere in scripture that His use of these symbols carry across all of scripture.  (v.18-23)
Jesus explained His meaning to those closest to Him (v.18-23), which I think is a pretty good illustration of how sound exegesis happens.
Jesus was not trying to be understood by the rest of the folks!  (v.10-17)
In the next parable (v.24-30), the seed represents people - some righteous and some wicked! (v.36-43)
In the third parable, the seed represents the Kingdom of Heaven! (v.31-32)

Clearly "seed" doesn't equal "word" everywhere in Scripture, even when "seed" is being used symbolically.
What Jesus meant
Words don't have meaning; people have meaning. When Jesus referenced "the fig tree" He meant something by it. To discover what He meant, let's start by looking at why Jesus was talking.  Matthew 24 is all about the "end times" and starts with a request from His disciples (which He has no reservation in answering.)

His disciples came up to point out the temple buildings to Him. And He said to them, "Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down." . . . the disciples came to Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?"  (from v.1-3)

Jesus proceeds to explain that a lot of troubling stuff is going to happen, but that this is not yet the end. (v.4-8)  He then says that tribulation will come on His people and many will fall away, but the gospel will go out to all of the nations before the end comes. (v.9-14)  Jesus then explains that the abomination of desolation will mark the beginning of the Great Tribulation. (v.15-28)  And then immediately after the Tribulation, He will return (v.29-31)  And in this context, Jesus says the following:

Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near; so, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. -Matthew 24:32-34

This isn't a mystical story about a fig tree nation... what Jesus is doing is answering His disciples' question about what the signs of His coming and of the end of the age will be, and then urging them to recognize it when it happens, just as they would recognize that summer is near by the leafy tree.
Also, for what it's worth, a "generation" can mean a number of things scripturally, and the claim that it means a particular length of time may be correct for some passages, but is clearly not for others.  (I'll save the full explanation for another question.)


Given God is genderless, why Jesus (God the Son) assumed a male form?

Humanity was, originally, made in the image of God. Thus was man made, in the beginning, Genesis 2:7.
Having done so, and man having been created, woman was made to be 'an help' for the man, Genesis 2:18.
This further, creative, step expresses something more of God's ultimate intention in creation.
For, ultimately, as all scripture in its progressive unfolding reveals, God's purpose is a body of persons, which, in the future, shall 'neither marry nor be given in marriage', Matthew 22:30, and shall be 'all one, in Christ Jesus', Galatians 3:28.
Thus man and woman both show forth different aspects of Deity and the ultimate purposes of Deity, in humanity. That is to say, during time, within the present creation, before that which is to come in the future, beyond time, God's purpose is expressed in the things which, presently, he made.
But he who made them is above that which he made. He who made all things is not bounded by, or constricted by, the order that he created in expression of himself. That order demonstrates things about him. It does not encapsulate he, himself.
As Jesus said, John 4:24, Pneuma ho Theos; 'Spirit, the Deity' (expressing an equivalence) or (in idiomatic English) 'God is a Spirit'.
'Gender' relates to human manifestation. It does not relate to Divine Spirit.
But God, and God's purposes, may be perceived and understood in the things which he has made, humanity - both male and female - being one very important aspect of what He made.
Jesus Christ, come in the flesh, 1 John 4:2, is a manifestation of Deity in humanity ; 'God was manifest in the flesh', 1 Timothy 3:16 [TR/KJV].
His coming does not represent the Body which was yet to be revealed ; The Church.
The Body, the Church, the Bride, is the complement of all who repent and believe the gospel and follow Jesus Christ. That whole complement of persons is seen set forth, in concept, in the creation. And, throughout scripture, femininity and womanhood demonstrate what all of God's people (as one body) shall be for Christ, the Head over all, 1 Corinthians 11:3, Ephesians 1:23, Revelation 21:9, Ephesians 5:22-32.
They - all of them, who believe - are the reality of that which is represented by created femininity.

(All references are to the TR Greek Text and to the KJV.)


Why was the Bible not available to common people in the Medieval period?

Overall, general accessibility to books was difficult for two of the reasons you mention:

The were extremely expensive to make

According to this source, we have the report of a book taking four weeks to copy (by hand, of course, and costing "53 shillings."  At that same point in time, a pig was 10 pence, meaning that one book would have been equivalent to 636 pigs.

Likewise "In Byzantium, annotations from around 900 in the books of Arethas, Archbishop of Caesarea, value his copy of Plato at 21 nomismata and Euclid at 14 nomismata (perhaps not including the parchment). Manual workers in Byzantium were paid 6 to 10 nomismata per year."

That should put some perspective on the value of the materials and labor that were involved in making a book prior to the printing press.
Literacy was extremely low

In England, anyone could avoid prosecution in trial (once anyway), by simply being able to quote Psalm 51.  The thought, derived from Common Law, was that only clergy could read.

This graph below shows literacy rates in France in 1700s, and the remarkable shift in literacy.  At the beginning of the graph, note that only 1 in 3 people could read - and this nearly 300 years after the invention of the printing press highlights how low literacy would have been.

Additionally, however, there was a practical decision made by the church:

Catholic understanding of intrepretation

Finally, the institution of the church understood that people can misread Scripture.  As such, dogmatic interpretation was reserved to priests.  By focusing on those who could read and were trained to explain the Scriptures, the church imposed a sort of "quality control" on that reading.  This was anathema to the Protestant reformers who subscribed to the notion of the Priesthood of All Believers
And, don't forget that the Bible was intended to be read aloud

When the books of the Bible were written, the primary intention was that a trained reader would read the words out loud - It was akin to a playback device to be tied to a reader.  Accusing the church of "control" of the Scriptures here would be like saying that the Catholic Church "controlled" sheet music because not everybody could play the piano.  The truth is, reading a book was a skill not many bothered with.


How can we defend our faith against the "Argument from Evil" or "Problem of Evil"?

I haven't personally read Alvin Plantinga, but I've read that he tried to answer question of "natural evil" in a very interesting way. See some short description here http://www.iep.utm.edu/evil-log/#H6 and more in his books: "The Nature of Necessary", "God, Freedom, and Evil".

What I personally think is that there is a great problem of perception. I think that St Augustine might also went that way in his "Confessions". I think that what we perceive as "evil" is often some disordered good (or not well understood good), for everything that God created was good - even microorganisms living, fighting, suffering and dying in our bodies.

So from where this disorder comes? I think that Moses gives us a hint. In first book of Bible he is describing some ancient events. He couldn't see it himself and we don't know how he came to have knowledge about them - maybe God or his angels directly described it to him or maybe it was brought to him in a visionary dream or maybe Moses in prophetic spirit recognized grains of truth in myths preserved by people. It is not important.

What is important is that among other things he tells us a story of punishment, and this punishment is essentially a suffering from natural causes: pains from body, unfriendly environment. This punishment is an element of justice, it is not evil.

It is important to make some distinctions here. For example someone could say that to kill someone is an evil thing, but this is not true. To MURDER someone is evil and when you look at Ten Commandments in Hebrew then you will see that there is no "thou shalt not kill" but "thou shalt not murder". Are there situations where killing is acceptable? Yes, there are and you can find some of them described in the Bible. You can also use your common sense: if you are suddenly attacked and you act in self defense and kill whoever attacked you then it is not considered evil.

Similarily, it is not evil in itself to make someone suffer. But it is evil to make someone suffer without proper cause. For example, Bible recommends using force in education if it is necessary for saving someones' soul. What is REALLY evil is disobedience to God. And that was not created by him, for he is not disobedient to himself, but this is a product of our ancestors' use of free will.

All other things may be seen by us as "evil" but in reality they may be just misunderstood acts of justice, of punishment and of workings of nature. Natural disasters aren't evil and suffering of animals isn't evil in itself.


One concept of Apostolic Succession, sometimes called "tactile succession", is that bishops derive their position by being consecrated by other bishops, who were themselves consecrated by earlier bishops, and so on right back to the apostles, and so to Christ Himself. A valid bishop is someone in this chain. A valid priest is someone appointed by a valid bishop. A priest, who is not a bishop, cannot pass on his priestly status to others, whereas a bishop can pass on priestly status to others, and can also pass on episcopal status to others.

The weakest link in the Anglican chain of succession was seen as Matthew Parker  appointed by Elizabeth I after the death of Queen Mary. Cranmer and other Protestant-minded bishops had been burned at the stake under Mary. The Catholic-minded bishops appointed by Mary resigned or were deprived and refused to consecrate Parker. Cardinal Pole, Archbishop of Canterbury between Cranmer and Parker, died the same day as Mary. By ancient tradition three bishops, at least, participate in the consecration of a new bishop.

Parker's consecration was delayed for months, but eventually 4 bishops were found: Barlow, Coverdale, Scory and Hodgskin.  Of these Barlow and Hodgskin had been consecrated in the Roman rite in the time of Henry VIII; and Coverdale and Scory had been consecrated by Cranmer in his own rite under Edward VI (son of Henry,  brother of Mary and Elizabeth). All Anglican bishops were, and are, "descended" from Parker, and through him from Cranmer and from the Roman Catholic Church of  which the Church of England was once part.

Allegations that Parker had never been formally consecrated, but merely taken part in an unofficial ribald ceremony in a London pub, the Nag's Head , were made by Jesuits, though these are not accepted by historians, and have never been officially accepted by the Roman Catholic Church. There are also legal issues, but these have no bearing on validity.

So, why does the Roman Catholic Church regard Anglican orders as invalid?

In 1896 Pope Leo XIII issued a bull, Apostolicae Curae, in which he declared Anglican orders to be absolutely null and utterly void.

There were several reasons. One concerned the form, the form of words in the consecration rite, in the Edwardine Ordinal used from 1551 until 1662 (except for Mary's five-year reign when the Roman rite was restored,  and the Cromwellian Period when bishops were abolished). Following the words "Receive the Holy Ghost" the word "bishop" was not mentioned, nor anything definite to say what a bishop is. Although this was fixed, so to speak, in the 1662 Book, Leo said the defect of form meant there were no valid consecrations in England for over 100 years and so the hierarchy had died out. Even if the form was acceptable after 1662, there were no valid bishops to use it. The Anglican line had died out.

Since the 1930s it has been standard practice for bishops from the Old Catholic churches to co-consecrate Church of England bishops. Old Catholic Churches split from Rome, mostly over Vatican One and Papal infallibility, and their bishops are accepted by Rome as valid. Most, perhaps all, Anglican bishops worldwide can now trace their "descent" from Old Catholic,  as well as Anglican and Lutheran,  bishops. Most Old Catholic Churches are members of the Utrecht Union, after the town of Utrecht in Holland. For this reason the participation of Old Catholic co-consecrators  is known colloquially as the "Dutch Touch".

However the Dutch Touch does not deal with Leo's principle objection to Anglican orders which is not about form, but intention. Anglican ordinations of priests, and consecration of bishops, are invalid because there is no intention, in the Anglican churches, that they should be valid. An ordination using an Anglican rite, in an Anglican church, must be assumed to have the public intention of accomplishing what the Anglican church says it is intended to accomplish, and that is fundamentally not to make priests or bishops in the Catholic sense of those terms.

The Archbisops of Canterbury and York issued a response to the bull from Leo, and the Roman Catholic bishops of England and Wales issued a Vindication of the bull, in the form of a reply to Canterbury and York. The Vindication is perhaps clearer than the bull. It describes Catholic doctrine.

  Priest and Sacrifice are correlative terms -with us at all events, and indeed with all nations, except in so far as your own Communion may be an exception. A priest is one who offers sacrifice;  and as is the sacrifice,  so is the priest. Since, then, our sacrifice is the Sacrifice of the Mass, our priest is one appointed and empowered to offer up that sacrifice;  one, therefore, who has received from God the power, by means of the words of consecration, to cause the Body and Blood of Christ to become present under the appearance of bread and wine, and to offer them up sacrificially.

Having explained the Catholic understanding of the word "priest", it goes on to document the Church of England position based on her Articles of Religion, her liturgy and the statements of her reformers and prominent theologians. The Church of England rejects the Roman Catholic understanding of the sacrifice of the mass as a blasphemous fable.

  The true Sacrifice and Priesthood ..... your Church has in the most stringent terms repudiated altogether.

So , although Anglicans use the words "priest" and "bishop" they do not mean what Catholics mean, but something else. When Anglicans "ordain a priest" they have no intention of doing what Catholics do when they "ordain a priest". That, rather than tactile succesion, is why the Roman Church deems Anglican orders invalid.


Did the Bull, Unam Sanctam, authorize/promote Christian aggression by the "temporal sword"?

Pope Boniface VIII said there are two swords:

  Both, therefore, are in the power of the Church, that is to say, the spiritual and the material sword, but the former is to be administered for the Church but the latter by the Church; the former in the hands of the priest; the latter by the hands of kings and soldiers, but at the will and sufferance of the priest. However, one sword ought to be subordinated to the other and temporal authority, subjected to spiritual
  power.

By this, he was asserting that ultimate authority lay in the Church under his rule. In this bull, he was not promoting military action, nor proposing that Christians should defend themselves. He was stating that secular rulers must be subordinated to the Church and carry out its commands. The concluding remark in the bull is, "Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

Shortly after Boniface's death, Pope Clement V withdrew Unam Sanctam, so this bull is no longer in force although it was not the last time that popes attempted to assert authority over temporal rulers.


Who is the prophet Moses mentioned in Deuteronomy 18:15?

There are three key positions in ancient Israel, that of Prophet, Priest, and King.  A prophet would hear from God and speak to the people.  A priest would hear from the people and intercede for them to God.  A king would, of course, rule.
Jesus fulfills all of these positions.  He spoke of His own death and even of future events, like when He spoke of the destruction of Jerusalem (see Mark 13:2) and of end times.
He was most certainly a priest, though not of the Levitical (and especially not the Aaronic) priesthood, but the Melchizedek priesthood. (see, e.g., Hebrews 7)
He also is the King of Kings (Revelation 19:16), and heir to David's throne (2 Samuel 7:12-16, Mark 10:47, et. al.)
So, yes, this is speaking of Jesus.
To be more precise about how exactly Jesus was a prophet like Moses, note the following similarities from this article:

1 Both Moses and Jesus were born when Israel was under bondage (Moses in Egypt Ex.1:8,10, and Jesus during Israel's Roman bondage. Mt.2:1,Lk.2:1-2)
2 Edicts were issued by the gentile powers of both Pharaoh and Herod for their death at birth. (Ex.2:3, Mt.2:15)
3 Both were miraculously delivered from death during their infancy from their enemies of Israel (Ex.2:3, Lk.2:7;Mt 2:14,15)  and were preserved in childhood.
4 Both had been born and found in unusual places. Moses was found in the water floating in a basket of bulrushes (Ex.2:3) Jesus in a manger (cave) wrapped in burial cloths (Lk.2:7)
5 Both Moses and Jesus were protected and preserved by the faith of their parent. Moses was hidden by faith (Ex.2:2-3 and Heb.11:23) Jesus’ life was preserved by his parents obeying the message in a dream. (Mt.2:13-14)
6 Both Moses and Jesus stayed safely in Egypt for a time. Moses (Ex.2:10) Jesus dwelt safely in Egypt (Mt.2:14-15)
7 Both had their brethren and family speak against them. Moses had Mariam and Aaron speak against him taking a Cushite wife (Numb.12:1) Jesus had his family criticize and reject him (Mt.13:54-57, Jn.7:3)
8 Both Moses and Jesus were reared in the house that was not their natural parents. (Moses in the house of Pharaoh (Ex.2:10) Jesus by Mary the mother of his humanity and his stepfather Joseph.
9 Both predicted Israel's history (Deut.28:15-28; Mt.23:34,24:1,2,8,34)
10 Both spoke out against Israel's enemies and persecutors. (Deut.23:3-4; Mt.25:41-48)
11 Both were considered a snare to Israel (Ex10:7; 1Pt.2:8=Isa.8:14)
12 Both cleansed leprosy. From Moses’ time no one that was Jewish was cleansed until Jesus came (Numb.12:10-16, Mk.1:40-41). This is a very significant factor that proves Jesus was the prophet Moses spoke of, since no other cured one of the brethren of this disease from Moses' time.
13 Both were used of God to feed Israel miraculously, Moses with manna in the wilderness (Ex.16:14-17) Jesus with the five loaves and two fish fed four and five thousand two times. (Mt.14:19-21) Jesus also called himself the true manna that came from heaven in Jn.6, comparing himself to the miracle that sustained Israel alive through the desert.
14 Both had the forces of nature obey them (the seas) Moses (Ex.14:21-22) Jesus (Mt.8:26-27)
15 Each had seventy helpers Moses (Num.11:16-17) Jesus ( Lk.10:1).
16 Both fasted 40 days and 40 nights in the wilderness to bring a covenant to Israel. Moses on the top of Mt. Sinai (Ex.24:18, 34:28, Deut.9:9) Jesus in the desert as the Son of God (Mt.4:2)
17 Both had a face to face relationship with God unlike any other person. Moses (Ex.33:9-11, Deut.34:10; Numb.12:7-8) Jesus was with God=face to face from eternity (Jn.1:1,18)
18 God spoke audibly and directly from heaven to both Moses and Jesus. Moses (Ex.20:22, 24:12-16) Jesus (Mt.3:17; Jn.12:28)
19 Both were God's spokesman to and for the people. Moses (Ex.9:35; Numb.12:2) Jesus (Heb.1:1-3). They Spoke as oracles of God (Moses Deut. 18:18) Jesus (Jn.14:24, 5:24)
20 Both Moses and Jesus reflected and shown the glory of God. Moses reflected his glory temporarily. (Ex.34:29-35; 2 Cor.3:7-14) Jesus at the transfiguration, his face shown brighter than the sun revealing his true nature (Mt.17:2; Jn.1:14)
21 Both were known for their humility and meekness as God's servants. Moses (Numb.12:3) Jesus (Mt.11:29; Phil.2:3-8)
22 Both contended with masters of deception and darkness Moses with Pharaohs magicians (Ex 7:11, 1 Tim.3:8) Jesus with the Devil (Mt 4:1).
23 Both prayed for the people intercessory prayers and were willing to bear the consequences of the people's sins. Moses asked to be blotted out of the book of life for the peoples sake (Ex.32:32-33).  Jesus asked for them to be kept from falling away (Jn. 17:9-17). Jesus asked for those to be forgiven while he bore the consequences in their stead. (Lk.23:34, 2 Cor.5:19, 1 Pt.2:21-24, Isa.53:8)
24 Both Moses and Jesus were rejected by their own brethren for a time and accepted by the gentiles. Moses (Ex.2:14-22, 32:1) Jesus was rejected by his own people and received by another who were not his own. (Isa.53:3; Mt.12:21; Mk.6:4; Lk.20:9-17, Rom.11:20)
25 Both Moses and Jesus established a priesthood. Moses began the Aaronic priesthood which was temporary under the law (Lev.9; Numb.8:20-26; Heb.9:19-22). Jesus established a eternal priesthood under the new covenant of grace which He alone functions as the high priest forever. (Heb.7:17,19,23,25-28; 9:12)
26 Both sprinkled the blood of the covenant on the altar and the people. Moses (Ex.24:7-8; Lev.8:19) Jesus (Heb.9,12:24; 1Pt.1:2)
27 Both were sent by God to reveal His name, person and law to the people. To Moses God said to tell them I Am sent you. (Ex.3:13-14) Jesus said God sent him as his exact representative revealing his name (I Am) and nature to the people. (Jn.8:42; 17:6,11-12; Col.2:9; Heb.1:3)
28 Both were involved in giving the covenant to the people Jn.1:17 the law came through Moses but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.” At the feast of Pentecost Moses gave the law. At the feast (Pentecost) in the new covenant Jesus gave the Holy Spirit (Acts 2).
29 Both brought deliverance to the Jewish people. Those who followed Moses out of the bondage of slavery to Egypt. (Ex.3:7-8,10;12:31-33,42) Jesus brought people out of a greater bondage, slavery to sin. (Rom.3:24-25,6:6-7,8:2-4; Eph.1:7;Heb.9:26)
30 Both had an angel guard their graves. After Moses died Michael the Arch-angel guarded his body. (Jude 9) And when Jesus rose an angel guarded his tomb. (Mt.26:2-6)
31 Both re-appeared after they died, Moses ( Mt 17:3 with Jesus before his death) Jesus (Acts 1:3)


Here's the passage where Satan tempts Jesus in this way:

  Matthew 4:8-10 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. And he said to him, “All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me.” Then Jesus said to him, “Be gone, Satan! For it is written, “‘You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve.’”

Notice how Satan is offering the kingdoms of the world, not the riches. Satan doesn't have banks of gold, but what he can do is lie and blind people to the truth.

  2 Corinthians 4:3-4 ESV And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

He has a deceptive stranglehold on the evil rulers of the world and that is what he was offering to Jesus; or at least what he was claiming to offer.

Also, stories about people mystically "selling their soul" to the devil are pure fantasy tales and not in scripture, unless to "sell one's soul" just means to do evil and revel in it--a lot of that happens.


Why would witnesses of the crucifixion think Jesus was calling for Elijah?

There are two basic theories here. The first is that the crowd misheard Jesus.  The second is that they purposefully twisted his words to mock him.  Commentators are fairly evenly split on which option is more probable.
Misheard
In the first view, the crowd was at a significant enough distance that they could not hear Jesus clearly.  Additionally, those in the crowd may have been poorly educated and/or Hellenists and therefore did not have a strong command over the Hebrew.  Thus when Jesus said "Eloi" they heard "Eli" which their brains interpreted as "Elias" (=Elijah).   In support of how this would be an easy mistake to make, Ellicott's Commentary cites Matthew 16:14 and Matthew 17:10 which show that it was a common expectation during Jesus' time that Elijah would return at the coming of the Messiah (in reference to Malachi 4:5).

The dominant expectation of the coming of Elijah would predispose men to fasten on the similarity of sound, and the strange unearthly darkness would intensify the feeling that looked for a supernatural manifestation of His presence.

Purposely distorted
The other option is that the crowd heard Jesus alright but seized on the opportunity to mock Jesus.  In this view, the crowd was referencing the same Messianic prophecy (Malachi 4:5), but were essentially saying "even Jesus realizes the prophecy was not fulfilled."  Barnes' Notes writes:

The taunt would be more cutting, because it was the universal belief of the Jews, as well as the doctrine of Christ, that "Elias" would come before the Messiah. They derided him now, as calling upon "Elias" when God would not help him; still keeping up the pretensions to being the Messiah, and invoking "Elijah" to come from the dead to aid him.

Analysis
In my view, a simple misunderstanding is more likely.  In Matthew, the episode continues:

And some of the bystanders, hearing it, said, “This man is calling Elijah.” And one of them at once ran and took a sponge, filled it with sour wine, and put it on a reed and gave it to him to drink. But the others said, “Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to save him.” (Matthew 27:47-49, ESV)

It seems that the man offering up the sponge probably heard Jesus correctly and understood He was suffering and tried to help.  The statement by the rest to "wait and see" could be read as further mocking, but to me more naturally suggests a initial misunderstanding, followed by doubt that Elijah would actually come without fully ruling out the possibility.
As the Pulpit Commentary points out, the fact that the insult theory relies on a Jewish audience purposefully distorting the name of God also creates a significant difficulty:

The time of ribaldry and abuse is now past; the supernatural darkness has had a calming and terrifying effect; and there is no spirit of mockery left in the awed bystanders. Besides this, it is not likely that Jews, who with all their errors and vices paid an outward respect to holy things, would have presumed to make a play on the sacred name of God.


Why did Mormons stop practicing polygamy?

If you look further through the chapter, every place where the words "everlasting covenant" are used, it's speaking of marriage in general, and not specifically of plural marriage.  The idea is that marriage itself is an everlasting covenant, not "until death do you part," but for all eternity.

As for why the practice of plural marriage was discontinued, an explanation can be found here, given directly by Wilford Woodruff, the fourth President of the Church, under whose leadership the practice was ended.

The first part is a formal announcement to the world that the Mormons are done with polygamy; the second part, given some time later, was an explanation for church members of the rationale behind it.  He explains that the Lord revealed to him that political opposition would end up driving the church underground and cause the temples to be closed by force.  This would put an end to the work therein, which the LDS regard as sacred and of great importance.  Also, it would have forced an end to the practice of plural marriage as understood by the LDS anyway, as plural marriages were required to be performed in the temple.  In order to preserve the rest of the work, which the Lord saw as more important than continuing the practice of plural marriage, he instructed the church to stop practicing plural marriage and comply with the laws of the land.


Why was it necessary for some people to receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands and others just received it after believing?

The first verses you cite (Acts 19:5-6) do not teach what we today call being "baptized into Christ Jesus" (Romans 6:3; Galatians 3:27) or being "baptized by one Spirit into one body" (1 Corinthians 12:13). We can safely conclude the Ephesian believers were already baptized into Christ Jesus, or were baptized by one Spirit into one body (i.e., the body of Christ, the church universal).

In other words, they were already indwelt by the Holy Spirit, as Jesus Himself promised in John 15, where He said the Holy Spirit would in Jesus' absence abide with His disciples and be in them (v.17). These new Ephesian believers, however, evidently needed confirmation of that reality through the gifts of speaking in tongues and prophesying.

Remember, during the events recorded in the book of Acts, God had not yet given the various truths and teachings about the Holy Spirit in all their fullness to the writers of the New Testament canon of Scripture. We might think of the book of Acts as a transitional book, linking Jesus' promise of the coming Holy Spirit (again, John 14) prior to His ascension into heaven, to the authoritative doctrinal teaching on both the Holy Spirit's indwelling of all new believers and His gifting of all believers with one or more spiritual gifts (see 1 Corinthians 12; Romans 12; Ephesians 4; and 1 Peter 4).

The second verses you cite (Acts 8:15-17) are more germane to your questions, because these verses seem to indicate the Samaritan believers actually received the Holy Spirit's indwelling when the apostles Peter and John prayed for and laid their hands on them. Verse 17 says,

  "and they [the Samaritan believers] were receiving the Holy Spirit."

In what sense, then, were they "receiving the Holy Spirit"? To answer that question, I again suggest what happens in Acts 8 is an outward demonstration of a truth which was not yet fully understood by the apostles, let alone the Samaritans! That truth is that the Holy Spirit indwells a Christian when he or she first believes, or is passed from death to life, or is born again, or is born from above. Remember, the book of Acts is a transitional book which bridges Christ's teaching on the Holy Spirit and the yet-future teaching of the apostles and writers of the New Testament epistles.

Did the Holy Spirit, then, indwell the Samaritan believers twice? No, but they perhaps needed this praying and laying on of hands by the apostles to grasp what had happened to them after they believed in Jesus Christ and were baptized, in water, in His name. Remember, water baptism marks a believer, but only the baptism of the Holy Spirit makes a believer. Another term for the baptism of the Holy Spirit is, for example, being "sealed [by the Holy Spirit for the day of redemption" (Ephesians 4:30). Second Corinthians 1:22 KJV says,

  "[God] hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts."

And 2 Corinthians 5:5 KJV adds a similar thought:

  "Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing [i.e., what is mortal being swallowed up by life] is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit."

The "earnest" is like a down payment. Just as interested home buyers will give the home sellers a deposit, which is sometimes called "earnest money," as a token of their seriousness (or *earnest*ness) about buying the house, so also does God give us the Holy Spirit as a sort of down payment guaranteeing that He indeed wants us to be with Him in heaven one day. Only then will our salvation be complete in our glorification (see Romans 8:17 and 30; and 2 Thessalonians 1:10).


Why was Abraham better able to protect Sarah from Abimelech as her brother than as her husband?

As David Stratton states, Abraham was simply trying to not get killed. She was a beautiful woman, so another, more powerful man could simply kill him and take her as his wife. So to save himself Abraham simply said Sarah was his sister, which was a half truth.

So the Pharaoh made Abraham rich by offering gifts, but when he was going to take Sarah as his wife, God intervened. Pretty much the same thing happened in Chapter 20 with Abimelech, king of Gerar.

Genesis 12:11-13 Pretty much explains the reason:

11 And it came to pass, when he was close to entering Egypt, that he said to Sarai his wife, “Indeed I know that you are a woman of beautiful countenance. 12 Therefore it will happen, when the Egyptians see you, that they will say, ‘This is his wife’; and they will kill me, but they will let you live. 13 Please say you are my sister, that it may be well with me for your sake, and that I may live because of you.”


Are there any major / orthodox Christian leaders that taught that Paul didn't meet Jesus?

As far as I know, from my readings of Church Fathers, Saul's encounter were

First: seeing The Christ on the road to Damascus in a vision

“And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest.” Acts 22:8, KJV.

Second: a vision in Jerusalem where he was given his marching orders,

“And he (The Lord) said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles.” Acts 22:21, KJV.

Third: during his visit to the third heaven that same year.

“I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven. And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.” 2 Corinthians 12:2-4, KJV.
And here it is agreed by many Church Fathers that Paul is talking about himself.

None of the Fathers is quoted as saying that Saul/Paul met with Jesus in the flesh. In the NT, Paul only quotes Jesus once, in reference to the Eucharist. So this shows his ignorance of Jesus.

Whether Paul met Jesus or not is a moot point. Christianity went ahead without reference to Judaism - only they borrowed the Prophets, and the Psalms, from the Septuagint, needed to give scriptural support to the New Testament theology. A sort of re-reading of the Hebrew scripture that fit the New ideas. This Old Testament, which the Hebrews considered to be heresy,  was incorporated into the Christian Bible during the 4th. cent.

Paul called his theology "my Gospel." Ro 2:16; 16:25; 2Ti 2:8. And we know if was different from the Gospel of the Apostles because the Pauline writings talk of the clashes with those from Jerusalem "who teach another Gospel." What the Church in Jerusalem taught (under James the Just, the brother of Jesus,) has been swept under the carpet, so to speak. What The Church is founded upon are teachings from the Pauline community.

For the nascent Christian/Pauline Church to prosper outside the Holy Land, it was important to turn over control of the Church to the Greeks, who had developed a theology which had The Risen Christ at its center, not Jesus the Messiah, who was a descendant of David, and not divine, but anointed to be King of Judea - hence "Jesus annointed." In Hebrew it was " Yeshuah Messiach," in Greek "Ihsous Christos",  all meaning anointed one (this was the theology of the Jerusalem Church and later the Ebionites.)

The Greek (later Roman) Church's revolutionary idea was called "The New Testament," - it came from the teaching of the Pauline Community, whose writings reached the Church in Rome in 140.

Without Paul, there would have been a Hebrew-Christian Church probably similar to those who vowed poverty, later called the Ebionites by their detractors, which religion died out by the 4th. cent. (but some scholars say later than this.)

Eventually the Hebrew disciples were driven from the Church by legalisms, and Judaism with them, including their God Yahweh (this is a simplification of what happened.) Without a God to call their own, Jesus was declared to be God - a declaration that didn't suit all the Bishops. And for another two hundred years, the various Christian churches ( there were some fifty denominations) fought over whether Jesus was human or divine, a man or God.

In the 4th. cent. Bishop Eusebius was empowered by the Pagan Emperor Constantine to bring all the Bishops of the Empire together to settle on one understanding of God. About 300 attended. All Bishops were required to declare that Jesus was God incarnate, or suffer excommunication. Only six objected, and were excommunicated (later re-instated as power was handed over to a new Bishop.)

By very skilful argument at this council of Nicea (as it became known,) almost all the Bishops were convinced that: Jesus, The Father, and the Holy Ghost were consubstatial - of the same essence but different personas. The Trinity in Unity was born in AD 325. It was tacitly understood that the Hebrew understanding of God had been incomplete.

Even today in my classes, some people say that the Hebrew God of wrath and justice, is not the same as the loving and merciful God of Christianity.

Almost everyone in Protestant America thinks that Paul had the correct understanding of what Christianity should be - despite the fact that, unlike the twelve, he never met Jesus, and never studied under him.

I expect a lot of flack with this posting. But: "Blessed are the peacemakers," Jesus said, so be patient.


Christian theology has long distinguished 'being' and 'person' God is 'one being' but there are three three persons who are that one God. Take for example the Nicene Creed:

  I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth,
  and of all things visible and invisible.

  And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten
  of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God
  of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the
  Father, by whom all things were made.

  Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was
  incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and
  was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was
  buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures;
  and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father;
  and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead;
  whose kingdom shall have no end.

  And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who
  proceeds from the Father [and the Son]; who with the Father and the
  Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.

  And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge
  one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection
  of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Notice how it express a belief in one God, but also that there are three persons (Father, Son and Spirit) who are that one God.

When it comes to the incarnation, the father sent the son.

When it comes to the cross the son died to satisfy the wrath of the father.

So, whilst in one sense it is true to say God sacrificed himself to appease his wrath - that action was possible because God is trinity.


The only document assigned to Pelagius that I could find is his letter to Demetrias, a fourteen year old girl of wealthy family who shunned riches and made enquiries regarding her own religious desires.

The letter is presented online but the two presentations I have found (herein linked) are very different and there is some question about the accuracy of translation from the original Latin.

In one presentation I found the words :

  But the joy of heaven, which is the reward for making good and wise choices on earth, lasts for all eternity. And the agony of hell, which is the punishment for making bad choices on earth, also lasts for all eternity. The day of judgement, when God will decide where to send us, is imminent; even if a person is young, and destined to live for a hundred years, the day is still imminent.

But the tone of the second presentation is different, the document is much longer and I am unable to find the above quoted words within it, so there is doubt about the accuracy of the documentation available.

The second link provides a copy of the original Latin written by Pelagius.

Grateful thanks to @Joseph Hinkle for providing the second link.


Do Jehovah's Witnesses celebrate communion?

Symbolic meaning of the bread and wine

JW's do not accept transubstantiation (the unyeasted bread means/symbolizes Jesus' perfect and sinless body and the wine represents his blood he sacrificed to save humankind from the sinful state inherited by Adam and to seal the second covenant).

The biblical verses in the New World Translation (NWT), the translation JW's commonly use, also underline this symbolic meaning of the bread and wine. In Mt. 26:26-28, Mark 14:22-24, Luke 22:19-20 and 1. Cor. 11:24-25 the NWT-committee translated the Greek verb 'estin' in these verses (literally: this 'is' my body; this 'is' my blood of the covenant) in a figurative way as 'means' (this 'means' my body, this 'means' my blood of the covenant).

The wine and bread are thus clearly considered symbols or emblems.

To answer your question properly, one has to understand the basic tenets of JW's doctrine.
JW's believe that throughout the entire Christian history God has selected only 144,000 to go to heaven where they will rule as kings and priests together with Christ (See Rev. 7:1-8 and 14:1-5). According to JW's it is God's holy spirit who convinces the individual that they indeed belong to the anointed class and have a heavenly call (Rom. 8:16-17) . Only with them Jesus has entered into a second covenant (see e.g. Luke 22:29-30).

God's Kingdom will however also rule over the earth, which will for ever be inhabited by a 'great crowd' of righteous ones/other sheep (JW's and non-JW's) which no man is able to number.  See John 10:16 and Rev. 7:9.

Partaking of the emblems: doctrinal restrictions

Only the ones who belong to the 144,000 anointed partake of the emblems (i.e. eat from the bread and drink from the wine). Thus they show they belong to the second covenant and are one with Christ. According to the Watchtower-doctrine, the anointed one is apparently under 'a command' to partake of the bread and wine (Gal. 6:16; Watchtower 1985, March 1, Question From Readers).

So in order to eat the bread and drink the wine in this day and age 'lawfully', you have to be (1) baptised as a Jehovah's witness, (2) 'in good standing', or at least not disfellowshipped and (3) believe you belong to the anointed class.

There are only a few thousands among the JW's today who still believe they go to heaven, the other JW's  ("great multitude of other sheep") believe they will live for ever on paradise earth. So the great majority of Jw's  do not drink from the cup of wine or eat the bread, but simply "pass" these emblems. Persons who are present at the memorial, but are no (baptised) JW's, are instructed not to partake of the emblems.

In most congregations of Jehovah's witnesses there are no anointed left, so the emblems are "merely passed" and left untouched.

The bread and wine only enjoy a special symbolic meaning during the memorials 'ceremony'. The leftovers have no special meaning at all, are certainly not holy and can be eaten by anyone or simply discarded of (and are thys considered just any other food product). See e.g. Watchtower 1976, February 1, 88.

Partaking of the emblems: time restrictions

The emblems are only passed once a year on 14th Nisan (last supper) and this in remembrance of Jesus and in accordance with his command (Luke 22:19 and 1 Kor. 11:20).
The emblems are only passed and taken by the anointed after sunset. So the exact time (hour) varies from place to place, but the memorial can only be held when the sun has set.

Only when an anointed person is ill and can't make it to the memorial or there is another valid reason for his or her absence, the emblems can be taken on another date than 14th Nisan (this is very rare, and I take it the emblem must then still be passed after sunset in a kind of a private "ceremony"). The anointed person could than partake of the emblems 30 days later than 14th Nisan (if possible). This is in accordance with the ancient laws of Israel when a man could not attend passover in case of 'force majeure'. See Numbers 9:10,11 and 2 Chron. 30:1-3, 15.

Partaking of the emblems: age restrictions

The JW doctrine has undergone a substantial change recently. JW's believed since the 1930's that the number of anointed ones was "sealed". This normally meant persons had to be baptised as a JW before the 1930's, if they claimed to be of the anointed class. Since JW's are not baptised as infants, but later when they are personally convinced that their religion is true, normally only persons who are born in 1920's or before could belong to the anointed. I say "normally" because in theory a younger person could belong to the anointed class if an older anointed person defected from the faith and the younger one fills in the place among the anointed that has become vacant (Rom. 11:17-22).

JW's now (Watchtower 2007, May 1, Questions From Readers) believe, however, that the number was never sealed in the 1930's, so every baptised JW could claim to belong to the anointed class.
The only age limit is connected with the fact that the person has to be baptised. In theory an exceptional child which has sufficient understanding, say of 9 years old, could be baptised and thus partake of the emblems and claim an 'anointed' status.
Such a decision would likely be highly controversial and probably met with some skepticism among JW's (See in this light: Watchtower 2011, August 15, page 22: 'A number of factors including past religious beliefs or even mental, or emotional imbalance-might cause some to assume mistakenly that they have the heavenly calling. We thus have no way of knowing the exact number of anointed ones on earth; nor do we need to know.').

I don't recall there are any special instructions how to deal with a minor anointed one who drinks the wine and might infringe on local (penal) laws.

Partaking of the emblems: formalities

The red wine (e.g. chianti, bourgogne or bordeaux, but no sherry, port, dubonnet, ...) is poured out in a cup and the unyeasted bread leaves are laid down on a plate.

The Jw's have given certain instructions about acceptable recipes, table decoration and flower arrangement (See e.g. Watchtower 1985, February 15, page 19).

The passing and partaking of the emblems (cup and plate) happen while you remain seated. So one does not "go" to communion.

It also means there has to be a person to your left and to your right (you accept the emblem from the person next to you and pass it to the other). For the person at the end of the row of the seats, there is no one seated to accept the emblem. This problem is solved by men who are standing at the end of a row of the chairs who accept the emblem and pass it to the next row of sitting persons. Somewhat peculiar is that these 'standing' men also take their seat afterwards and pass the emblems among them, this time while sitting.

Note

The memorial is the only time that the ones who partake of the emblems are counted: in that way the JW's organisation still keeps track of how many persons of the 144,000 anointed ones still remain alive today (therefore they are called the "holy remnant").

Persons who are no (longer) faithful Jehovah's witnesses and still do partake, are considered not genuine partakers and are not counted.

These figures are published every year, together with other statistics.
The anointed-statusdoes not have any other special effect (except that only anointed men are on the Governing Body) and the JW's now believe that the (exact) amount of anointed ones who remain, is no longer of particular interest.


Where was Catholic doctrine defined before the Catechism?

First, the history of the catechism is substantially longer than just 19 years! The catholic catechism dates for hundreds of years - one of the earlier "official" ones was promulgated in 1566.

Catechizing has been a long-standing practice (arguably, God told the Israelites to do that when He told them to write His law on the door posts and tell it to their children).


Early 90s Jungle themed christian childrens Musical

Here's the lowdown, background info:

  Since 1990, Jeff Parker, Nathan Carlson, Phil Lollar and David Buller
  have worked together to entertain and enrich children and their
  parents all over the world. As Woolly Mammoth Entertainment, they
  created and developed the hit radio series Jungle Jam and Friends the
  Radio Show!, which also featured the RazzleFlabbenz and Sing Along
  with Bert the Moose!   In 1999, Wayne Zeitner from Everland
  Entertainment joined the team. They changed the name of their company
  to Fancy Monkey Studios, and are launching brand new programs, still
  designed to make kids and their parents laugh through stories that
  show the goodness of God and the relevance of the Bible.

Should you wish to inquire about rights, etc...,:

This is a link to the producer, Fancy Monkey Studio and the particular series in question, Jungle Jam, a link to purchase CD's from them.  The site also has Downloads, CDs, Books, Quizzes, Videos, Contests,
Gift Certificates, and Coloring pages.

A Link for Amazon with Keywords Everland & Jungle Jam.

An ebay link to the exact episode, King of the Jungle for purchase.

Tape Contents, Side One:
In the Jungle
Very Nice Thing to Have a King
I Love to /eat
Fun for Only One
The Whole World's Waiting on Me

Side Two:
Kings Should Not Be Afraid of the Dark
Where Can We Find a King?
These Things Are Hard for Me
Jesus is Our King
In the Jungle (Reprise)

And finally, an interview with the producer--Jeff Parker

A Talk With Jeff Parker done in 2009 about the show.


What is the relationship between God the Father and the Holy Spirit?

1Jn 5:7  For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

  Mat 28:19  Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

  Act 10:38  How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.

Let me introduce you to God as described in the New Testament by Jesus through John and Paul. So to start briefly with 1st John 5 and Acts 10. In John 5 we see the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit all called God or those which bear record in heaven and they are called three are one in the same sentence. No man accurately understands what that means and that's ok.

  Joh 14:9  Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
  Joh 14:10  Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
  Joh 14:11  Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.

The Father is God and one with Christ Jesus and worked through Christ on the Earth. The Father is revealed to us throughout the Old Testament using many different Names which reveal attributes of His personality. This is an edited version of the links semi-exhaustive study on the names of God focusing on those which had a clear translatable meaning.

Elohim (Mighty Ones) 2606x  Genesis 1:1
El (Might, Power) 245x  Genesis 14:18
Eloah (Mighty One) 57x  Nehemiah 9:17
Adon (Lord, Ruler) 335x Joshua 3:11
Adonai (Lords, Rulers) 434x Genesis 15:2
El-Elyon (Supreme Might)    Genesis 14:18
El-Shaddai (Might of the Powerful Ones) Genesis 17:1
Cela (craig) Tzur (rock or strength)    Ps 18:2 (used interchangeably)
YHWH-sabaoth (Lord of Armies) 285x  1 Samuel 1:3
YHWH-jireh: will see or provide    Genesis 22:14
YHWH-rapha: heals  Exodus 15:26
YHWH-nissi: our banner or victory  Exodus 17:15
YHWH-m'kaddesh: sanctifies Exodus 31:13
YHWH-shalom: peace Judges 6:24
YHWH-raah: my shepherd Psalm 23:1
YHWH-hoseenu: creator  Psalm 95:6
YHWH-tsidkenu: righteousness   Jeremiah 23:6
YHWH-shammah: Present and available when

Any of these words can describe God the Father, Son or the Holy Spirit however lets assume the focus of the revelation in the Old Testament was on the Father and these words are used with preference to describe Him.

  Psa 139:7  Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?
  Psa 139:8  If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.
  Psa 139:9  If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea;
  Psa 139:10  Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me.
  Psa 139:11  If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me.
  Psa 139:12  Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee.

  Heb 6:18  That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:

Again the following attributes apply to God the Father, God the Son before and after His earth ministry (Php 2:8) and God the Holy Spirit. God is omnipresent as Psalms 139 goes into great lengths to describe. We also know God is not omnipotent as he cannot lie and cannot do evil like temptation (James 1:13) or be afraid (1 John 4:18). The Lord God is omniscient (Psalm 147:5,1Jn 3:20,Psalm 147:5).

John 14-16 is the dissertation on the Holy Spirit. Here Christ describes the Holy Spirit in clarity which is not seen again till the Pauline epistles. I don't pray to the Holy Spirit because in the farewell sermon Jesus never mentioned us expressly praying to the Holy Spirit. I do not condemn you if you do.

  Mat 6:9  After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

  Joh 14:16  And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

Superficially the first thing one would notice about the difference between the Father and the Holy Spirit is: The Father's primary residence is in Heaven; The Holy Spirit's primary residence is on Earth. They are however both everywhere.

  Joh 17:16  They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
  Joh 17:17  Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

  Joh 14:17  Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

  Eph 3:16  That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man;
  Eph 3:17  That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,

  1Jn 3:9  Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
  1Jn 3:10  In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.

God's Word Jesus Himself is truth. The Holy Spirit is not the Word which is truth He is the Spirit of truth. Christ and His Spirit dwell in our Hearts according to the scripture. According to 1st John 3:10 God the Father's seed is in us.

  Joh 15:26  But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

  G1607
  ἐκπορεύομαι
  ekporeuomai
  ek-por-yoo'-om-ahee

  From G1537 and G4198; to depart, be discharged, proceed, project: - come (forth, out of), depart, go (forth, out), issue, proceed (out of).

The Holy Spirit proceed from the Father. The word proceed has many sub words in Strong's Greek dictionary number G1607. Each of them describe the action of the Holy Spirit beginning His work on the earth.

Joh 16:7  Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

What we experience with the Holy Spirit is better than having Jesus who was and is one with God the Father present with us on the earth today. It is unknown exactly why Christ is at the right hand of Majesty on High and the Holy Spirit was sent here. The Holy Spirit is very kool to be able to fill the void of Christ in a better way than Christ Himself. So here we notice the Holy Spirit is better for us than Christ physical presence on the Earth.

Joh 16:8  And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
Joh 16:9  Of sin, because they believe not on me;
Joh 16:10  Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;
Joh 16:11  Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.

  Joh 3:19  And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

The primary work of the Holy Spirit on those in the world is to reprove or you could say convict of sin, righteousness and judgement. To be convicted means to be pronounced guilty.  It is often thought that the Holy Spirit condemns people to hell or bring condemnation but that is an act of the individuals heart caused by the law.

  Joh 16:12  I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
  Joh 16:13  Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
  Joh 16:14  He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
  Joh 16:15  All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

Here is a very high density amount of the word he. However it is important to note that the Greek word translated he here really is gender neutral however the word translated Comforter is indeed masculine.

The Holy Spirits work in the Church today is to complete the scripture in the lives of the believers. The primary way He did this was through the apostles, Luke and Mark writings after He arrived on the Earth. However He guides us into all truth not just those expressly written in the Word. He is able to enlighten the eyes of our understanding so that we know. He does not speak of Himself which is why we only know Him through the writings in the word and what we have experienced of Him. He does not speak from his omniscience. He speaks what he hears the implication is what he hears through your ears. The Holy Spirit also primary function in the Church today is revelation while in rare situations this can mean visions and dreams the majority of the way people experience God is through supernatural knowings one of the manifestations of the spirit. This is not hearing voices but experiencing the enlightenment from the scripture for your situation. Again Jesus says that the Holy Spirit is glorifying Christ and revealing the nature of Christ in and to us.

  1Co 12:4  Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
  1Co 12:5  And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.
  1Co 12:6  And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.

Again we see the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit in unison benefiting of the Church. God the Father is said to work all in all and to head the operations. God the Son administers and God the Holy Spirit is the Spirit behind the endowments.

  1Co 12:7  But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.

Every instance of the endowments is a manifestation of the Holy Spirit, administered by Christ and worked by God the Father's Power. I follow the Pentecostal pioneer Howard Carter division of the Holy Spirits manifestations which I will briefly relate bellow. He divides them into three manifestations which know something, three manifestations which do something and three manifestations which say something.

1Co 12:8  For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;

Word of wisdom is a knowing about the future. Like if you knew you shouldn't go to work on 9/11. This is not fortune telling it is just a word a single element conveying understanding about a situation. It is not a paragraph or a book. Likewise work of knowledge is a single element conveying present or past tense knowledge about a situation. Combined with discerning of spirits these are the three gifts which know something.

  1Co 12:9  To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;

The gift of faith is often called special faith as it is what is necessary to receive that which is beyond what a person may normally believe for on their own. Gifts of healing is plural. This is not going to a doctor but God working with the doctor to heal your aliment of body or mind. Spirits are not healed in the New Testament they are saved.

  1Co 12:10  To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:

The working of miracles are miraculous healings (like arms growing back) and other wonders (like supernatural provision or walking on water) which defy nature. Special faith, healing and miracles are the three gifts which do something.

Discerning of spirits is disliked because many people who claim to see spirits or hear spirits are in fact are sick and need help from doctors. However that does not change that the Holy Spirit sometimes chooses to reveal a spirit to a person. The good sense you cannot explain when you go to church is a right example of discerning of spirits.

  1Co 12:11  But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

Every time one of these manifestations is rightly expressed the Holy Spirit is rightly getting His will and work accomplished in the earth.

  Gal 5:22  But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
  Gal 5:23  Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
  Gal 5:24  And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

Finally because everything is cross referenced in the word. We are able to discern whether what someone calls the manifestation of the Holy Spirit is in fact a manifestation of the Holy Spirit based on the attributes of the Spirit Himself as described in Galatians 5. If it does not meet the criteria of these verses people are just imagining that the Holy Spirit is manifesting Himself.

So in summery to differentiate the Father from the Holy Spirit you take all the things which are known to be directly attributed to the Father and all the things which are directly attributed to the Holy Spirit and you compare and contrast them. I briefly gave you several names of God describing his personality and several names of the Holy Spirit. Then I described the Holy Spirit manifestation's in the earth which the Father works. Finally I list the attributes of the Holy Spirit at work in the individual believers life to give you an idea of what a believer should show evidence of when inspired by the Holy Spirit directly.


Why are wise men common in contemporary [American] nativity scenes?

This is a good question and has a simple answer.

Nativity scenes are intended to be representations of Jesus birth, not a historically accurate depiction. In other words they are there to remind us of the important elements of the birth, not to be a photorealistic documentary. Therefore the shepherds, the wise men, angels are all included because they were involved, even if they were not all there at the same time. In a static scene it is the only way to make sure that all the important elements are included. Most Christian art is similar in nature, especially older art, and even more especially things like church stained glass windows, which have a similar purpose.

Wikipedia provides an overview of the history of nativity scenes, and I won't attempt to duplicate it here. They originated in the 13thC and were extremely common in the 14thC.


Is man born in God's image, or was that just Adam?

All of Humanity is (Individually) Made in God's Image

Genesis does not seem to leave the matter open to much interpretation.

  Genesis 1:26-27 NASB  Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Both Adam and Eve were made in his image, and by simple inference, it would seem to extend to all humanity. He later told them to be fruitful and multiply, then repeats the part about dominion, as if to say that their progeny would be like this.

One could perhaps argue that since the fall, man may be fundamentally different in the matter of being made in God's image. I do not think a straightforward reading of the text provides any real grounds for such a conclusion, though.

  Genesis 9:6 NASB  "Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man."

This command to Noah after (sin, death, and) the flood I read to be an affirmation of an enduring unity between "humanity" and the "image of God" that not even the presence of sin can take away. It is as if the image of God is some sort of indelible mark on each human that cannot be marred or lost and whose value is not something we earn or lose. It is who we are. It is perhaps the thing about us that God finds valuable enough to redeem at awful cost.

The question didn't really include anything about the meaning of imaging God, so I won't attempt any discussion on that here, though it might be interesting.

The Image of Other Things

The second piece of the question mentioned being "born into the image of God or the Devil."

One definition of the word for "son" (υιος; 5207) is "used to describe one who depends on another or is his follower," and this is frequently used when biological sonship/fatherhood is not thought to be possible, "sons of the prophets," "son of hell," "son of the devil," "You are of your father the devil," etc.

Nowhere is there any link made between being a "son of" someone and being born/made "in [his] image." We are all (still) made in God's image, even if we are "sons of the devil," because imaging God is a defining human characteristic and being a son of the devil is a description of our behavior.

EDIT: I forgot about Genesis 5:3, although I would consider that tangential to the point. The question has to do with being a "son of God" or "son of the Devil," and imaging that "father." When these phrases are used in the New Testament, they are referring to behavior. I would consider it dangerous to draw too strong a conclusion from Genesis 5:3 and Genesis 6:2. Seth resembles Adam, though not only in the ways that Adam (or any human) resembles God. The language of Genesis 6 is too "wonderful for me" to speak with certainty as to its precise meaning, but I don't think it's attempting to elucidate the concept of "imaging" in any way.


What is the LDS meaning of the New Jerusalem?

The tenth Article of Faith, given by Joseph Smith to a newspaper as a brief overview of LDS beliefs and later accepted by the church as canonical, states:

  We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration
  of the Ten  Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon
  the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the
  earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its
  paradisiacal glory.

(Note: The original text stated that it will be built upon "this, the American continent."  The word "this" was removed after the worldwide growth of the church caused it to no longer make sense for a lot of church members.)

This article deals with LDS eschatology, and touches on both the Old and New Testaments.  As the Wikipedia article notes, the New Jerusalem is mentioned in Ezekiel, and in the Book of Revelation it describes that the city would not simply be established on earth, but would descend from heaven, already built.  It is frequently equated with Zion by scholars, and as the text of the tenth Article of Faith makes clear, Latter-Day Saints agree with that interpretation.

Genesis chapter 5 tells us of Enoch's surprisingly short lifespan compared to his contemporaries, cryptically stating that Enoch eventually "walked with God: and he was not; for God took him."  Many Bible scholars interpret this as meaning that he was taken up to heaven without tasting death, much like Elijah.  The Latter-Day Saints accept this interpretation, but also believe that Enoch was not alone.

Moses chapter 7, (part of an excerpt of Joseph Smith's unfinished project to produce an inspired translation of the Bible that would restore truths that had been lost and correct the errors of history,) tells of Enoch's work and ministry, describing him as a great prophet and a leader of men. He established a city which was named after the concept that it embodied:

  18 And the Lord called his people Zion, because they were of one
  heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor
  among them.

  19 And Enoch continued his preaching in righteousness unto the people
  of God. And it came to pass in his days, that he built a city that was
  called the City of Holiness, even Zion.

The chapter closes with a description of the city's fate, just before the Flood:

  68 And all the days of Zion, in the days of Enoch, were three hundred
  and sixty-five years.

  69 And Enoch and all his people walked with God, and he dwelt in the
  midst of Zion; and it came to pass that Zion was not, for God received
  it up into his own bosom; and from thence went forth the saying, Zion is Fled.

Joseph Smith taught that the location of Zion, the city of Enoch, had been upon the American continent, and that it was to return from heaven as the prophesied New Jerusalem at the beginning of Christ's millennial rein, and be established upon its original site, in modern-day Missouri, and be joined with the righteous community that was established there in modern times.  He explained that this was an important part of the meaning behind Isaiah 2: 3 (emphasis added):

  3 And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the
  mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will
  teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion
  shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.

Joseph Smith taught that the last part of this verse was not simply parallelism; it literally referred to two distinct places, and during the Millennium, there would be two world capitols, a political capitol at Zion (the New Jerusalem) and a spiritual center in Jerusalem.

For a more in-depth treatment of the topic, see Talmage's "The Articles of Faith", lecture 20 (covering Zion) and lecture 21 (covering Christ's millennial reign.)


What's the difference between Actual Grace and Karma?

Objection 1: It would seem that there is no distinction between actual grace and karma. For both are external causes of a person's future behavior. Therefore there is no distinction between them.

Objection 2: Furthermore, karma and actual graces both influence the state of an individual after death. For karma, we are told, can influence how an individual is reborn; and grace certainly influences their judgment to heaven or hell. Therefore, etc.

Objection 3: Furthermore, like actual grace, karma affects an individual based on their previous behavior. Therefore, etc.

On the other hand, karma appears to be automatic and objective, a particular understanding of how one's behavior influences one's future state. Not only do good actions produce good results, but bad actions produce bad. But although good actions will result in further actual graces, there is no statement that bad actions will result not only in a deprivation of grace by God in this life, but even of a specific obstacle to grace. Therefore there is a difference between actual grace and karma.

I answer that there is a distinction to be made between actual grace and karma, in a number of ways. In the first place, grace is a gift granted to one by God:

  Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1996; bold emphasis added)

But karma does not require to be granted by any being; it appears to be part of the structure of the universe:

  a man of good acts will become good, a man of bad acts, bad;
   he becomes pure by pure deeds, bad by bad deeds

(Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.5)

Furthermore, grace is granted to humans so that they may grow to become more like God (that they may advance in the process of theosis; see the quote above from the Catechism). Karma, on the other hand, does not appear to have any particular purpose.

For at least these two reasons, it appears that one must draw a distinction between actual grace and karma.

Reply to Objection 1: As discussed above, karma is not granted to one person by God, but grace is.

Reply to Objection 2: Although karma controls the state in which one will be reborn after death, grace does not in itself control whether one will be saved after death. Rather, the will of God, judging us as to our faith and works, accomplishes this.

Reply to Objection 3: As discussed above, karma can appear in both negative and positive forms, while grace is a purely positive gift of God.


In what ways did early Jansenists believe that their doctrine of salvation differed from that of Calvinism?

Indisputably, Jansenists considered Calvinists heretics, denied imputation of righteousness, and affirmed Catholic doctrine on all non-soteriological matters. Jansenists additionally claimed that they (in alleged contrast to Calvinism) affirmed man's theoretical freedom not to sin and man's cooperation with grace. Some Jansenists also denied eternal security. Let's take a further look at each of these things.

Undisputed differences with Calvinism

Before we address the meat of the question, let's examine the undisputed differences between Jansenism and Calvinism:

All non-soteriological issues. In God Owes Us Nothing, page 91, Leszek Kolakowski writes, "In such important matters as the interpretation of the Eucharist and of penance, the sacrament of priesthood (to which they attached special weight), the apostolic succession, the cult of saints and of the Holy Virgin (prominent in Saint-Cyran), and the very concept of the Church, including the hierarchy and the papacy, they were emphatically, unequivocally Roman."
Imputation of righteousness. In Iustitia Dei, page 284, Alister McGrath writes, "The entire post-Tridentine Catholic tradition (including those otherwise considered heterodox, such as Baianists and Jansenists) continued to regard justification as a process in which man was made righteous, involving the actualisation rather than the imputation of righteousness."
The truth or error of Calvinism. As you noted, when the Jansenists were accused of Calvinism, Jansenists did not argue that Calvinism was correct -- they argued that they were not actually Calvinists. This goes back to Jansen himself, who was a proud Catholic and wrote tracts against the prominent Calvinist Gisbert Voet, though it was not on soteriological matters but "on the question of the legitimacy of a Protestant mission in conquered Catholic lands," according to Hans van Ruler in the Dictionary of Seventeenth and Eighteenth-Century Dutch Philosophers.

Alleged differences with Calvinism

After the church condemned "five propositions" attributed to Jansen in his book Augustinus, Jansenists circulated a tract (titled in Latin, Brevissima quinque Popositionum Distinctio, or in French, Distinction Abrégée des Cinq Propositions) which claimed that the five propositions were actually ambiguous and could be interpreted in orthodox or heretical ways. The tract contained three columns. Under each of the five propositions, they explicated two possible heretical interpretations (on one side, the Calvinist interpretation, and on the other, the Semi-Pelagian, which they attributed to the Molinists), and one "orthodox" interpretation, that is, the Jansenist interpretation. Unfortunately, I have been unable to find the tract in English or any summary that goes beyond the facts I've just recounted. But I was able to find other descriptions of Jansenists' claims about their differences with Calvinism.

Nigel Abercrombie's book The Origins of Jansenism is perhaps the most thorough English-language treatment of the movement. The first section discusses Jansen's book Augustinus. On page 151, discussing Augustinus, Volume 3, Book 8, Abercrombie says:

  Jansen denies that his system is identical with that of Calvin, and supports his denial with three ancient sophistries: the first, that man could resist either delectatio 'if he would' (si velit), but he never does, because the delectationes determine his will; the second, that man 'co-operates' with grace, but only in the sense that the effect of grace is an action performed by man; the third, that when we sin, the avoidance of sin is 'in our power', in the sense already explained in the third book de Gratia Christi.

Since I don't understand the difference between the first and third "sophistry," and since Abercrombie elsewhere seems to conflate the two, I'll treat them under the same header. In addition to these points, it's worth mentioning the intra-Jansenist debate on eternal security.

Theoretical freedom not to sin

Before we can understand the distinctions Jansen made about theoretical freedom, we have to understand his theology of sin. Essentially, he taught that the will is either directed toward earthly or heavenly pleasures (or "delectations") at all times, and whichever presents the stronger pull in the individual will be victorious. See The Condemnation of Jansenism by George Tiffany:

  Jansenius taught, as did Baius, that supernatural grace was part of the very essence of man. Hence, when grace was lost due to original sin, the nature of man was essentially impaired. If man's nature, then, is essentially corrupt, the will is no longer master of its decisions. Its freedom is only freedom from external violence, not freedom from necessity. The will is then incapable of doing good and cannot resist the grace of God. It must always obey the strongest impression or, what Jansenius calls, the "delectatio victrix". This means that we must act according to that which gives us most pleasure. Jansenius took this doctrine from St. Augustine, but the sense of St. Augustine as seen from the context is this: if we put our happiness in virtue or vice, then virtue or vice will be the ruler of our lives. Due to his theory of knowledge by divine illumination, St. Augustine emphasized to a great extent the part of the will in knowledge. Accordingly, illumination and the consequent delectation affected the will in the process of knowledge. Jansenius overemphasized this. He took the words of St. Augustine to mean that the will is hovering between two attractions and that the stronger is always victorious and draws the assent of the will.

Let's revisit Abercrombie's summary of Jansen's thought on this matter from page 151:

  Man could resist either delectatio 'if he would' (si velit), but he never does, because the delectationes determine his will. ... When we sin, the avoidance of sin is 'in our power', in the sense already explained in the third book de Gratia Christi.

Here then is how Abercrombie summarizes Jansen's arguments on the subject "in the third book." From page 146:

  [Jansen says that] God sometimes commands what is impossible, ... 'not only to infidels, or to "blinded and hardened" men, but also to faithful and just men who will and try to perform them with all the power at their present disposal; and that the grace whereby these precepts might be made possible, is lacking to them.' ... Those who possess [faith and charity] would be able to perform any commandment if their will were set free by efficacious grace for this purpose; they are therefore said to be able to fulfil the commandments 'if they will'.

Cooperation with grace

Later in the book, Abercrombie discusses later Jansenists' defenses of their orthodoxy. On page 216, as he recounts the arguments that the Jansenist Antoine Arnauld's Second Apology gives in response to Bishop Isaac Habert:

  Habert had declared (following the Louvain Theses) that Jansen no more admitted human co-operation than did Calvin. Arnauld replies that the accusation is entirely false, and rests upon no authority, and quotes a few short passages of Augustinus which assert human co-operation. For the first time, however, Arnauld's defence is short and undeveloped--for the reason that Jansen, like Calvin himself, admitted indeed a physical co-operation of human activity in the production of the act, but allowed no more.

It appears that Arnauld and Jansen taught that man cooperates with his own sanctification. Calvinists sometimes speak in much the same way, so it would seem that if there's a real difference between them on this point, it's that Jansenism identifies sanctification with justification (along with the rest of Catholicism) and Calvinism asserts that there is an important distinction between the two doctrines. This is a significant difference, but perhaps it is not the same difference that Arnauld thought it was.

Is there eternal security?

In The Religious Origins of the French Revolution, Dale Van Kley recounts an ongoing internecine debate between several Jansenists, including Antoine Arnauld, Laurent Boursier, Jean-Baptiste Le Sesne de Ménilles d'Étemare, and Pierre Nicole. The subject of the debate was the proper balance between fear and confidence in a life of faith. Those who believed that confidence should prevail affirmed perseverance of the saints and assurance of salvation, whereas those on the side of fear denied both doctrines.

Van Kley says writes of Arnauld's denial of eternal security on page 102:

  The clinching argument of Arnauld's nine-hundred page polemic against the decisions of Dordrecht was that the Calvinist doctrine of the perseverance of the saints undermined fear and gave rise to a "false assurance" of salvation, proving that the "supposed Reformation of the Calvinists, far from being a work of the Holy Spirit, can only be regarded as the work of a demon."

However, on page 104, the affirmation most Jansenists gave (implicitly or explicitly) to the doctrine comes into focus:

  From the thought of God's "supreme majesty," on the one hand, Boursier derived the quasi-Calvinist comfort of being among the elect to whom God vouchsafed the gift of hope while delegating to charity the role of providing some additional "marks" of salvation. And from a consideration of God's "infinite mercy" as displayed in the crucifixion, on the other hand, he also derived confidence that spoke directly to the heart, whose independent testimony in the matter he defended. ... Boursier did not go out of his way to explain the difference between this testimony of the heart and the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit that Arnauld had so excoriated when appealed to by Calvinists.
  But even if Boursier's and d'Etemare's many qualifications be deemed sufficient to distinguish their position from Calvinist confidence, their emphasis was all on the side of confidence and against fear--a far cry, in any case, from the emphases of Arnauld and Nicole. ... To the extent that the Jansenist theological community had become more "confident," it also became a little more Calvinist, at least by the standards of its own understanding of Calvinist theology.


Under what circumstances, if any, can audio assistive technology be used in confession?
Before answering this question further, I would like to mention an important point. Visual contact and/or a physical presence, even if behind a screen is absolutely necessary.
Generally speaking there are no sacraments that can be received over modern forms of communications, including over cell phones, etcetera. You can not baptized someone over the phone.
Nevertheless some confessionals, I have been in, are equipped with a form of hearing aid strictly for use between the confessor and the penitent only. As such secrecy is maintained. Again, a physical presence equally been maintained.
Two way phone calls, in high security prisons have been validly used by priests in prisons to here confessions. This is equally a question of necessity, as state rules will not permit physical contact of inmates with anyone visiting them. Again the inmate is visually present, even though thick glass and/or bars that separate the two.
In the article, The Monk and the Murderer Fr. Kirk Larkin heard the confession of James Malicoat on the day he was executed at Oklahoma’s States Penitentiary infamous H-Unit on August 31st, 2005.

But at 10:45 a.m., under their own tension, the monk and the priest were ushered in to see Malicoat. After days of trying to conjure up what the killer would look like, Father Larkin was relieved to see a human being on the other side of the glass. Brother Vianney-Marie had never seen him look worse. Malicoat was slumped over for terror and want of sleep. "It's inhuman," the monk said. He was given about an hour with his last visitors, and Brother Vianney-Marie wasted no time. He made quick inquiries about Malicoat and his family and then introduced him to Father Larkin, telling Malicoat that he could make an act of faith and confess to him. He gave Father Larkin the telephone.
Malicoat told the priest he didn't want to confess.
"James was truly concerned about other people more than himself at this point," Father Larkin recalled. "He told me, 'Father, I don't want to burden you with the horrible things that I've done and that have been done to me over the course of my life.'"
The priest, with nothing rehearsed, trying to pry open the window that Brother Vianney-Marie had cracked, turned to the Profession of Faith. He went through the Creed point by point, asking Malicoat whether he agreed with each article.
Brother Vianney-Marie, his active participation relinquished, could hear only the priest's side of the conversation. He was in agony. When Father Larkin turned to apostolic succession and how a priest could forgive sin, the monk imagined how much time the explanation could eat up and couldn't take it any longer. He got up and went to the back of the room, where he paced and prayed the rosary out of earshot.
Brother Vianney-Marie looked up from his prayers in H-unit to see Father Larkin raising his hand in blessing over James Malicoat. The monk had no way of knowing whether this was absolution. But he could be pretty sure.
"I just knew it was his confession," Brother Vianney-Marie said. "I was ready to jump through the ceiling."
A few minutes later and Father Larkin was beckoning Brother Vianney-Marie back to Malicoat. Their half an hour apart had closed a chasm. And opened the window.
"All of a sudden, he had this weight off his conscience," Brother Vianney-Marie said. "I told him, 'I don't think you're my friend, you're my brother.' He has all the same graces. I said, 'Are you ready to go?' and he said, 'Yeah.' There was a peaceful tranquillity. He realized what he had done and was man enough to accept the consequences."

In the 23rd photo of the Tour of the Oklahoma State Penitentiary in McAlester - Photo Gallery one can see the location where Fr. Kirk Larson brought James Malicoat into the Church and heard his confession.
Fr. Larkin had maintained visual contact with James the entire time.
Further information may be gleaned from the following article:

Confession by phone, Skype, or emoji? Could it happen during coronavirus pandemic?
Online confession and absolution
Can I Make My Confession Over the Phone


Catholicism: Memento Mori in Christianity?

Memento Mori, or remembering one's death/mortality in order to live well, is definitely a Christian tradition rooted in Scripture (see Sirach 7:36, Psalm 90:12, Luke 9:23).

As for the skull on the desk, I think Father Schmitz is probably referring to something that I started on Twitter. I keep a skull on my desk (ceramic) to remind me of my death and started tweeting about it last year. The founder of my religious order, Blessed James Alberione, also keep one on his desk (also not real) to remind him of his inevitable death. I have found evidence of a couple other people in the history of the Church who kept skulls on their desks as a memento mori. Pope Alexander VII commissioned a marble skull from Bernini to keep on his desk. Saint John Fisher reportedly kept a skull on his desk and his table when he ate. If real skulls were ever used to meditate on death, I assume they were kept respectfully as relics and not used as mere props. Today, keeping a real human skull on one's desk definitely would not be appropriate according to Catholic teaching as human remains should be buried.


Do Priests, Cardinals, and Popes have a confessional to which they themselves can/should/must go?

Any priest, or any level of priest, can hear confession from anyone.  A priest will go to another priest for confession.  Similarly, bishops, cardinals, and the pope can (and do) go to priests for confession.  Apparently priests and the pope often have a specific confessor and are encouraged to visit him with "some regularity."

As for whether a priest can deny forgiveness, I can't find much information except that they can do it although it's apparently rare and usually only happens in cases where the person does the same thing repeatedly (like an ongoing affair).  I don't see any reason why a priest confessor to a cardinal/pope would not be able to deny forgiveness.


Genesis 9:7 fruitful and increase in number

Well, there were the Shakers, who didn't believe in procreation, but they've pretty much all dwindled out by now.  Not much of a surprise there.

Whether or not it contradicts the Bible or not to restrict procreation is a matter of interpretation for that particular denomination.  The Shakers didn't seem to think it did, but the Catholics would disagree.

That being said, I'd probably argue that the majority of Christendom lies somewhere in the middle of those two extremes.  I go to a Southern Baptist church, and there doesn't seem to be any stigma related to basic birth control methods, vasectomies, hysterectomies, etc.

All of those groups would probably consider themselves more or less orthodox (with a lowercase o).


What were the editions to the KJV since 1611 and who did them and when?

There have been minor updates by the publishers. Generally these are spelling updates, or changes to the punctuation. But there have been a lot. Each publisher generally changes something or other. Rick Norris has compiled a huge book on these, called "Facts from 400 Years of KJV Editions: Do We Use a 1769 KJV?"

You can also purchase fascimile 1769 Bibles (or 1611s) that are photocopies, so definitely with no revisions. Example: https://greatsite.com/facsimile-reproductions/1769.html


Who told Cain and Abel of Sacrificial rituals or offerings?

The Church Fathers tell us that the idea of offering sacrifice to God was placed in the conscience of man from the beginning:

  In the course of time Cain brought an offering of the fruits of the earth to the Lord

  Consider how the Lord of nature added knowledge to conscience.  After
  all, who brought this to our understanding?  It was none other than
  knowledge associated with our conscience.  The text says, He brought
  an offering of the fruits of the earth to the Lord [Genesis 4:3].  He knew and
  understood that he should offer from his own possessions some produce
  to God as to his master, not because God needs them, but for the
  purpose of demonstrating his gratitude as being himself a beneficiary
  of such kindness.  God, you see, is proof against need, and depends on
  nothing we have to offer; but in his ineffable love he shows
  considerateness for us, and for the sake of our salvation he allows
  these things to happen so that the knowledge of the Lord may be for
  the human race a school of virtue.

  John Chrysostom (4th c.), Homilies on Genesis, Homily XVIII