What was influence of Thomism on the Council of Trent?

St. Thomas had great influence on Trent, and several of his teachings became, almost verbatim, defined dogma at that council. From the encyclical Æterni Patris (1879) on the restoration of Christian philosophy by Pope Leo XIII:

  The ecumenical councils, also, where blossoms the flower of all earthly wisdom, have always been careful to hold Thomas Aquinas in singular honor. In the Councils of Lyons, Vienna, Florence, and the Vatican one might almost say that Thomas took part and presided over the deliberations and decrees of the Fathers, contending against the errors of the Greeks, of heretics and rationalists, with invincible force and with the happiest results. But the chief and special glory of Thomas, one which he has shared with none of the Catholic Doctors, is that the Fathers of Trent made it part of the order of conclave to lay upon the altar, together with sacred Scripture and the decrees of the supreme Pontiffs, the Summa [Theologica] of Thomas Aquinas, whence to seek counsel, reason, and inspiration.

See also "The Twenty-Four Fundamental Theses of Official Catholic Philosophy" by P. Lumbreras, O.P., S.T.Lr., Ph.D., and the Testimonies of the Popes on St. Thomas Aquinas, which cites Berthier, O.P.'s Testimonia Ecclesiæ.


Roger Ellsworth in "Opening Up the Psalms" says not to pronounce the word:

The word ‘Selah’ appears seventy-four times in forty psalms. This word signifies a pause or interlude. It may have been used to inform musicians to change instruments or to call for both musicians and listeners to ponder the truth that had been sung. In the public reading of the psalms, we honour each ‘Selah’, not by actually saying the word, but rather by pausing.

The Believers Church Bible Commentary has a really good summary.  Key points:

The original meaning has been lost
It has been translated as "Interlude" or "Pause and Reflect"
It could be a voice signal for louder or raised - in any event, it would be like 'crescendo' or 'rotando' - some form of musical notation.
Martin Luther, in particular, thought this a signal for deeper meditation.

SELAH Selah (selâ), appearing 71 times in 39 psalms and three times in Habakkuk 3 as a marginal note, is likely a musical instruction. With few exceptions, the term is used in psalms that have titles. The majority of the titles identify the psalms containing Selah with David or the Levitical singers, and about 75 percent of the titles also make reference to the “musical director” or “choirmaster” [Superscriptions].
Translated “interlude” in the LXX, the original meaning is unclear. The three basic interpretations focus on the root sll “lift up”; slh “repetition”; and the Aramaic root ṣl’, “to bow” or “to pray.” Thus, interpreters have suggested that Selah might call for the instruments to enter, raise the pitch or volume, affirm what has been said, or serve as a breath marker.
In addition to suggestions that Selah might signal raising the voice, changing the voices, or increasing the volume, scholars have offered other possibilities. It could be a unit marker in some contexts, as in the paired Psalms 9 and 10. Selah appears at the ends of Psalm 9:16 and 20, marking off verses 17–20 as a unit, almost exactly in the center of the two psalms when they are read as one (Tate, 2004:410–11). Michael Goulder (103–5) has offered the suggestion that it means “recitative,” marking a pause at which there should be the recitation of a prayer or story from Israelite tradition (68:7, 19, 32). Martin Luther referred to Selah as a sign that we are to think more deeply and at greater length what the words to which it is attached mean to say. He called Selah “a punctuation mark of the Holy Spirit. Whenever we find it in the Psalter, the Holy Spirit wants us to pause and ponder; there he wants to touch and enkindle our heart for particularly deep meditation” (Luther, 1956:37).
References: Craigie, 2004:76–77; Goulder: 103–5; Luther, 1956:37; Tate, 2004:410–11.

Finally, The Eerdmann's Dictionary of the Bible points out:

The 'pause' translation came from the LXX.
Some scholars via Jerome have suggested it derives from "forever":

Selah (Heb. selâ)
Likely a musical or liturgical notation, occurring 71 times in 39 Psalms and 3 times in the psalm of Hab. 3. In the LXX Selah is rendered as Greek diápsalma (“pause in singing”), suggesting some type of caesura. According to the Targ., followed by Jerome, the term means “forever” or “everlasting.” Perhaps this was a directive to insert a benediction, refrain, or prayer collect at that point. Proposals based on etymology include “voice modulation,” “increase in volume,” “prostration,” and “prayer ritual.” Others have suggested that the consonants of Selah form an acronym for “voice modulation” or “repetition.”
Gerald M. Bilkes


What is the biblical basis for the claim that the Father is a bodiless spirit?

John 4:24 - God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth. The idea of a spirit by definition implies that there is not a corporeal body; one of the reasons why, when the Israelites created an idol to represent God, they were committing a form of blasphemy. When presented in corporeal form, our worship tends to go to that of an idol, rather than that of God.

In scripture, most of the language used to refer to "the right hand of God", etc. is metaphorical, which leads to the conclusion, that no, God does not have a physical body.


What are the core beliefs of Presbyterianism? How does it differ and compare to other denominations of reformed Protestantism?

The name “Presbyterian” applies to a diverse group of churches that adhere in some degree to the teachings of John Calvin and John Knox and are led by representative elders (presbyters) of their congregations.  Here is a brief overview of the history of the Scottish Presbyterian Church:

The Presbyterian Church was first organized in Scotland under the leadership of the Reformer John Knox. The Church of Scotland was affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church, even though it maintained an attitude of independence. John Knox was a priest in the Church of Scotland and was fed up with the abuses he saw in the Catholic leadership. Knox was exiled to England after his involvement in the murder of Cardinal Beaton in 1546. While in England, he was licensed to preach in the Church of England and was instrumental in reforming the Book of Common Prayer.
When Mary Tudor ascended the English throne and started her bloody persecutions of Protestants, Knox fled to the Continent, where he met John Calvin and began to study Reformed theology. In 1559, Knox returned to Scotland and became a vocal proponent of Reformed theology and the concept of Presbyterian leadership in the church. A number of Scottish lords had already been promoting religious reform, and they gladly supported John Knox’s teaching. Under Knox’s leadership, these “Lords of the Congregation” wrote the Scottish Confession of Faith in 1560. This confession ended papal rule in Scotland and outlawed the Mass. The Scottish Confession remained the primary doctrinal guide for the Church of Scotland until the Westminster Confession of Faith in 1647.

The article goes on to explore the development of the Presbyterian Church and contains links to other useful, related articles.  The article concludes:

Within the broad category, there are some which can be considered conservative or fundamental, and some which would be called liberal or progressive...  While most Presbyterian churches will agree on general themes such as the depravity of man, the holiness of God, and salvation by faith, there is wide divergence in how they define and apply those themes.   Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/Presbyterians.html

With regard to the three specific questions you have asked, I can only help on the first question: What are the main beliefs of Presbyterianism?  Below is a brief summary of what the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland believes, “expressing our adherence to all the fundamental doctrines of Reformed, Calvinistic (not merely “Evangelical”) Christianity.”

Scripture. The Bible is the fully inspired, infallible and inerrant Word of God, and therefore the only supreme rule for faith and life.
God. There is one God, who decreed all things from eternity, created the entire universe in six days, and governs the whole creation continually.
Trinity. This one God exists eternally in three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Man. Man was originally created in the image of God, and his main duty in life is to know, love, glorify and enjoy God.
Sin. All fell with Adam in his first transgression. Everyone is guilty of sin (which is disobeying God’s law), and deserves to be punished in hell for ever.
Jesus Christ. God in His mercy sent His only begotten Son to be the Saviour of sinners. By taking human nature into union with His divine Person, Jesus Christ is both God and man. He was born of the virgin Mary, lived a perfectly sinless life, died on the cross, rose bodily from the dead, and ascended into heaven.
Atonement. When Jesus Christ died on the cross, He was punished in the place of His people for their sins, as the only way to satisfy divine justice.
Faith. Those who trust in Christ alone for the forgiveness of their sins, and repent, are accepted by God and will go to heaven. No one can be saved in any other way.
The Holy Spirit. Only the Holy Spirit can bring people to faith and repentance, which He does when He regenerates them into spiritual life.
The Second Coming. Jesus will return bodily at the Day of Judgment, when everyone who died will rise again. Those who trusted Him for salvation will go to heaven with Him for ever, but the rest will be cast into hell to endure conscious torment for ever.  Source: https://www.fpchurch.org.uk/about-us/what-we-believe/

That article also provides a link to a comprehensive statement of their beliefs based on the Westminster Confession of Faith: https://www.fpchurch.org.uk/about-us/important-documents/the-westminster-confession-of-faith/
To know what makes them different from other churches , see What We Contend For: https://www.fpchurch.org.uk/about-us/what-we-contend-for/
Finally, my only other comment with regard to your first question is that there should be no need for any person to pass themselves off as a member of a particular denomination.  Personally, I self-identify as a Christian, first, foremost and last.  I don’t belong to any denomination.  I belong to Christ Jesus and am a member of His Church.  I sincerely hope this helps as you set out on this interesting and important voyage of discovery.


Do Mormons believe that all spirits are omnipresent?

LDS commentary on this question is sparse, but based on the below information I infer that the answer is no.

  “The Holy Ghost as a personage of Spirit can no more be omnipresent in
  person than can the Father or the Son, but by his intelligence, his
  knowledge, his power and influence, over and through the laws of
  nature, he is and can be omnipresent throughout all the works of God
  (Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, 61)

In other words, presence is related to knowledge, power, and influence over and through the laws of nature. These are areas where other spirits are deficient.

  Each spirit child of Heavenly Father differs in intelligence. Jesus
  Christ is more intelligent than all of Heavenly Father’s spirit
  children, and His wisdom excels them all. The Pearl of Great Price: Teacher Manual, (2000), 44–46

Because other spirits don't have the perfect intelligence, knowledge, power, and influence of the Holy Ghost, they probably can't have omnipresence either.


What do the Nicene, Apostles, Chalcedonian, Creeds add to the concept of God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost that is not found directly in the Bible?

When framed in terms of what can't be found in the Bible: Almost nothing can't be found in the Bible / You can find almost anything in the Bible. A wide variety of established beliefs are "Biblical" because, like most any non-technical document, it's vastly multi-interpretable. (And even technical language is multi-interpretable.)

The creeds primarily clarify which interpretations were presumably authoritative [and correct].

Taking a "simple" example, in John 10:30, Jesus says, "The Father and I are one." That could mean anything from Jesus really "digs" the Father to Jesus shares Father's mission to Jesus and the Father are the same essence and being. Not to mention the gnostic understanding, which may have interpreted the statement as an indication of the godliness of "any enlightened person."

The creeds document in technical language the beliefs that the Biblical texts were written to illustrate, among them a belief in a Trinity God of co-equal, co-eternal Persons. The range of Non-Trinitarian and Trinitarian beliefs is vast. Many believes can be pretty convincingly presented as "Biblical." The key point here is that scripture was written to assist with the promulgation and poetry surrounding existing beliefs. Widespread Misinterpretation of that scripture, amongst other ambiguities and "belief drift", was largely the fuel for firing up the councils and documenting the intended beliefs in more technical language.

And while each council had some foci, some specified heresies to address, there just a lot of variation in belief that scripture cannot in itself pass judgement on.


Why was Esther not sinning when she broke the law and approached the king?

A few verses earlier, Esther states the law as such,”…any man or woman who approaches the king in the inner court without being summoned the king has but one law: that they be put to death unless the king extends the gold scepter to them and spares their lives.”  Under these circumstances, it is no stretch to say that the king, who had ultimate authority, is the judge who determines whether or not the law has been broken and punishment is meted out.  If the king had decided that she was guilty, she would have paid the penalty instantly.  On the other hand, if he extends the scepter (as he did) he is saying, “I accept her presence, the law is not compromised.”
There have been many instances where man has taken measures into his own hands to accomplish God’s work.  This was not at God’s prompting.  Mordecai’s admonition to Esther can be construed as God’s prompting and God, in keeping with his character (which He always does), would never instruct someone to sin.
I don’t know if this satisfies your question, but the way I see it we have a reasonable explanation backed up by an immutable fact.
One might also posit that we are instructed to do right or, perhaps more appropriately, Right, as in right according to God, not the local Constabulary, “Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason.”) Rom 13:3, 4.  A secular comparison might be federal law can trump local law.


How can common believers in the Eastern Orthodox Church be sure that the Church's decisions are correct and not erroneous?

My simple answer: the Holy Spirit promised to guide the Church into all truth. The Orthodox believe that He has fulfilled His promise. Now for my lengthier response:

There is somewhat of an implied dichotomy in Western thought that must be called out right off the bat: the distinction between Scripture and Tradition. In Eastern thought, there is no distinction, as the Church and its apostolic tradition existed before the New Testament was written. Scripture is part of tradition, indeed it plays the preeminent role in Tradition. Tradition is not opposed to Scripture nor does it contradict it any point, rather it explains Scripture. But I do not have time to address this fully, nor is it exactly the question at hand. Suffice it to say that in Eastern thought (and increasingly also in modern scholastic Western thought), sola scriptura is a myth—a logical fallacy. Everyone appeals to tradition when interpreting scripture - we just don't agree on which tradition, and many deny that they have any such tradition (and this ignorance is even more dangerous). Hence the 23,000+ denominations in Western Christianity.

In John 16:12-13, Jesus said, "I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth." It should be noted that in both instances, the word "you" is plural. This promise was not made to individuals, but to the disciples, they that would become the Church and form the apostolic tradition that was to be guarded and passed on (cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:15; 3:6). Keep in mind that many churches were planted before the New Testament was written.

When early heresies threatened to corrupt the gospel, early Christians turned to the apostolic tradition to defend the faith (such as when Christians appealed to apostolic succession to refute the Gnostics' claim that Jesus had secret teachings and that there were alternate gospels. Note that no official canon of scripture was adopted until the 16th century in the West, and no official canon has ever been declared in the East). When heresies threatened to divide the unity of the entire church, the church came together with bishops (episkopoi) representing the Church in various geographic regions, including both East and West for the first seven "ecumenical" (church-wide) councils.

When considering this question which was directed to the East, a broader one comes to mind: how can anyone in Christianity-whether Eastern or Western-be sure that the Church's decisions are correct and not erroneous? For instance, the Church preserved certain texts which were eventually accepted as the canon which we today call the bible, and they chose to repudiate other texts. Even still, not everyone was unanimous on the 66 books included in the modern Protestant bible (cf. antilegomena), not to mention the deuterocanonical books found in Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox bibles. The reality is that everything we have in the Christian faith, including our bible, comes from tradition. Studying history helps make sense of it (I highly recommend Jaroslav's five-volume set on The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, and his concise book Vindication of Tradition. Pelikan is a renowned ecclesiastical historian).

The East has critically evaluated the Church's many theologians, such as the Cappadocian fathers repudiating how Origen and Irenaeus integrated Platonic and Neo-Platonic thought into their theology. Also note that with the exception of Martin Luther and some recent scholars, most Western Christians have never considered how Aristotelian thought and scholasticism has impacted Protestant theology. Western Christianity's ignorance of history prior to the 16th century has lead them to unquestionably adopt many heretical and worldly philosophical viewpoints, and this can be seen clearly in the rampant division and individualistic soteriology that has marked Western Christianity.

A close examination of history shows a remarkable unity in the history of the Church for over 1000 years before the bishop of Rome excommunicated the patriarch of Constantinople in 1054. Prior to that event the Church had always decided issues via ecumenical councils, but the bishop of Rome wished to have sole authority over the entire Church, which was an innovation and was not the apostolic tradition (contrary to Roman Catholic teaching that Peter was the head over all the apostles-we can see already in the New Testament that Paul corrected Peter and that James appears to preside in some way as a leader over the Jerusalem council in Acts 15). Suffice it to say that while there are anomalous events such as the council of Hiera, history shows that these decisions were local and thus not widely accepted and passed on in the Church. Despite many challenges to the faith and Church unity, She maintained remarkable unity throughout history, especially in the East.

In summary, the East trusts that the Holy Spirit has continued to guide the Church into all truth. Eastern theologians are generally very knowledgeable about Church history and they "give their ancestors a vote" when interpreting scripture. Most Protestants do also, they simply aren't honest about it in most cases and don't look much further in the past than the 16th century for theological guidance, except to occasionally use the content of early conciliar creeds.

I do not have time to write a history lesson about the many interconnected issues that are requisite knowledge for a more in depth discussion of the trustworthiness and value of tradition, I have merely hinted at some of the notable data. I hope that I have given a basic response and good resource recommendations to learn more. I hope that this response has not come off as demeaning. I frequently hear Western Christians critiquing Eastern Christians for being uncritical towards Christian history, when the exact opposite is generally the case.


How do Trinitarians respond to the objection that God cannot be a man based on Hosea 11:9?

Hosea 11:9 says "I am God and not a man."  But it says neither  "I am God and cannot become a man" nor "I am God and cannot be a man", which the OP has put in the title of the question.


There is some confusion about the word ‘anthropomorphism’ as it is found in the Bible. The basic idea is that anything that is ‘unworthy’ of being attributed to God, which is a human characteristic applied to God in order for us to understand something higher and nobler, is anthropomorphic.  For example when the Bible says Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord, the ‘eyes’ are not real physical eyes, but this is an anthropomorphism to say that in God’s perspective Noah was graciously approved.

The Greeks were famous for a different kind of anthropomorphism not found in the Bible. They created gods that seemed like grumpy and resentful children who happened to have a lot of power. This is not the kind of anthropomorphism found in the Bible. The Bible starts 'in the beginning there was God' not man who applied their ideas about themselves to God. God is higher than our nature in every sense and beyond our comprehension in every way. Unlike the Greek god’s created by men, and therefore unholy human traits were projected up to them, God made man and some of our traits are in his image.  So we see human traits that are ‘worthy’ of God are not anthropomorphisms but attestations that we are created in his image.

With regard to emotions, such as love and righteous anger, these emotions are not anthropomorphisms.  Holy anger is a subset of love, for love hates evil and opposes it. An infinite God who loves without measure must necessarily infinitely oppose sin, or he does not love.  Therefore the human affections that we call emotions, at least those that are encouraged in scripture and evident in the life of Christ, are not anthropomorphisms.

Whether God is ‘actually angry’ may mean different things to different people. What is ‘actually’? Is it ‘human’ or ‘real’? We can’t pretend to understand how God feels; we can only know that he wants us to understand him as feeling. The best way to see how God ’feels’ and how God wants our emotions to be like, is to read the gospels and see how God in man felt, and how the Christ's emotions were like. Jesus got angry but was most characteristic as loving - both emotions were real and indicative of how the Father and Spirit 'feel'.


What is the Biblical basis for concluding 'Jesus is Yahweh (Jehovah or LORD)'?

In Trinitarian orthodoxy,

יַהְוֶה (Yahveh), commonly referred to as "the Tetragrammaton," is the name of God.
The Father is God, and thus, the name of the Father is Yahveh.
The Son is God, and thus, the name of the Son is Yavheh.
The Holy Spirit is God, and thus, the name of the Holy Spirit is Yahveh.
As there is only one God, there is only one name, Yahveh (יהוה), shared by the three persons of the Holy Trinity.

To note, יהיה - no matter what one assumes the nekkudot to be - could not translate into English as "I am." That would be אֶהְיֶה (ehyeh).

Zech. 2:11 proves that there is more than one person named Yahveh:

  And many nations shall be joined to Yahveh in that day and shall be My people, and I will dwell in your midst (cp. Zech. 2:10), and you shall know that Yahveh of hosts sent Me to you (cp. Zech. 2:9).

Note the two persons identified by the name Yahveh (יהוה). The one who sends is the Father, and the one who is sent to dwell among Israel is the Son. This theme is especially emphasized in the Gospel and Epistles of John (cp. John 1:14; John 8:42; 1 John 4:14).


Can a priest validly celebrate a mass without anybody else present?

May a priest validly celebrate a mass without anybody else present?

The short answer is: Yes.

  The General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) says, “Mass should not be celebrated without a minister or at least one of the faithful, except for a just and reasonable cause. In this case, the greetings, the introductory or explanatory remarks, and the blessing at the end of the Mass are omitted” (254).

  There is a constant metaphysical sense of our Catholic worship. Thinking with the Church there are times when a priest, without a congregation and without a server (to represent the faithful) may offer Mass by himself. The Church teaches that every effort ought to be made to have a server make the responses and to keep the priest honest in following the rubrics, but there may be times when the priests needs to offer Mass only in the presence of the Angels and Saints. Remember, we do not hold that a priest owns the Mass for himself. Yet, we are also taught that a priest does not need a lay person for the proper celebration of the Mass. Traveling causes these tensions, or there is a need to offer Mass for a particular intention that needs immediate Divine assistance, e.g., the sick and dying, a special circumstance in society or church. A priest in a nursing home may offer Mass without a congregation. Bishops with a rare day free of public ceremonials may offer Mass privately from time to time. Jesuits, many monks and hermits frequently offer Mass in alone. All this seems to be contextualized by the Code of Canon Law that says, “This is true with respect to the liturgies celebrated by religious communities” (678,1). Ultimately, it is held by the Catholic Church that it is both licit and valid for a priest to offer Mass alone. - Private and Public Catholic Mass?

The Extraordinary Form of the Mass (EF) is less flexible in this matter, but it is not absolutely forbidden either:

  Canon law stipulates that a priest should not celebrate Mass alone, but have at least a server or a lay person making the responses, but a solitary celebration is not to be forbidden absolutely if there is a good reason. A motive of piety and love of the daily Mass is generally thought to be adequate as a good reason. It frequently happens that a priest is in good standing with his Church and Bishop (not sanctioned or suspended, etc.) but has no pastoral ministry, for example for reason of having a teaching post or doing further theological studies at a university.

  In times gone by, the Church was much stricter about this rule, and Blessed Charles de Foucault in his hermitage in Algeria was deprived of the Sacraments for several years. He applied for and obtained a special indult from the Holy See to say Mass entirely alone – since there were no other Christians anywhere at all nearby, and the local Muslims were hardly to be expected to come and assist at Mass (seeing as he never converted any of them). - Mass without a congregation

Other sources:

  Celebrating Mass Alone

  When Celebrating Mass Alone

  III. Mass at Which only One Minister Participates (GIRM #254)

  Canon of Canon Law 906


Christianity and extreme, seizure-like bodily shaking

The practice is called being slain in the spirit

It is likely that this practice has existed for millennia; and that it is more a self-induced ecstasy than any kind of actual action of God upon the person. It is thought that 'prophets' in the Old Testament time may have done such things to try to induce visions. The prophets of Baal do something similar here:

  Midday passed, and they continued their frantic prophesying until the time for the evening sacrifice. But there was no response, no one answered, no one paid attention.

Here's something from an Orthodox source on the issue: http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7112

  It appears St. Paul was questioned about the working of the Holy
  Spirit through the Gifts. Corinth was greatly influenced by Greek
  paganism which included demonstrations, frenzies and orgies, all
  intricately interwoven into their religious practices. In post Homeric
  times, the cult of the Dionysiac orgies made their entrance into the
  Greek world. According to this, music, the whirling dance,
  intoxication and utterances had the power to make men divine; to
  produce a condition in which the normal state was left behind and the
  inspired person perceived what was external to himself and the senses.

  In other words, the soul was supposed to leave the body, hence the
  word ecstasy (ek stasis). They believed that while the being was
  absent from the body, the soul was united with the deity. At such
  times, the ecstatic person had no consciousness of his own.

  The Corinthians of Paul's time were living under the influence of
  Dionysiac religious customs. It was natural that they would find
  certain similarities more familiar and appealing. Thus the Corinthians
  began to put more stress on certain gifts like glossolalia. No doubt
  the Apostle was concerned that their ties and memories of the old life
  should be reason enough to regulate the employment of Glossolalia.

While not utterly identical, these ecstasies - which is the only really good term we have for it in English - have an origin in common human natural religious yearnings. They are not specifically Christian but reflect the person's desire to be a instrument of God, even to the point of frenzied ecstasy.


Was Satan created to accuse, or has he assumed that role in rebellion?

It is important to look at the context of Revelation 9:11. The Destroyer is released from the abyss by the star that fell from heaven.

  And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit.
  -- Revelation 9:1

Given this, there can be no doubt that Satan is the one responsible for the release of the inhabitants of the pit, and that the pit is part of the earthly realm.

We are also shown the purpose of the abyss:

  And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.
  -- Revelation 20:1-3

The abyss is a place to which God confines those heavenly powers who are bent on destruction.

So, Revelation 9:11 depicts Satan being given the keys to set loose the powers of destruction from their place of confinement.

Now, harken back to the story of Job, where Satan responds to God's esteem for Job's diligent practice of his religion:

  Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land.
  -- Job 1:10

The only characters in the story of Job who are aware of this "hedge", are God and Satan. God knows about it because He put it there, and Satan knows about it because he has been confined to the region outside of its bounds (on all sides), which has hitherto kept Job beyond his reach.

Contrary to the understanding of some, Job, like all men, sinned. However, because his sin is not related to adherence to the Law, which we know was impeccable, it often goes unnoticed. Job's sin was related to the fact that he'd forgotten the "purpose" of his Law keeping, which is to advertise God's goodness and bring glory to Him.

Now, in order to give Job the opportunity to realise and repent of his sin, God needed to allow access through the hedge, to the powers of destruction. So, He gave the "keys" to the hedge to Satan.

  And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD.
  -- Job 1:12

The scenario depicted in Revelation 9 is the same scenario depicted here in Job, but on a global scale.

Was Satan created to accuse?

There is nothing in scripture to support the idea that God made automatons of any of His creatures. Rather, the clear vibe of scripture is that God gave all his created beings the same freedom to do as they please as He, Himself, possesses. This is strongly supported by the fact that both angels and man have the capacity for sin, i.e. to choose whether or not it pleases them to act in concord or discord with the commandments of God. Peter tells us that their sin was the reason the angels were cast from heaven (2 Peter 2:4).

No, Satan was not created to accuse. He was created with the freedom to choose his own path, which Jesus tells us (Matthew 25:41) will ultimately lead him and other like minded souls, to eternal separation from God, in Hell.


Was this teaching (of soul existing before a birth) condemned by the Church?

Sounds like you are referring to the idea of the pre-existence of souls.  This idea is lumped with "Origenism". Check this thread out here:  What is " Origenism"
This is an excerpt from orthodoxwiki.org/Apocatastasis:

The anathemas of the local Council of Constantinople in 453, which is understood by most commentators to be confirmed by the Fifth Ecumenical Council in 553, posthumously excommunicated Origen and anyone following specific points of his teachings. These anathemas condemned his protology of pre-existent souls and his eschatology of universal restoration of all things "which follows from" his protology:

If anyone asserts the fabulous pre-existence of souls, and shall assert the monstrous restoration which follows from it:  let him be anathema. (First anathema against Origen)


Did the Christian practice of having a prayer before Bible study evolve during Martin Luther's time?

The Tie Between Luther and Augustine

Luther entered an Augustinian monastery when he became a monk, so it is not surprising that he was heavily influenced by Augustine.  An excellent survey of the one real letter we have of Augustine's that treats his overall view of prayer (not specifically applied to the study of the Bible) is in the 4 Principles on Prayer from Saint Augustine (The Gospel Coalition, 2014).  The first principle is that you must have the right heart - one which rests on the primary rule of scripture - love.  Love for God first, and other people second.  Augustine was essentially teaching that proper attitude for prayer flows out of the core teachings of scripture.  Essentially, he is saying a prayer should seek for God's will, and God's primary guiding principle in his will is love.

From another source on this same point, but regarding how this core principle also informs how to approach the scriptures.  The Scriptural Roots of St. Augustine's Spirituality (Stephen N. Filippo) - here Augustine is speaking:

  Therefore: 1. set your sights on God alone as the only object of your love and enjoyment, while enjoying other men only for the sake of Him; 2. be truly charitable to all who cross your path, for it is not by accident or random chance that they come into your life; and 3. go to the Divine Physician for the cure to your wounds (sins). Thus are laid down the three most important pre-requisites for correctly reading Sacred Scripture: charity towards God, neighbor and self; without which none can be faithful to the Truths taught in the Bible.

In the same way, Luther's teaching of seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit in prayer prior to studying scripture is an attempt to seek for God's insight and will into what his word means, and how we should apply it to our life in our current circumstance.  The implied rule which Augustine makes explicit is that we need to approach with the right heart, and Luther's prayer ensures that we aren't relying solely and pridefully on our own understanding.

So, I'm not sure that we can draw a direct parallel between Augustine and Luther on this point, but it certainly makes sense that following the teachings of Augustine would lead Luther to this position.

Consider Luther Lived in a Unique Time with respect to availability of the Bible

Despite the above, I think it's vital to understand the context around Luther's time in history and just how pivotal his teaching on biblical interpretation was to the burgeoning Protestant Reformation.

Consider that while the early church did have many copies of the books that make up what we call the Bible today, and did have many extant copies, biblical books and codexes would have been very expensive and prized possessions.  There would have been a lot more group and oral discipleship with shared texts, when they were available.  It wasn't until about - you guessed it - Luther's time that Bibles became widely available for individual's to study regularly on their own.

Consider the following rough history of Biblical availability to bring home this point:

Approx 100 AD - completion of all 27 books that now make up the New Testament
315 AD - Athanasius identifies the 27 books of the NT
382 Jerome's Latin Vulgate manuscript is produced (OT and NT)
500 Scriptures have been translated into over 500 languages
600 In areas of the Catholic chruch, Latin is only language allowed for Scripture
1384 Wycliffe is the first person to produce a hand-written manuscript copy of the complete Bible (OT and NT).
1455 Gutenbery invents the printing press - the first mass-produced Bibles become available (first book produced by him was the Latin Gutenberg Bible)
1522 Martin Luther's German New Testament is produced
1526 Tyndale's New Testment is the first NT printed in the English language
1535-1611 Explosion of additional Bible's produced, perhaps culminating in the King James Bible from an English perspective, in 1611.

The point of the above is that within the Catholic world, there was very little need for anyone to develop any techniques for personal Bible study at all much between the time of Augustine and Luther, just because the average person didn't have access to (nor was encouraged to pursue a direct study of) the Bible.  In fact, at the time of Luther it was not typically the case that a priest in the Catholic church would have necessarily ever studied or even held a Bible. It's not surprising to me at all that the topic is a difficult one to research as there was no need for an interpretive method prior to about the time of Luther, given these facts.

So Luther's teaching was filling a burgeoning need, which is why I think it "got so much press" at the time and why we still have references back to it today.

The Broader Biblical Teaching on Where/How we get any Insight or Knowledge

I was unable to find really any other teaching like Luther's from other early sources.  But I think this brings up the final line of reasoning, that none of Luther's (or Augustine's) teaching is really new , so to speak - it all is directly and deeply rooted in the teaching that comes easily and directly from the Bible itself. There are so many quotes from Paul on relying on God's wisdom and on being filled with insight from above and the Mind of Christ, rather than human understanding - including specific references to teaching/doctrine, that I will only give a few examples:

  1Co 1:5 For you were made rich in every way in him, in all your speech and in every kind of knowledge (NET) [we gain knowledge in Christ]
  1Co 2:15 The one who is spiritual discerns all things, yet he himself is understood by no one. (NET) [spiritual discernment versus the earthly discernment]
  Eph 1:8 that he lavished on us in all wisdom and insight. (NET)
  Eph 1:17 I pray that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you spiritual wisdom and revelation in your growing knowledge of him, (NET)
  Phi 1:9 And I pray this, that your love may abound even more and more in knowledge and every kind of insight (NET) [Great quote directly tying love to spiritual understanding as per Augustine's teaching]
  Col 1:9 For this reason we also, from the day we heard about you, have not ceased praying for you and asking God to fill you with the knowledge of his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding,

Jesus also has some good quotes about the topic, for example he tells the disciples:

  26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and will cause you to remember everything I said to you. (John 14:26, NET)

Jesus also goes on at length several times about the fact that the words he spoke and the deeds he did were not his own, but the words and deeds that the Father showed him.  In the same way, as Jesus is an example to his disciples (all believers), we should seek the words and deeds of the Father.  This fits well within Luther's instruction on praying and asking for insight from the Holy Spirit whenever studying scripture.


Why can't we boil down the three fonts of Catholic ethics to two?

Why can't we boil down the three fonts of morality to two?
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that the morality of human acts depends on three things:

I. THE SOURCES OF MORALITY
1750 The morality of human acts depends on:

the object chosen;

the end in view or the intention;

the circumstances of the action.

The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the "sources," or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts.
1751 The object chosen is a good toward which the will deliberately directs itself. It is the matter of a human act. The object chosen morally specifies the act of the will, insofar as reason recognizes and judges it to be or not to be in conformity with the true good. Objective norms of morality express the rational order of good and evil, attested to by conscience.
1752 In contrast to the object, the intention resides in the acting subject. Because it lies at the voluntary source of an action and determines it by its end, intention is an element essential to the moral evaluation of an action. The end is the first goal of the intention and indicates the purpose pursued in the action. The intention is a movement of the will toward the end: it is concerned with the goal of the activity. It aims at the good anticipated from the action undertaken. Intention is not limited to directing individual actions, but can guide several actions toward one and the same purpose; it can orient one's whole life toward its ultimate end. For example, a service done with the end of helping one's neighbor can at the same time be inspired by the love of God as the ultimate end of all our actions. One and the same action can also be inspired by several intentions, such as performing a service in order to obtain a favor or to boast about it.
1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one's neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).
1754 The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent's responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.

Thus as we learn from the Catechism that the circumstances of our actions will determine whether or not we shall merit before God for our good moral actions or be more guilty or culpable before God in regards to our immoral or sinful actions.
The circumstances of our moral actions are the variables by which help to determine how guilty one is in regards to sinful acts. Even the courts of law admit that some crime may be committed by some individual, yet a prosecutor may be inclined to ask the courts for a lesser sentence (probation in lieu of jail time) due to extenuating circumstances.
The opposite is equally true for gaining merit before God, for doing good.
You can not take the circumstances out of the picture when describing the morality of human actions as they form a intricate part of morality.
St. Thomas Aquinas explains in his Summa Theologiae why circumstances are so necessary in regards to human acts:

Whether theologians should take note of the circumstances of human acts?
Circumstances come under the consideration of the theologian, for a threefold reason. First, because the theologian considers human acts, inasmuch as man is thereby directed to Happiness. Now, everything that is directed to an end should be proportionate to that end. But acts are made proportionate to an end by means of a certain commensurateness, which results from the due circumstances. Hence the theologian has to consider the circumstances. Secondly, because the theologian considers human acts according as they are found to be good or evil, better or worse: and this diversity depends on circumstances, as we shall see further on (I-II:18:10-11; I-II:73:7). Thirdly, because the theologian considers human acts under the aspect of merit and demerit, which is proper to human acts; and for this it is requisite that they be voluntary. Now a human act is deemed to be voluntary or involuntary, according to knowledge or ignorance of circumstances, as stated above (I-II:6:8). Therefore the theologian has to consider circumstances.


Is John saying that Christ is God and eternal?

Question: “How is Jesus Christ the son to the Word?”

John 1:1-17  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God… All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made… He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not… But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name… And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth… And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace. For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

Jesus is not the Son of the Word; He is the Word that made all things.  He is the Word that the World knew not.  He is the Word that gave power to become the sons of God.  He is the Word that became flesh and dwelt amongst us.
Jesus Christ is the Eternally begotten of the Father, the manifest will of God the Father!

John 5:37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.
John 14:7  If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
John 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?


The significance of the sons of Levi was that they were the priestly tribe of Israel, and had special duties in the temple, offering sacrifices and leading worship. The priests had to be purified in order to perform their duties, as is referred to in the verses surrounding v. 3. In performing their duties, the sons of Levi facilitated the purification of the other tribes. It isn't that the Sons of Levi were the only ones singled out for purification, but that they were the first ones singled out for purification. One analogue to this might be in the safety instructions about flying, when the passenger traveling with small children is instructed, in the case of emergency, to put on their oxygen mask, and then to put on the mask(s) of the children in their care. In like manner, the Sons of Levi were purified first, so they would facilitate the purification of the rest of Israel.


The base was almost certainly olive oil, since that was the most readily available vegetable oil in the Mediterranean area (at least in the ancient world).

The Wikipedia article (which references various scholarly Bible commentaries) regarding anointing with oil in the Old Testament states tha for the anointing of priests, olive oil was used, mixed with myrrh, cinnamon, and an obscure herb not identified today called kaneh bosm.

Olive oil continues to be the base for all of the oils used in a Christian context nowadays: most notably the oil of chrism (also called myron in the Eastern churches), used in Baptism, Confirmation (Chrismation), and Holy Orders. A different oil, called the oil of the sick—also based on olive oil—is used for the Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick.*

Since James is almost certainly writing in the Middle East, in a context heavily influenced by Jewish culture (indeed, probably to an audience of Jewish Christians), the oil in question is almost certainly olive oil.

In the Catholic Church, if olive oil is not available, especially in an emergency, any vegetable oil may be used as the oil of the sick instead of olive oil. However, the oil distributed to parishes by the diocese will nearly always be olive oil.


According to the teaching of the Reformed Church do we contribute anything to our salvation or is it all of grace?

The concept of contributing willingness to be saved as opposed to receiving willingness to be saved is a new one to me, and I have been unable to find any specific reference to that.  However, within reformed Protestant theology, there is a doctrine of Irresistible or Efficacious Grace that points to the office and work of the Holy Spirit in salvation.  The following quote from the 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith may shed some light on this matter:

The doctrine of Irresistible or Efficacious Grace is set forth in the Westminster Confession of Faith: “All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, he is pleased, in his appointed and accepted time, effectually to call, by his word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God; taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.” (Chapter X, Section 1)
This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man; who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it. (Chapter X, Section 2)

http://crowncovenantchurch.org/confessions/WestminsterCOF.aspx?QuestionID=10&pageid=0&confession=true&q=Chapter+10+-+Of+Effectual+Calling.
Another article on the Westminster Confession of Faith, partially quoted below, points to the Holy Spirit and the preaching of the Word as the means whereby God draws sinners unto salvation:

The Westminster Confession of Faith is a Reformed confession of faith. Drawn up by the 1646 Westminster Assembly as part of the Westminster Standards to be a confession of the Church of England, it became and remains the "subordinate standard" of doctrine in the Church of Scotland and has been influential within Presbyterian churches worldwide.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_Confession_of_Faith
Chapters 10 through 18 describe various phases or aspects of salvation. The confession teaches that—by the Holy Spirit and the preaching of the word—God effectually calls the elect out of the state of sin and death toward faith in Jesus Christ and spiritual life.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_Confession_of_Faith#Salvation

Nothing I have read suggests that the sinner actively contributes to their salvation by being willing.  It is the power of the Holy Spirit that draws, by convicting the individual of their sinful state and then by that irresistible inner call.  The following quote sums it up:

The doctrine of Irresistible or Efficacious Grace “asserts that the Holy Spirit never fails to bring to salvation those sinners whom He personally calls to Christ.  He inevitably applies salvation to every sinner whom He intends to save, and it is His intention to save all the elect.” (Source: The Five Points of Calvinism by David N. Steele and Curtis C. Thomas (1963) p. 48)

Salvation is by Grace: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith – and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God” (Romans 2:8).
Edit: I found an article that discusses the meaning of the term “effectual call”, as related to salvation, from Chapter X of the 1647 Westminster Confession of Faith. Here is a partial quote:

The effectual call is understood as God’s sovereign drawing of a sinner to salvation. The effectual call to a sinner so overwhelms his natural inclination to rebel that he willingly places faith in Jesus Christ. The apostle Paul refers to the effectual call when he writes, “It is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill His good purpose” (Philippians 2:13). The necessity of the effectual call is emphasized in Jesus’ words, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them” (John 6:44).  https://www.gotquestions.org/effectual-calling-call.html

The rest of the article will shed light on how salvation is the work of God.


What's the Biblical basis for the rapture?

The Rapture is one of the events that is believed will occur during the end-times.  There are several different end-times scenarios that are all based on slightly different interpretations of Scripture, but the three major ones all agree that it will occur.

(A comparison of some of the views can be found here.)

The term "Rapture" means "Caught up".  The word itself comes from 1 Thessalonians 4:17 (KJV)

  Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with
  them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever
  be with the Lord.

The end times events are covered in many books in the Bible, but primarily in the Book of Daniel, The Book of the Revelation, 1 Thessalonians, and Matthew 24.  Your friend's description is known as the "Pre-Tribulation Rapture" interpretation of end-times events, which is held to by many denominations, but is definitely not the only interpretation.

One minor point, is that you mentioned that the "good people" will be raptured.  That's not quite right.  The Christians will be Raptured according to Scripture.  Christians are not Christians because they are good, or because they go to Church, or because they claim to be in a certain religion.

The Biblical definition of a Christian is someone who has been saved, or redeemed by Christ.  Christianity isn't about being "good enough" to get to heaven, or about religious traditions, it's about Christ, and the free gift of eternal life that we gain by simply accepting His free gift, by faith. (More here.)

As far as predicting the date, that's a fool's game.  Christ Himself said that nobody would know the date, and that it would take us by surprise.

  Mark 13:28-37 (King James Version)

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

  29 So ye in like manner, when ye shall see these things come to pass,
  know that it is nigh, even at the doors.

  30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till
  all these things be done.

  31 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

  32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels
  which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

  33 Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is.

  34 For the Son of Man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his
  house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work,
  and commanded the porter to watch.

  35 Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the master of the house
  cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the
  morning:

  36 Lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping.

  37 And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch.

The number of people that have claimed to know the date of the Rapture, and have seen that date come and go are countless.  We don't know the dates. We can see the signs of the times - the types of events and state of the world that is predicted, but not down to the date.

It could be 2 seconds from now, it could be a hundred years from now, or it could be longer.  We just don't know, but it is promised that it will occur, and that we are to watch for it.

So, if the Bible is true, and it is the Word of God as claimed, and Jesus was the Son of God, and The Way, The Truth, and The Life, and the only way to Heaven there's no time to lose.  If you've not already accepted Christ as your Savior, now's the time.


Did Jesus visit the temple before the wise men came?

Here is my attempt to harmonize the accounts of Matthew 2 and Luke 2, This assumes a literal retelling of the story. (Luke as a careful writer has been vindicated again and again by archaeology.)

  NAZARETH (above Samaria to the north) to BETHLEHEM

Luke 2:4 Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David,

  BETHLEHEM (just south of Jerusalem)

Luke 2:7 Jesus born in a manger

Luke 2:8-20 Jesus still in manger when shepherds see them

Luke 2:21 Eight days for circumcision

  JERUSALEM

Luke 2:22-24 Now when the days of her purification [33 days] according to the law of Moses were completed, they brought Him to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord. [They gave gifts as poor people would, so the Magi had not given them riches at this time.]

Luke 2:25-35 Simeon sees Jesus.

Luke 2:36-38 Anna sees Jesus.

  JERUSALEM to NAZARETH

Luke 2:39 So when they [Joseph and Mary] had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own city, Nazareth.

  Approx. 1-year GAP. Then NAZARETH to JERUSALEM to HILL COUNTRY(?)

Luke 2:41 We learn from this passage that they went to JERUSALEM every year for the Passover. So we see them no longer in Nazareth, but in Jerusalem. Perhaps they turned aside to Bethlehem at that point to visit relatives and family. In Luke 1:39, Mary visits Elizabeth in the "hill country of Judah," which, according to this map, includes Bethlehem. After all, this is Joseph and Mary’s home town where their families could still be living, so it’s not inconceivable that they would go see them or stay with them during the Passover. Bethlehem is just below Jerusalem -- see the map above.

Matthew 2:1-8 “Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem,” [The Magi visit Jerusalem and Herod, where they are told by the scribes that the ruler is to come out of Bethlehem.]

Matthew 2:9-11 “When they [Magi] heard the king, they departed; and behold, the star which they had seen in the East went before them, till it came and stood over where the young Child was.” [This was not their home in Nazareth, but “the house” (Matt. 2:11), perhaps a family’s or relative’s home. This Magi’s visit was perhaps the first Passover after Luke’s account, for Herod said to kill children 2 years old and under.]

Matthew 2:12 The Magi return home without telling Herod.

  BETHLEHEM to EGYPT

Matthew 2:13-15 “Now when they [Magi] had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying, “Arise, take the young Child and His mother, flee to Egypt, and stay there until I bring you word; for Herod will seek the young Child to destroy Him.”

Matthew 2:16 babies killed in Bethlehem. [The slaughter may not have happened until several months after the Magi and family had left, when Herod finally wises up and causes those children 2 years old and under to be killed. It took time for the Magi to journey here from the east, so maybe they told Herod that the Ruler was born when they first saw the star? Adding that time and the time the Magi departed would come to about 2 years by Herod’s reckoning. If this is so, then the Magi may have come here at the first Passover after Luke’s account.]

Matthew 2:19 Herod dies. [The family survived in Egypt on the gifts of the Magi.]

  EGYPT to NAZARETH

Matthew 2:22-23 Joseph is told to return, for Herod was dead. “…. And being warned by God in a dream, he turned aside into the region of Galilee. And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, ….” Now we are back to Nazareth.


Contemporary Catholic views on music in the Church: is music for God or for the people?

Sacred music is "to arouse man's devotion towards God". God has no needs, being perfect in Himself.

Addressing "Whether God should be praised with song?," St. Thomas Aquinas answers:

  As stated above (a. 1),* the praise of the voice is necessary in order to arouse man's devotion towards God. Wherefore whatever is useful in conducing to this result is becomingly adopted in the divine praises. Now it is evident that the human soul is moved in various ways according to various melodies of sound, as the Philosopher states (Polit. viii, 5), and also Boethius (De Musica, prologue). Hence the use of music in the divine praises is a salutary institution, that the souls of the faint-hearted may be the more incited to devotion. Wherefore Augustine say (Confess. x, 33): "I am inclined to approve of the usage of singing in the church, that so by the delight of the ears the faint-hearted may rise to the feeling of devotion": and he says of himself (Confess. ix, 6): "I wept in Thy hymns and canticles, touched to the quick by the voices of Thy sweet-attuned Church."

*In that question, "Whether God should be praised with the lips?," he writes:Consequently we need to praise God with our lips, not indeed for His sake, but for our own sake; since by praising Him our devotion is aroused towards Him


While doubtless some do actually sleep with the Good Book physically open by their bedsides, the bulk of the usage of this phrasing is idiomatic. At least in every context I've ever heard it, whether a Bible was physically open or not was not the point so much as that it was easily accessible and actively used: the last thing you were looking at each night and the first thing you would reach for in the morning.

Given that you say when you've heard it the references have been vague, I suspect what you've been hearing is also this idiomatic usage. To my knowledge none of the major branches of Christianity teach that this should literally happen. Again it's possible that some small groups here and there hold some eccentric view, but most English speaking Christians are less likely to mean this literally than idiomatically.


Why do some Advent calendars have days in random order?

There are two kinds of such calendars: ordered ones, and unordered ones meant as fun games, (or, I suppose, reminders of piety), where you have to search for the next one.

I'm actually not certain of the history of the latter, but it is common for promotional branded advent calendars. The typical example are those single-use calendars given as gifts that have a Christmas theme graphic on the front where you have to find the doors, windows, etc., hiding a chocolate or other treat.

On reading the Wikipedia article for advent calendars, they showed many examples of historical Nativity and Christmas winter scenes with unordered openings, so perhaps the unordered type are more "original."


I don't think there is any Biblical evidence of this. However, if we assume he can't, directly (which I suspect) then I'm sure he can indirectly, through a combination of body language, experience of humans and knowledge of specific individuals.

Say for example you look twice at an attractive member of the opposite sex - you don't need to read minds to have an educated guess what that person might be thinking.

Btw, I assume the question is referring to demonic entities in general. The likelihood that Satan, who is not all knowing nor all present, is trying to figure out what you are thinking must be pretty low.


Why was Jesus called the King of the Jews?

Jesus was hailed as the Messiah - the "Anointed One" (in Greek 'Christos' from which we get Christ).  The Messiah was thought to be the one who would restore the kingdom of Israel.  (Which, of course, Christians believe he did in the heavenly sense, but not the earthly sense.) You anoint a King, of course, which is where the confusion begins.

Indeed, the "Zealots" of which Simon Zealotes was a member, assumed that Jesus' plan was to be the King of this new newly restored Israel.  It was assumed that the Christ would give Israel its land back and be its new ruler. In Jeremiah 23 it says of this Messiah:

  “The days are coming,” declares the Lord,
      “when I will raise up for David[a] a righteous Branch,
  a King who will reign wisely
      and do what is just and right in the land.
  6 In his days Judah will be saved
      and Israel will live in safety.
  This is the name by which he will be called:
      The Lord Our Righteous Savior.

So, when Pilate is questioning Jesus (in John 18), he inquires along these lines, asking of Jesus if he is a King.  To this,

  36 Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”

  37 “You are a king, then!” said Pilate.

  Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.”

The Jews' rejection of Jesus as their king is thus made explicit, when in John 19, Pilate says:

  “Shall I crucify your king?” Pilate asked.

  “We have no king but Caesar,” the chief priests answered.

Whether or not Jesus was a "King" then, is a matter of interpretation.  To be sure, in Revelation, when he returns it is written on his thigh that he is "King of Kings and Lord of Lords", but to lower it to merely earthly place is to denigrate who He really is.

Finally, it should be understood that Pilate was mocking Jesus with the sign. John continues:

  19 Pilate had a notice prepared and fastened to the cross. It read: jesus of nazareth, the king of the jews. 20 Many of the Jews read this sign, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and the sign was written in Aramaic, Latin and Greek. 21 The chief priests of the Jews protested to Pilate, “Do not write ‘The King of the Jews,’ but that this man claimed to be king of the Jews.”

  22 Pilate answered, “What I have written, I have written.”

Pilate was contemptuous saying "See, this is what a would-be King of the Jews is".  The Chief Priests knew it and tried to change it. But if Pilate's going to mock somebody, he does it fully.


Does a comprehensive list for apostolic succession exist?

I believe that Catholic Hierarchy is currently the best tool for showing apostolic succession.

Keep in mind that written records only exist going back to the Renaissance, and they get spottier as we go back in history.

However, looking at (for example) the page for Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York, scrolling down past the “events” table and “micro-data summary,” we see that Cardinal Dolan was ordained a bishop by then-Archbishop Justin Rigali. Clicking on (now) Cardinal Rigali’s link, we see that he was ordained a bishop by Pope St. John Paul II, and so forth.

There is another complication to keep in mind with regard to apostolic succession: most episcopal ordinations are acually concelebrations. That is, a minimum of three bishops lay their hands on the ordinand, and all three pronounce the essential words of consecration. The apostolic succession, therefore, could just as legitimately be traced through the so-called co-consecrators (visible just under the “principal consecrator” field). Moreover, there are often more than three concelebrants, and these do not make it into the records.

(The custom of having multiple consecrators—however it arose—has the advantage of removing, for all intents and purposes, all possible doubt as to the validity of the episcopal ordination.)

If you keep clicking, you will note that the vast majority of Western bishops can trace their lineage to a certain Cardinal Scipione Rebiba. (This happened because Pope Benedict XIII, who traced his line to Cardinal Rebiba, consecrated no less than 139 bishops, for dioceses across Europe.) Unfortunately, we do not know who ordained Cardinal Rebiba a bishop (though there is no doubt that he was an auxiliary bishop in Chieti, Italy, and later archbishop of Pisa), so the written records largely stop there.


Does the Roman Catholic church recognize marriages outside of the church?

The Roman Church does recognise marriages outside the Church. See Canons 1055 and 1056:

Can.  1055 §1. The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized.
§2. For this reason, a valid matrimonial contract cannot exist between the baptized without it being by that fact a sacrament.
Can.  1056 The essential properties of marriage are unity and indissolubility, which in Christian marriage obtain a special firmness by reason of the sacrament.

A marriage between two baptised people is by definition a sacrament: it's the couple who are ministers of that sacrament, not the officiant at the ceremony. Consequently it doesn't really matter who the officiant is (although there are rules, just to make sure that everything is done properly and legally).
As I noted in my profile and an earlier comment, I used to be an Anglican and am now a member of the English Ordinariate.
Members of my Anglican church considered joining the Ordinariate, but their previous dissolved marriages would have caused difficulty. In practice, the Church attempts to be compassionate in justice and in most cases the reason for divorce would have been a valid reason for annulment and there would be no problem — but all the circumstances would have to be investigated thoroughly.

Perhaps I should qualify the opening sentence as

The Roman Church does recognise marriages outside the Church which accord with Canon 1055.


What happened to the wives of priests when celibacy was first instituted in the Catholic church?

The women all died. That was about a thousand years ago, after all.

When the edict went out, the ruling was that married men would no longer be ordained, not that the priests who were married would get rid of their wives. Eventually, this meant that all of the women married to priests would either become widows or the priests would become widowers.

Below I was asked for a citation, so I'll go ahead and add this as an amendment. It was apparent that celibacy was highly preferred in the West by the time of the Quinisext Council, which mentions that the East does not have such a preference (a case of an exception proving that the rule exists). During the 11th century, Gregory VIII took dramatic and active efforts to eliminate all future married clergymen, and the Second Lateran Council forbid married clergymen completely. But by that time it had already been two generations since bishops were forbidden from ordaining married men anyway.


Is apostleship continuing on into the current age?

All he seems to be doing is widening the traditional understanding of the word "apostle" to it's original Greek meaning, which is "messenger".

I don't see a problem with that on an academic level.

That being said, I think his redefinition and reuse of the word in the modern world is unnecessary and argumentative.  Why use the word "apostle" when the word "missionary", "evangelist" or "church planter" is far more widely understood, accepted, and has the same meaning in modern language?

I think he would do well to let go of his insistence, and in humility, repeat with John the Baptist in John 3:30:

  "He must increase, but I must decrease"

Because, to paraphrase Paul in Galatians 2:6:  "What we are makes no difference.  God shows no partiality."


What do Jehovah's Witnesses believe about other Bible translations?

The app you're referring to is JW Library.

Jehovah's Witnesses prefer using the New World Translation in general for several reasons, however that feature of the app is there because the full sense of some scriptures can often be better understood by cross-referencing with the wording of other Bibles. We use many translations in our personal study of the Bible. Upon request, Jehovah's Witnesses are happy to use another preferred translation when teaching.

Prior to 1950, Jehovah's Witnesses used and printed various other Bible translations. Even today, there are many languages which the NWT has not been translated into (there are currently over 130 languages which have the NWT available in whole or in part), and so JWs who preach in those other languages must use other available Bible translations.

Jehovah's Witnesses also research and treasure the history of Bible translation. At the world headquarters in Warwick, NY, there is a large exhibit of various historical and rare Bible translations. The exhibit primarily focuses on how God's name (Jehovah or Yahweh in English) appears in various Bibles through history.

As with most Bible translations, the translators have done their best to translate the Bible accurately. Scriptures which are difficult to translate are usually accompanied with footnotes with alternate renderings. In special cases where a certain scripture is controversial, there is usually an article about that scripture. One especially useful tool for finding JW publications on specific scriptures is the Scripture Index.


What does it mean by "Selling one’s soul to Devil"?

'Selling one's soul to the Devil' is an idiomatic English expression but it does not occur in the bible.

Jesus says :

what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? [Mark 8:36 KJV]

That is to say, in pursuing worldly things, one neglects the salvation of one's own soul.
James the apostle says :

Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. [James 4:7 KJV]

He urges submission to the mighty hand of God and to resist devilish temptation.
Of Judas, who betrayed Jesus, it is written :

And after the sop Satan entered into him [John 13:27 KJV]

After Jesus passed him some bread for dipping, Satan entered into Judas and he went out and betrayed Jesus.
But I am not aware of any biblical text that would support the idea of a pact being made between a human spirit and the spiritual Entity called Diabolos, Satan and Dragon and Serpent, regarding the soul.

Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.  [Ezekiel 18:4 KJV]

Souls do not belong to the Devil, nor can he be negotiated with in regard to them. That is a superstition and not a fact.
Souls belong to God, as Ezekiel tells us. And God, alone, is the possessor of them. And God alone shall recall them, at a time of his own choosing. And God alone shall judge them.
For he, alone, is God.


Does the Catholic Church oppose universalism?

According to this article (and I'm not expert enough to verify the reliability) the answer seems to be "not any more."

  A Summary and Some Resources

  The doctrine of universal salvation (also known as Apokatastasis or
  Apocatastasis) has usually been considered through the centuries to be
  heterodox but has become orthodox. It was maintained by the Second
  Vatican Council and by Pope John Paul II and it is promoted in the new
  Catechism of the Catholic Church and in the post-Vatican II liturgy.

It was supported by Pope John Paul II  the following are three quotes from him.

  Eternal damnation remains a possibility, but we are not granted, without special divine revelation, the knowledge of whether or which
  human beings are effectively involved in it. (General Audience of July
  28, 1999)
  Christ, Redeemer of man, now for ever ‘clad in a robe dipped in blood’ (Apoc, 19,13), the everlasting, invincible guarantee of
  universal salvation. (Message of John Paul II to the Abbess General of
  the Order of the Most Holy Saviour of St Bridget)
  If the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, is to convince the world precisely of this ‘judgment,’ undoubtedly he does so to continue
  Christ’s work aimed at universal salvation. We can therefore conclude
  that in bearing witness to Christ, the Paraclete is an assiduous
  (though invisible) advocate and defender of the work of salvation, and
  of all those engaged in this work. He is also the guarantor of the
  definitive triumph over sin and over the world subjected to sin, in
  order to free it from sin and introduce it into the way of salvation.
  (General Audience of May 24, 1989)

As for the statement that the author claims that the teaching is found in the catachism, here's the rationale:

  The new, post-Vatican II Catechism of the Catholic Church also gives
  us to hope that all will be saved.

  1058 The Church prays that no one should be lost: ‘Lord, let me never be parted from you.’ If it is true that no one can save himself,
  it is also true that God ‘desires all men to be saved’ (1 Tim 2:4),
  and that for him ‘all things are possible’ (Mt 19:26).
  1821 We can therefore hope in the glory of heaven promised by God to those who love him and do his will. In every circumstance, each one
  of us should hope, with the grace of God, to persevere ‘to the end’
  and to obtain the joy of heaven, as God’s eternal reward for the good
  works accomplished with the grace of Christ. In hope, the Church prays
  for ‘all men to be saved.’

Although in reading those myself, I don't know that they teach that universalism is true but rather that they have hope that it is.  But, clearly, if the have hope that it's true, it's not opposition to the teaching.  And much searching has failed to turn up recent statement denouncing universalism.


When did the Holy Family actually settle down at Nazareth?

Scriptures tell us that after the Presentation of Jesus in the Temple the Holy Family went to the town of Nazareth.

  39 When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth. - Luke 2:39

Assuming the Holy Family left the next day journey from Jerusalem to Nazareth would have taken anywhere from 4 to 7 days depending on variables. But this is only one interpretation proposed by Catholic theologians and others do exist.

  It is about 120 Km from Narareth to Jerusalem and another 10 Km from Jerusalem to Bethlehem. (About 80 miles in all) If Mary had not been feeling very well it could have taken nearly a week to do the journey. - Nazareth to Bethlehem

And what are the variables that could make a trip from Jerusalem to Nazareth go faster or slower?

  Galilee is north of Jerusalem; Bethlehem is to the south. The shortest route, 70 miles more or less as the crow flies, is through Samaria. Given the antipathy between Jews and Samaritans, Joseph and Mary likely skirted the area and went around the longer way.

  Assuming an average pace of 2.5 mph, 20 miles a day, would mean a trip of four 8-hour days. Some speculation puts it at seven days, or ten. I think four days is about right. Mary in her late teens, strong, healthy peasant stock; even pregnant and near delivery she could have managed walking it.

  That is if they didn’t bother with a donkey. With a donkey, no question, it was a seven- to ten-day trip. Yes, all the images depict Mary seated on a donkey. I suggest they are wrong.

  I’ve hiked with pack burros; it is slower. A donkey will pretty much set its own pace and not usually the one you would like. You may be in front tugging a lead, but the donkey is in charge. You get to walk ahead and pretend you’re in command.

  Even if they did have a donkey, I bet she walked. Donkeys aren’t fit for riding (again, yes, there are people who enjoy it over short distances; I’m not one of them at any distance). Eighty miles riding a donkey, picturesque as might be, still works out to, oh, let’s see, yes, 80 miles riding a donkey. Sensible people that they were, they walked. - Biblical travel: How far to where, and what about the donkey?

Now settled in at Nazareth, the Magi would have visited the Holy Family in their home town.

  The Magi Visit the Messiah

  2 After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi[a] from the east came to Jerusalem 2 and asked, “Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.”

  3 When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him. 4 When he had called together all the people’s chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Messiah was to be born. 5 “In Bethlehem in Judea,” they replied, “for this is what the prophet has written:

    6 “‘But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
        are by no means least among the rulers of Judah;
    for out of you will come a ruler
        who will shepherd my people Israel.’ ”

  7 Then Herod called the Magi secretly and found out from them the exact time the star had appeared. 8 He sent them to Bethlehem and said, “Go and search carefully for the child. As soon as you find him, report to me, so that I too may go and worship him.”

  9 After they had heard the king, they went on their way, and the star they had seen when it rose went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was. 10 When they saw the star, they were overjoyed. 11 On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh. 12 And having been warned in a dream not to go back to Herod, they returned to their country by another route.

From the above passage we can notice several points that can easily go unnoticed. The Magi visited the Holy Family in a house and not a manger. The Gospel does not state that the Magi actually went to Bethlehem; only that Herod had told them that the Newborn King was to be born in Bethlehem. Thus it is very conceivable that the Magi found the Holy Family at Nazareth and not Bethlehem. The Holy Family could have returned to Bethlehem after the presentation and found a house to remain in. The Catholic Encyclopedia admits that the interpretation of these variables in unknown and unsure!

  Time and circumstances of their visit

  The visit of the Magi took place after the Presentation of the Child in the Temple (Luke 2:38). No sooner were the Magi departed than the angel bade Joseph take the Child and its Mother into Egypt (Matthew 2:13). Once Herod was wroth at the failure of the Magi to return, it was out of all question that the presentation should take place. Now a new difficulty occurs: after the presentation, the Holy Family returned into Galilee (Luke 2:39). Some think that this return was not immediate. Luke omits the incidents of the Magi, flight into Egypt, massacre of the Innocents, and return from Egypt, and takes up the story with the return of the Holy Family into Galilee. We prefer to interpret Luke's words as indicating a return to Galilee immediately after the presentation. The stay at Nazareth was very brief. Thereafter the Holy Family probably returned to abide in Bethlehem. Then the Magi came. It was "in the days of King Herod" (Matthew 2:1), i.e. before the year 4 B.C. (A.U.C. 750), the probable date of Herod's death at Jericho. For we know that Archelaus, Herod's son, succeeded as ethnarch to a part of his father's realm, and was deposed either in his ninth (Josephus, Bel. Jud., II, vii, 3) or tenth (Josephus, Antiq., XVII, xviii, 2) year of office during the consulship of Lepidus and Arruntius (Dion Cassis, lv, 27), i.e., A.D. 6. Moreover, the Magi came while King Herod was in Jerusalem (vv. 3, 7), not in Jericho, i.e., either the beginning of 4 B.C. or the end of 5 B.C. Lastly, it was probably a year, or a little more than a year, after the birth of Christ. Herod had found out from the Magi the time of the star's appearance. Taking this for the time of the Child's birth, he slew the male children of two years old and under in Bethlehem and its borders (v. 16). Some of the Fathers conclude from this ruthless slaughter that the Magi reached Jerusalem two years after the Nativity (St. Epiphanius, "Haer.", LI, 9; Juvencus, "Hist. Evang.", I, 259). Their conclusion has some degree of probability; yet the slaying of children two years old may possibly have been due to some other reason — for instance, a fear on Herod's part that the Magi had deceived him in the matter of the star's appearance or that the Magi had been deceived as to the conjunction of that appearance with the birth of the Child. Art and archæology favour our view. Only one early monument represents the Child in the crib while the Magi adore; in others Jesus rests upon Mary's knees and is at times fairly well grown (see Cornely, "Introd. Special. in N.T.", p. 203).

It seems most logical that the Magi certainly visited the Holy Family after the Presentation. As we know the Magi presented gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh. We also know that Mary offered “a pair of doves or two young pigeons.” If they had had enough money they would have offered a lamb as was the Jewish custom in those days. Besides, Jesus is the real Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.

  …7And the priest will present them before the LORD and make atonement for her; and she shall be ceremonially cleansed from her flow of blood. This is the law for a woman giving birth, whether to a male or to a female. 8But if she cannot afford a lamb, she shall bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. Then the priest will make atonement for her, and she will be clean.’” - …7And the priest will present them before the LORD and make atonement for her; and she shall be ceremonially cleansed from her flow of blood. This is the law for a woman giving birth, whether to a male or to a female. 8But if she cannot afford a lamb, she shall bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. Then the priest will make atonement for her, and she will be clean.’”- …7And the priest will present them before the LORD and make atonement for her; and she shall be ceremonially cleansed from her flow of blood. This is the law for a woman giving birth, whether to a male or to a female. 8But if she cannot afford a lamb, she shall bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. Then the priest will make atonement for her, and she will be clean.’” - Leviticus 12:7-8

To further show that the Church does not know exactly how to explain the Biblical texts surrounding the events of Our Lord’s birth, I am going to let Fr. Ryan Erlenbus explain the differences in the various time scenarios proposed by Catholic theologians. It is impossible to know for certain when the Magi actually visited the Holy Family.

  The Magi must have arrived shortly after Christ’s Nativity

  There are several points which must be recalled from the biblical narrative: The Magi visit Christ in Bethlehem; the Magi visit Christ in what Matthew calls a “home,” which may be different from the “stable” where Luke states the Child was born; after the Presentation in the Temple (forty days after the Birth), Luke tells us that Jesus was taken to Nazareth; it seems that Joseph took his family to Egypt fairly soon after the Magi departed; when Herod realized he was deceived he had the children in Bethlehem and the surrounding towns killed.

  In the previous article, we have seen that the Child was born in a stable and adored that night by the shepherds. However, the Magi probably came shortly later, after the Holy Family had received hospitality in some home in Bethlehem (hence, Matthew speaks of a house). Thus, we can be reasonably certain that the Magi came to Bethlehem at least a day or two after the Nativity. However, it is most certain that they did not come any later than forty days after Christ’s birth, since then the Holy Family would not be in Bethlehem, but in Nazareth (since Luke states that they returned to Nazareth after the Presentation in the Temple which, according to the Law, took place forty days after birth). Hence, we can reasonably conclude that the Magi arrived in Bethlehem somewhere between the second and the fortieth day after Christmas – why not accept the tradition of the thirteenth day?

  The star appeared on the day of the Nativity

  St. Thomas knew of two opinions about the apparition of the star seen by the Magi: Chrysostom (or the author of the Opus Imperfectum in Mtt.) and Augustine seem to state that the star was first seen by the Magi two full years before the birth of Christ, and that it took these two years for the wise men to make the journey and arrive in Bethlehem (on the thirteenth day after the birth).

  On the other hand, St. Thomas mentions “others” who hold that the star first appeared only when Christ was born. According to this opinion, the Magi set off on their journey only on the day of the Nativity and were able to travel a long distance “owing partly to the Divine assistance, and partly to the fleetness of the dromedaries.” This is Thomas’ own opinion (ST III, q.36, a.6, ad 3).

  Yet, it may be the case that the star appeared on Christmas day and the Magi arrived thirteen days later on account of the fact that they were not from the far East, but only from a nation a little to the east of Israel – this is the opinion of Cornelius a’ Lapide, and I share it as well.

  A good reason to maintain that the star had not appeared to the Magi until the time of Christ’s birth is that, on the presumption that the Magi saw the star two years before the Nativity, the Magi would have learned of the Incarnation even before the Blessed Virgin Mary had! How strange this would be, for the Magi to know of the coming of the King before even the Mother!

  Moreover, it seems that Christ should not have been made manifest to the world until after his birth, for until the Nativity he was hidden in the virginal cloister of his Mother’s womb. It is for this reason that the Nativity is celebrated with greater solemnity than the Annunciation (the Incarnation) – it was only in the Nativity that God’s Love was revealed openly to the world. Hence, Christ should first come into the world openly (by his birth) before he is manifested to the wise men. Therefore, we ought to conclude, as a matter of fittingness, that the wise men did not see the star until the very night of the Nativity. In this way also, Christ’s birth was heralded first to the Jews (to the shepherds) and then to the Gentiles (to the Magi).

  The massacre of the Holy Innocents seems to have been nearly two years after the first Christmas

  The primary reason why some (both of the past and of the present) hold that the star appeared two full years before the Nativity is based on the following line from Matthew 2:16, “Then Herod killed all the men children from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men.” This time inquired from the wise men seems to refer to Matthew 2:7, “Then Herod, privately calling the wise men, learned diligently of the time of the star which appeared to them.” Hence, it is quite clear that Herod’s massacre of the Innocents was determined (in relation to the age of the children killed) by the time when first the Magi saw the star. The slaughter takes place about two years after the star first appeared.

  However, while it seems that we ought to maintain that the star had indeed appeared two years before the slaughtering of the Innocents, this does not determine the relation of the appearance of the star to the Nativity. For indeed, it is quite possible that the slaughtering of the Innocents did not occur until nearly two years after the Nativity. In which case, the star would have first appeared on the night in which Christ was born; and Herod would have (over a year later) killed the children of two years, since he knew that the Child could not be older than the star which marked his birth.


Looking for red letter bible in database format

The standard KJV module for The Word. available to download from the page given or as part of a standard install of the module, is red letter. The format is not the best for your purposes though. Red letter text is indicated by <FR> ... <Fr>, unfortunately there are a lot of other markup codes you would have to deal with.

Here is an example:

Jesus<WG2424> said<WG5346> unto him<WG846>, <FR>It is written<Fr><WG1125><FR> again<Fr>
<WG3825><FR>, <Fr><FR><FO>Thou shalt<Fo><Fr><WG1598><FR><FO> not<Jesus<WG2424>
said<WG5346> unto him<WG846>, <FR>It is written<Fr><WG1125><FR> again<Fr><WG3825><FR>,
<Fr><FR><FO>Thou shalt<Fo><Fr><WG1598><FR><FO> not<Fo><Fr><WG3756><FR><FO> tempt<Fo>
<Fr><WG1598><FR><FO> the Lord<Fo><Fr><WG2962><FR><FO> thy<Fo><Fr><WG4675><FR><FO>
God<Fo><Fr><WG2316><FR><FO>.<Fo><Fr><RF>tempt: or, try, or, put to trial, or,
proof<Rf>Fo><Fr><WG3756><FR><FO> tempt<Fo><Fr><WG1598><FR><FO> the Lord<Fo><Fr><WG2962>
<FR><FO> thy<Fo><Fr><WG4675><FR><FO> God<Fo><Fr><WG2316><FR><FO>.<Fo><Fr><RF>tempt: or,
try, or, put to trial, or, proof<Rf>

Under Downloads -> Tools and technical docs you can find a .doc description of the format, special modules to help/test indexing and placement of verses, etc.

I tried a DDG search; the first four hits seem to be possibilities. Check out the third, http://www.geeksandgod.com/forums/web-development/miscellaneous/bible-xml-format where user iluke says he has the kjv in mysql. It's near impossible to know who's got red-letter markup and who doesn't, though.


There's obviously a lot going on in the book of Isaiah! He was writing in a time not long before the people of Judah would be taken into exile. The kingdom as it was then was a disappointment, while the state that would exist after the exile would be even worse. So he writes about the time of the coming of the messiah, when the kingdom would not only be re-established, would not only get back to the glory days of David and Solomon, but would even exceed them.

Verses 1-8 describe what that will be like, when all injustices are finally corrected. Then in verses 9-14 he warns the people that the must stop being complacent about their sin because God's judgement would be coming very soon. In verses 15-20 he returns to describe the time of the coming of the messiah. (The messiah isn't directly mentioned here, but it's a straight forward interpretation.)

Perman's interpretation isn't great. What he says isn't wrong, but it's not the point of the passage. The passage is describing and contrasting evil and righteous people. His point is really pretty unnoteworthy - making plans for the good of others is just another way of saying to love people. Of course God calls us to do that.