How was 'a baby wrapped in swaddling cloths and lying in a manger' a sign?

Signs in tradition and scripture, can have two basic senses. In the first sense, they are often miraculous indicators of the speaker's trustworthiness, which encourage the listener to believe. In the second sense, they embody or represent a larger or more transcendent truth. The general formula for signs in my first sense is that the speaker first delivers a message, then performs a sign to reassure the listeners of his authority. We can see this by considering a couple other signs in scripture that follow the format.

First, let's consider the interaction between Moses and God as God prepares Moses to speak with Pharaoh for the first time.

  1 “But,” objected Moses, “suppose they do not believe me or
  listen to me? For they may say, ‘The LORD did not appear to you.’”
  2 The LORD said to him: What is in your hand? “A staff,” he
  answered. 3 God said: Throw it on the ground. So he threw
  it on the ground and it became a snake,a and Moses backed away from
  it. 4 Then the LORD said to Moses: Now stretch out your
  hand and take hold of its tail. So he stretched out his hand and took
  hold of it, and it became a staff in his hand. 5 That is so
  they will believe that the LORD, the God of their ancestors, the God
  of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, did appear to you.
  6 Again the LORD said to him: Put your hand into the fold
  of your garment. So he put his hand into the fold of his garment, and
  when he drew it out, there was his hand covered with scales, like
  snowflakes. 7 Then God said: Put your hand back into the
  fold of your garment. So he put his hand back into the fold of his
  garment, and when he drew it out, there it was again like his own
  flesh. 8 If they do not believe you or pay attention to the
  message of the first sign, they should believe the message of the
  second sign. 9 And if they do not believe even these two
  signs and do not listen to you, take some water from the Nile and pour
  it on the dry land. The water you take from the Nile will become blood
  on the dry land. (Exodus 4:1-8)

Now, smarter or more patient men than me can likely read some meaning into both signs. But, on the surface of it, Moses is given several miracles he can perform in front of Pharaoh to attest to his authority, or to the fact that he has been sent by God with his message. And, unless my memory is foggy, Moses appears before Pharaoh, first with his message, and then displays the signs of his authority and mission.

Then, let's consider Jesus' first "sign" according to John.

  1 On the third day there was a wedding in Cana in
  Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. 2 Jesus and his
  disciples were also invited to the wedding. 3 When the wine
  ran short, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.”
  4 [And] Jesus said to her, “Woman, how does your concern
  affect me? My hour has not yet come.” 5 His mother said to
  the servers, “Do whatever he tells you.” 6 Now there were
  six stone water jars there for Jewish ceremonial washings, each
  holding twenty to thirty gallons. 7 Jesus told them, “Fill
  the jars with water.” So they filled them to the brim. 8
  Then he told them, “Draw some out now and take it to the headwaiter.”
  So they took it. 9 And when the headwaiter tasted the water
  that had become wine, without knowing where it came from (although the
  servers who had drawn the water knew), the headwaiter called the
  bridegroom 10 and said to him, “Everyone serves good wine
  first, and then when people have drunk freely, an inferior one; but
  you have kept the good wine until now.” 11 Jesus did this
  as the beginning of his signs in Cana in Galilee and so revealed his
  glory, and his disciples began to believe in him. 12 After
  this, he and his mother, [his] brothers, and his disciples went down
  to Capernaum and stayed there only a few days. (John 2:1-12)

Admittedly, I feel like I'm contorting John's first sign a little to fit the format, but if notice the portions I've emphasized, the message is clear: do whatever he tells you. If His mother would not have given the message, "do whatever he tells you," the miracle would have been neat, but it would not have been a sign. It would have been a magic trick. And without the sign, the message lacks authority. The wedding guests would have no reason to heed Mary's command to submit fully to Jesus.

This particular sign is also packed full with pretty obvious symbolism, meaning, and power. And in those respects, the sign is a sign in other senses. The miracle extends a wedding celebration, likely indicating that Jesus' mission is about completing our joy (something He explicitly tells us later). It is significant that the jars used are ceremonial jars. Jesus commands that the ceremonial jars be filled with ordinary water, and by His miracle, he reveals them to be significant or holy -- he condones and makes holy the Jewish ceremony.

Now, I don't think the context of your initial quote needs to be broadened, but let's widen the context a little anyway:

  8 Now there were shepherds in that region living in the fields and
  keeping the night watch over their flock. 9 The angel of
  the Lord appeared to them and the glory of the Lord shone around them,
  and they were struck with great fear. 10 The angel said to
  them, “Do not be afraid; for behold, I proclaim to you good news of
  great joy that will be for all the people. 11 For today in
  the city of David a savior has been born for you who is Messiah and
  Lord. 12 And this will be a sign for you: you will find an
  infant wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a manger.”
  13 And suddenly there was a multitude of the heavenly host
  with the angel, praising God and saying: 14 “Glory to God
  in the highest and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests.” (Luke 2:1-14)

First, the angels deliver a message. (That is their purpose, after all!) The message is that the savior and Messiah has been born. And as I understand it, the message above suggests that this savior is both God and man, Messiah and Lord. And then, to lend credence to their message, they basically tell the shepherds, "Go and see for yourself! This is probably the first and last time you'll see a baby in a food trough!"

Admittedly, I don't know how often Jews laid their infants in food troughs. But, these angels make the pretty incredible claim that the Messiah has not only been born, but is God Himself. And as a sign that they're telling the truth, they tell the shepherds where to find Him.

Now, as a Catholic, there's a great deal of additional sign and symbolism here. God is born in Bethlehem (the house of bread), wrapped in swaddling clothes (He is fully human), and has been laid in a food trough, a sign that He has been offered up for consumption -- and not just any consumption, and not even implying reverent consumption, but animalistic, carnal, beastly consumption.

So, the sign of the infant, I think, hits on both senses of a sign. It testifies to the accuracy of the angel's message. And it signals Jesus whole mission: to "condescend" into humanity, thereby making humanity holy, and to submissively offer Himself as the fundamental food for our immortal bodies as regular bread would have been for our mortal bodies. I.e., Jesus' first "act" is to signal (be a sign of) the Eucharist. And we are meant to devour Him, as hungry beasts from a food trough.


I figure this website says it better than I can.

  "... there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for
  the kingdom of heaven's sake..." (Matt 19:12)

There are no known scriptural or historical accounts which tell us more about these particular eunuchs. So, how are we to understand this passage? Joseph Smith said,

  "I have a key by which I understand the scriptures. I enquire, what
  was the question which drew out the answer." (Teachings, 276)

Jesus was responding to the disciples' statement that it would be better not to marry if the law was so strict.

Christ's response, in essence, declared,

  "You're right, for those who understand and receive the full meaning
  of the law of celestial marriage, it is better not to marry at all
  than to make the mistake of violating the covenants of your first
  marriage in marrying another. For example, there have been men who
  understood this doctrine and made themselves eunuchs rather than take
  the risk of violating this holy law."

This response was not meant to justify the mutilating act required to become a eunuch nor to condone a celibate lifestyle but to acknowledge their understanding of the supreme solemnity of the covenant of celestial marriage.

Those who have received a testimony of this principle are obligated to live by its precepts. For them, it would be better to live a celibate life than to violate this law, for 'he who sins against the greater light shall receive the greater condemnation' (D&C 82:3). Therefore, 'He that is able to receive it, let him receive it'-for those who are not able to receive it are not obligated to abide such a strict law.

  "If our societies were on a higher plane, then, marriage covenants
  would be held in great, sacred trust; essentially, divorce would not
  exist or be considered except for truly serious reasons such as
  adultery. I would also suggest that in a higher system, with
  individuals living in harmony with all the Lord's teachings, there
  would be no such serious problems and thus no divorce.

  Unfortunately, our societies are less than ideal. Some persons do live
  in unbearably difficult marital circumstances, suffering as victims of
  spouse abuse, substance abuse, promiscuity, and other evils that are
  sometimes addressed through divorce as a last resort. In such cases,
  the Lord in his mercy 'permits his agents to exercise the power to
  loose [to authorize divorce] as well as the power to bind.' (Bruce R.
  McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 204)" (Jonathan M. Chamberlain, Ensign,
  Jan. 1993, p. 60)


Did Thomas Aquinas rate masturbation as a greater sin than rape?

Here is what Aquinas actually wrote:

  In each kind of thing the worst corruption is the corruption of the principle on which other things depend. Now the principles of reason are the things in accord in nature… and therefore, to act against what is determined by nature, is most serious and base. Therefore since in the sins against nature man transgress what is determined by nature in regard to sex, the sin in this matter is the gravest kind of sin. After this is incest… while by the other species of lust one transgresses only that which is determined according to right reason, but presupposing the natural principles. But it is more contrary to reason to have sex not only contrary to the good of the offspring to be born, but also with injury to another. And therefore simple fornication, which is committed without injury to another person, is the least kind of lust.

Summa Theologiae II-II, q. 154, a. 12

It's from a passage where Aquinas is talking about different kinds of sin. There are, for example, sexual sins; sins against justice; sins against charity; sins directly against God. Any sinful act can fall under one or more categories.

Aquinas' point is that, considering only the sexual element, an unnatural act is worse than a natural one, and that's why he says masturbation is a worse sexual sin than rape. However masturbation is essentially only a sexual act, and rape has other sinful elements - it is also a sin against justice and a sin against charity.

It's like we are grading sins on many scales. Masturbation scores worse than rape on the sex scale, but it doesn't score at all on the charity or justice scales. Rape on the other hand scores moderately on the sex scale, but very badly on the justice and charity scales. Overall, rape is worse than masturbation. The church has never taught anything different.

Most of this answer is taken from: Aquinas on Sexual Sins


In which language is the Bible most read today?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Is Lutheran confession necessary for salvation?

I am a confirmed Lutheran, and in Confirmation, we are taught that when we ask Christ to be our personal savior, the Holy Spirit has already worked on our hearts to allow us to open it. Asking for Jesus to be our Savior requires that we acknowledge our sinfullness and our inability to pay the price for our sins without accepting His blood sacrifice. We must confess that we are sinful to be accepted into heaven.

We are also taught that Jesus died once to forgive all of the sins of those who believe, so if you sin after you ask Christ into your heart, you are still forgiven, as your salvation is secure. So, if someone dies before confessing their sins since the last time they asked for forgiveness, but in their hearts they love Jesus as their savior, that doesn't affect their salvation.

When you say friendship with God, I think of fellowship, sort of like a spiritual conversation. Even when we have salvation, if we continue to dwell in our sins and refuse to ask for forgiveness, we are not in fellowship with God. Salvation is the presence of the Holy Spirit in our hearts. When we sin and don't confess it individually, we don't lose the Holy Spirit or salvation, but we choose to ignore God's friendship for the moment.


What was the explicit purpose of Jesus' question to James and John?

The most common take on that passage (and the related ones in Mark 10 and Matthew 10) is the difficulty in being a disciple (or in the case of those two, the immense difficulty and challenge of being an apostle).

In the notes for the New American Bible hosted at the Vatican's web site, there is a cross reference to Matthew 10:38-40.

  38  and whoever does not take up his cross and follow after me is not
  worthy of me.
  39 Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.
  40 "Whoever receives you receives me, and whoever receives me receives the one who sent me.

The message or interpretation here isn't subtle, nor the purpose behind that cross reference.  To any disciple of Christ, be they the two He spoke to in that passage, or be it the verse speaking to someone receiving the Word through Scripture, the "cup he will be drinking" is an allusion to the cross, and he's indirectly asking them (or us) if they(we) can bear the cross and follow Him.

I've heard this from the pulpit/ambo during the homily, during bible classes, and on retreats from clergy.  The theme and linkage is consistent.  (I get the idea that this is a core linkage taught in Seminary).

The question interpreted for the laity in the present: can you really pick up that cross and follow in those footsteps?  (Message: it's very hard to do).


Yes, it's long!

Yes, I know this is a long answer. Sorry about that!

However, given the huge amount of ink (and pixels) that has been expended on the doctrine of the Trinity for almost two thousand years now, I do not see how justice can be done to the subject in the brief answers that are preferred here on StackExchange.

I therefore ask for your patience and indulgence as I attempt to give a proper answer on the most highly debated and contested issue in the history of Christian doctrine.

The theological basis for this response

This answer is based on the Bible interpretations and Christian theology put forth by Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772), which is the basis for the Bible interpretations and theology of the various New Church, or Swedenborgian, denominations that were founded after his death.

This theology is not unitarian as that is usually defined, because Swedenborg stated that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all fully divine, and are God.
This theology is not trinitarian as that is usually defined, because although Swedenborg stated that there is a Trinity in God, he denied that the Trinity consists of three persons, but stated that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit exist in a single person of God.
It is also not modalist, as explained in this answer.

Though Swedenborg's theology has been identified with many earlier theologians and heresies rejected by Roman Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox Christianity, a closer examination shows that his theology fundamentally disagrees with every such theology or heresy that has been attributed to him. To the best of my knowledge as a lifelong scholar and teacher of Swedenborg's theology, his solution to the problem of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit presented in the Bible as being one God is unique in the history of Christian thought. It skips over all the creeds, and relies on the Bible's own statements.

Though it is beyond the scope of the question and this answer to present a full explanation of Swedenborg's doctrine of a Trinity in one person of God, it will be necessary to provide a sketch of it at the end in order to properly answer the question from a Swedenborgian Christian perspective.

The definition of "Trinity"

Also in order to properly answer the question, it is necessary to be specific about the meaning of "the Trinity" as it is almost universally defined in Christianity today.

"The Trinity" does not mean merely an acceptance of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as God. Rather, it specifies that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are each distinct persons of God.

The most compact definition of the Trinity as almost universally accepted in Christianity today is:

One God in three persons.

Beyond that, the definition of "Trinity" as used in most Christian theologies gets less unanimous and more conflicted. However, it is commonly stated that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share a single substance or essence, which is expressed in three distinct persons or hypostases.

The question as asked is:

  What is the Biblical basis for disbelief in the doctrine of the
  Trinity?

This response is based on the above widely accepted definition of the Trinity.

Note that though I will commonly refer to the doctrine of "a Trinity of persons," if I simply refer to "the doctrine of the Trinity" or "trinitarian doctrine" without specifying otherwise, I am referring to the same doctrine, as defined above.

This response is not based on prooftexting

While I am perfectly capable of prooftexting with the best of 'em, I doubt that anyone who has spent any significant time reading pro-trinitarian and anti-trinitarian debates has not already read whole volumes of selected verses from the Bible purporting to demonstrate one position or the other. I suppose that if all the arguments were put together, nearly every verse in the entire Bible that says anything at all about God has been brought forward both in support of and against both positions.

And yet, each side of the debate still continues to believe that its position is correct while its opponent's position is incorrect based on the Bible.

In short, prooftexting the Trinity has already been done, and has failed to produce any significant results.

Therefore though this response will necessarily make reference to the Bible from time to time, my main approach will be to take a broader view based on the Bible as a whole, and why, from the perspective of Swedenborgian theology, trinitarian theology as adhered to in most of Christianity today does not have a sound biblical basis.

The Trinity is not taught clearly, if at all, in the Bible

The primary biblical basis for disbelief in the Trinity is disarmingly simple:

The specific teachings that distinguish the doctrine of a Trinity of persons in God from competing doctrines are not taught clearly, if at all, in the Bible.

The word "trinity" does not appear in the Bible.
The word "persons" is never used in reference to God in the Bible.

I am aware that this has been stated many times. Even defenders of the doctrine of the Trinity commonly admit these things.

However, I do not think that such defenders fully realize the force of these facts.

The Bible is the primary source and basis of Christian doctrine

All of the major Christian denominations consider the Bible to be the first and foremost authority in the church.

Even the Roman Catholic Church, though it also asserts the authority of the church itself on doctrinal matters, still holds the Bible as the primary authority on matters of Christian doctrine, and generally argues that its promulgated doctrines are either supported by, or are at least not in conflict with, the Bible.

The doctrine of a Trinity of persons in God is held by all the major branches of Christianity (Roman Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox) to be a fundamental doctrine of the church. The Athanasian Creed, in which that doctrine is most clearly articulated of any of the widely accepted Christian creeds, after spending most of its text explaining that doctrine, states:

  This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe truly and
  firmly, he cannot be saved.

In other words, the Athanasian Creed, which is accepted as doctrinally correct in most of Christianity, states that unless a person believes that there is a Trinity of persons in God, that person cannot be saved.

Now, here is the problem with that:

As any honest defender of trinitarian doctrine will admit, the doctrine of a trinity of persons in God is not clearly and unmistakably taught in the Bible. And yet, it has been adopted as fundamental to Christianity and to salvation by the vast bulk of Christian churches, clergy, and theologians.

How can a doctrine that is not clearly articulated in the Bible be essential to salvation?

How can a doctrine that took several centuries of debate and dissension among human theologians to establish as the primary doctrine of Christianity be considered fundamental to Christian belief, and necessary for salvation?

Such a position impugns both the Bible and its divine Author (as is believed by most Christians) as being incapable of providing the clear, basic teachings necessary for salvation.

It holds that God's Word alone is not sufficient to provide faithful Christians with what they need to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved. By implication it claims, instead, that the Bible must be "helped" by human theologians in order to get its teachings into a form that is effective in saving the faithful.

I fully understand that there are some Christian doctrines that require human interpretation of the Bible in order to be seen and understood.

However, Swedenborg, and Swedenborgians generally, hold that:

Any doctrine that is essential to Christianity and essential to salvation must be clearly present in the plain words and teachings of the Bible, without the need for interpretation by human theologians.

Quite simply, the doctrine of a Trinity of persons in God fails that test.

Not only is it not clearly taught in the Bible, but it was not even clearly formulated until several hundred years after the last books of the Bible were written.

At minimum, then, the doctrine of a Trinity of persons in God must be rejected as being fundamental and necessary Christian doctrine.

Since that doctrine is not taught clearly, if at all, in the Bible, any claim that Christians must believe in it, or that it is essential to Christian belief, cannot be sustained based on the general principle that the Bible is the primary source of Christian belief, and provides all of the teachings necessary for salvation.

The Trinity is at best a secondary, non-essential doctrine

Based on all of this, the most that can be claimed for the doctrine of the Trinity is that it could be accepted as a secondary, non-essential doctrine of the church.

However, I am not aware of any Christian branch, church, or denomination that considers the Trinity to be a secondary doctrine. All of the trinitarian churches that I am aware of consider it to be fundamental, primary Christian doctrine. If they were asked to relegate it to secondary status, they would vigorously defend it as a fundamental doctrine of Christianity, if not the fundamental doctrine of Christianity.

Therefore the doctrine of a Trinity of persons in God as it is promulgated and held to by all of the major groups of Christians that believe in it cannot be supported in the doctrinal position that they give it because it fails the test of being clearly taught in the Bible.

It is not necessary to biblically disprove the Trinity

Based on the above argument, it is not necessary to disprove the doctrine of the Trinity of persons using Biblical citations, as has often been attempted—and just as often refuted.

All that's necessary is to show that it is not clearly and unequivocally taught in the Bible as necessary for salvation. And I have yet to see any cogent, Bible-based argument that the Bible itself teaches that it is necessary to believe in a Trinity of persons in God in order to be Christian and to be saved.

So the crux of this response is that the burden of proof rests on trinitarians to show that this is a clear, unequivocal teaching of the Bible, without a belief in which a person is not Christian and cannot be saved.

I do not believe it is possible to show such a thing based on the Bible.

Just a few Bible texts to illustrate the above response

I stated above that I would avoid prooftexting. That is still my intention. I do not claim that the following quotes prove the position of Swedenborgian theology. (I also in no way believe that it is necessary for a Christian to accept Swedenborg's theology in general, or his formulation of the Trinity in particular, in order to be saved.)

However, if I do not provide at least some quotes from the Bible, it may seem that this response doesn't fulfill the parameters of the question. So here are a few to whet your whistle.

I stated earlier that:

The word "trinity" does not appear in the Bible.

It is not fundamental to this argument to reject the idea of three-ness in God. As I said at the beginning, Swedenborg accepted the idea that there is a Trinity in God—though not as it is usually defined.

However, it is quite striking that whenever a number is specifically attributed to God in the Bible, that number is always one. Just two examples, one from the Old Testament and one from the New Testament:

  Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord (Deuteronomy 6:4)

and:

  I and my Father are one. (John 10:30)

There are no corresponding verses that state that God is three.

Yes, I am aware of the statement in 1 John 5:7:

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

However, the Comma Johanneum, spanning 1 John 5:7-8, is now widely accepted by Bible scholars as a later, most likely post-Nicene, addition to the Greek text of the Bible from Latin sources. In other words, it was most likely added to the Bible after the doctrine of the Trinity had been formulated by Christian theologians.

So it now seems quite clear that the one and only verse in the entire Bible that even approaches a trinitarian formula is a later addition, and not part of the original text of the Bible. (And even if it is accepted as genuine, it still doesn't say that there are three persons in God.)

The fact of the total absence from the Bible of any statement clearly attaching the numeral "three" to God invalidates the Trinity as fundamental Christian doctrine.

I also said earlier that:

The word "persons" is never used in reference to God in the Bible.

This is even more telling as to the lack of a biblical basis for the doctrine of the Trinity.

Proponents of the Trinity can argue that there are "threes" associated with God, such as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

But they cannot point to a single verse in which those three are called "persons," individually or collectively.

The reality is that the language used in Christian formulations of the doctrine of the Trinity is not based on the Bible. Rather, the wording commonly used is based primarily on ancient (non-Christian) Greek philosophers, sometimes as formulated in Latin rather than in Greek.

The very fact that this doctrine could not be properly formulated without borrowing vocabulary from non-Biblical sources should give pause to those who believe that it is a fundamental Christian and Biblical teaching.

In particular, words such as "persons," "essences," "hypostases," and so on, as they are used in trinitarian formulations, are derived from Greek and Roman philosophy, not from the Bible.

Does this mean they are wrong?

Not necessarily.

But it means that the formulation of the doctrine had to rely on non-biblical sources in order to provide a statement of it that was satisfactory to Christian theologians and the major branches of Christianity.

The Bible never calls the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit "persons."

And yet, stating that they are "persons" is fundamental to the doctrine of the Trinity.

This should establish that the primary basis of the doctrine of the Trinity is human philosophy and reason, not the Bible.

As I said previously, if the Trinity were claimed only as a secondary doctrine, that would not be a major problem. But since it is claimed as an essential doctrine of the church, a belief in which is necessary for salvation, it is invalid because it is based on human reason and interpretation, not on the plain language of the Bible.

There is a solid, Bible-based alternative to Trinitarian doctrine

The Christian theologians who developed and established the doctrine of the Trinity were facing a tough challenge. As recounted in scholarly histories of the doctrine such as this one (with thanks to Marc for calling it to my attention), the doctrine of the Trinity as now accepted in most of Christianity was formulated primarily in response to Arianism, which in effect denied the full divinity of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit by saying that they were created rather than eternal beings.

The challenge was to develop some doctrine that accepted Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as fully divine without rejecting the nature and role of each. The result, over time, was the doctrine of the Trinity.

Perhaps the most cogent argument in favor of this doctrine is not that it is clearly taught in the Bible (because it isn't), but rather that it is (as is commonly believed) the only doctrine that fully accepts the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as presented in the Bible, maintaining that all three of them are God.

In order to do that, trinitarian doctrine defined each of them as "persons," and stated that all were equally eternal, infinite, and divine.

It is often claimed by trinitarians that this is the only possible doctrine that could be derived from the many statements about God throughout the Old and New Testaments.

However, I believe that Swedenborg presented a superior doctrine, more soundly based on the Bible's entire presentation about God, in the form of a doctrine of a Trinity in a single person of God.

If there is a doctrine that preserves the full divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and that harmonizes with all of the statements about them in the Bible while maintaining that they are fully one, and not unbiblically "three persons," then the claim that the doctrine of the Trinity is the only fully Bible-based doctrine about God falls to the ground.

That doctrine also becomes unnecessary and not to be believed because it introduces non-biblical concepts that are not needed to formulate a doctrine of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit that is fully based on the Bible's own statements about them and about God in general.

Offering a full presentation of that doctrine would be far beyond the scope of this response, and would swell it to massive size. For those interested, please see my readable, plain English presentation of it in the article, "Who is God? Who is Jesus Christ? What about that Holy Spirit?" And for Swedenborg's own far more extensive and theological presentation of that doctrine, see his work True Christianity.

However, to complete this argument, here is a thumbnail sketch, with some reference to its biblical basis.

Swedenborg's doctrine of a Trinity in one person

In Genesis 1:26 we read:

  Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our
  likeness."

And God proceeded to do just that in Genesis 1:27.

Since we humans are created in God's image, our nature should, in a finite way, reflect God's infinite nature.

This means that if there is a Trinity in God, and humans are created in the image of God, then there must be a trinity in us as well.

According to Swedenborg, this is precisely the case. There are three essential parts of a human being without which we would not be human:

Soul
Body
Actions

("Actions" includes what we say or write as well.)

These are all common Biblical concepts.

This forms the basis for a simple, clear understanding of the Trinity in one divine Person of God:

The Father is the divine soul.
The Son is the divine body, or human manifestation.
The Holy Spirit is all of God's words and actions flowing out from God.

We would never say that there are three "persons" in a human being because that human being has three essential parts: soul, body, and actions.

Similarly, if God has a divine soul, which is the Father, a divine body, which is the Son, and a divine proceeding or flowing outward, which is the Holy Spirit, we would never say that there are three "persons" of God. Rather, we would say that there is one God with three essential components.

Another way of formulating the Trinity in God is:

The Father is the divine love, which is the underlying substance or soul of God. (1 John 4:8 and 4:16 state that "God is love.")
The Son is the divine wisdom, which is the expression or human presence of God. (John 1:14 states that "the Word became flesh and lived among us.")
The Holy Spirit is the divine proceeding, which is God's truth and power flowing out into the universe, and to humans and angels. (John 14:26 says, "The Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything.")

If we think of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in this way, many otherwise confusing statements in the Bible make perfect sense.

For example, the highly philosophical opening statement in the Gospel of John (John 1:1-18) becomes a luminous poetic expression of God expressing himself through his eternal Word, which was made flesh (human) as Jesus Christ.

It also makes perfect sense that Jesus said "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9), since Jesus is the human presence and expression of the Father, which is his inner divine soul.

And of course, when Jesus says, "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30), that also makes perfect sense.

Swedenborg's doctrine offers a better, more Biblical alternative

Much of the language applied to God in the Bible is poetic and symbolic rather than literal and technical. If we consider God's problem in attempting to convey lofty spiritual and divine ideas to us dense, materialistic human beings, we can perhaps understand why the Bible uses metaphors such as "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" in describing God.

However, if we interpret these metaphors as Swedenborg does, as referring to distinct essential components of one God in a single divine Being, or Person—components that are commonly reflected and described throughout the text of the Bible itself—then everything that the Bible says about God, and about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, falls beautifully into place.

This, of course, barely scratches the surface. It may raise more questions than it answers. But I hope it is enough to show that there is a coherent, Bible-based alternative to the widely accepted brain-bending and logic-defying doctrine of a Trinity of persons in God.

And if there is another doctrine that affirms the full divinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, while seeing them as fully and unequivocally one, just as the Bible says God is, then that doctrine must be seen as more in accord with the Bible's statements about God than the trinitarian doctrine that took hold in Christianity only in response to the Arian Controversy that erupted in the fourth century of the Christian church.


Do any denominations object to writing/ saying "the god" instead of "God"?

No denomination I know of would not object to that text. The reason being that using "God" refers specifically to the god of Israel and Christians, whereas "the god" refers to some god creating the heavens and the earth, meaning that "the god" only gains meaning from context. Should this excerpt be taken without its reference (Genesis 1:1) and its reader not knowing it was from the Bible, it would look like it was simply referring to a god, not the God.


Why was Jehu considered a "bad" king of Israel?

He went wrong by not turning Israel away from the sins of Jeroboam. These verses sum up Jehu's reign pretty well:

2 Kings 10:30-31 ESV The Lord said to Jehu, “Because you have done well in accomplishing what is right in my eyes and have done to the house of Ahab all I had in mind to do, your descendants will sit on the throne of Israel to the fourth generation.” Yet Jehu was not careful to keep the law of the Lord, the God of Israel, with all his heart. He did not turn away from the sins of Jeroboam, which he had caused Israel to commit.

It's likely Jehu didn't get rid of the remnants of the idols that Jeroboam set up since Jehu "did not turn Israel away from the sins of Jeroboam..." These verses detail what those sins were:

1 Kings 12:28-32 ESV After seeking advice, the king [Jeroboam] made two golden calves. He said to the people, “It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem. Here are your gods, Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.” One he set up in Bethel, and the other in Dan. And this thing became a sin; the people came to worship the one at Bethel and went as far as Dan to worship the other. Jeroboam built shrines on high places and appointed priests from all sorts of people, even though they were not Levites.
1 Kings 13:33-34 ESV Even after this, Jeroboam did not change his evil ways, but once more appointed priests for the high places from all sorts of people. Anyone who wanted to become a priest he consecrated for the high places. This was the sin of the house of Jeroboam that led to its downfall and to its destruction from the face of the earth.


Does believing in Christ activate God's word or just make us think and act different?

Since I don't know the context it is hard to explain what your pastor meant exactly. I will try to give a general answer to the question about the Spirit as a strengthening and guiding Helper in our lives.

(This answer will ignore the teaching in the Bible about the Spirit as co-creator with Christ and the Father, the Spirit as the endowing power that enabled the earthly Jesus to perform miracles and indeed even submit to the Father's will in sacrificing himself, etc.)

Two points before I really get started.

First of all, the Bible never intends to solve the paradox between our responsibility as human beings and our dependence on God. It's like the bike having two pedals. You will need both to push it forward.

Second, the Spirit will guide us to maturity. Being mature means not having to be told every minute detail that you're supposed to do. Such knowledge will be internalized when you're grown up.

Occasionally, though, there may be moments when specific guidance is needed, especially for ministry. But let's start at the beginning.

The Spirit is not completely unknown to any living human being. "He himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else." Acts 17:25
God can, through the Spirit, speak to (or prompt) anyone or speak through anyone. Like Cyrus of Persia or through Balaams donkey. The person may or may not be aware that it is God speaking.
It was through the Spirit of God that saving faith is bestowed to us. While Christian traditions may interpret the how of this differently, the fact that the Spirit is a key part of this is unarguably true.
It is through the Spirit that you're born again. The phrase may have been overused or even abused, the Biblical truth never becomes reduced to nothing. Being born again means a fundamental inner transformation. It makes you partake of the nature of Christ himself. But our sinful nature is not erased. As of us being born again, the Spirit takes begins to dwell in us. The verb dwelling is never applied to unbelievers.
The Spirit will illuminate the Word of God, making it more than a an objective truth, but also a personal communication from God.
The Spirit will guide us and strengthen us by giving (or withdrawing) inner peace. That peace needs us dialing down and taking time to communicate with God through individual and communal prayer, worship and listening to Gods Word. It can be silenced by stress, fear and doubt.

The greatest working of the Spirit and the most awesome effect of the Spirit dwelling in our beings, is the release of the cry Abba! Father! The Spirit makes our being daughters and sons of God more than a judicial state, it enables intimacy in our communion with the Father. (Rom 8:14-17; Gal 4:6)

So far I think every believing reader on this forum will agree. I will provide a few more points, where admittedly Christian traditions differ, but this is how I interpret the Bible:

The Spirit can "fill us", or "come upon us". This happened to Peter at least 3 times in Acts (2:4; 4:8; 4:31 - exact same verb in the Greek original). Through this we get power for ministry in that situation.
The Spirit will endow us with Spiritual gifts, through which we can build each others up; Through them we can exhort, inspire, comfort, teach, heal, etc.
We can be "filled" with Spirit. The NT has other verbs that speak of a more continual state. But there is no exact distinction between points 5-7.
We can be guided through the Spirit, not as in being taught doctrine apart from the Bible, but as in being helped in our individual service for God.
The Spirit will help us pray, through inner promptings, prophetic inspiration or the gift of tongues.

Finally (at least in this answer), building this primarily on Gal 5:13-26, but also many other sources.

The Spirit will empower the godly life, helping us resist evil and temptation and provide strength to avoid sin.
Through the Spirit "the fruit (singularis) of the Spirit", primarily love, faith and hope, but in essence encompassing every good and Christ lie personality trait. Thus, God is working so that I both in will and in deed do the will of God. My will is not reduced from the equation, but it is affected by God. He will make me want what is good.

The Christian life may contain many periods of great enthusiasm, personal revival. I personally think of these as the blossoming season in the spring. Fruit, however, is seen during the dull autumn. Fruit grow slowly. (While gifts are given instantaneously.)

So in essence - yes the Spirit of God is in a sense an external force. God is God and I am me. But the Spirit of God dwells within me, since I have been made a child of God thanks to Christ. Thus, the Spirit is working within me, but also through other people in my vicinity.


Is it possible to repent after death in Catholicism?

Short answer: For the general case, no.

Your question asks about both the general case, and an outlier case of suicide.  That series of articles in the Catechism addresses in part whether or not the disordered act of suicide is with full consent of the will, or is not with full consent of the will.  If it is not then it may not meet the gravity of mortal sin during judgment.  That's in the hands of our Lord.

General case: the point of repentance is to turn toward God during this life.

  CCC 1021 Death puts an end to human life as the time open to either
  accepting or rejecting the divine grace manifested in Christ.

The hope for salutary repentance is an edge case, as this repentance is something that can only be given by God.  How this may happen is neither known nor taught by the Church.  It's in God's hands.

All repentance (especially for a grave sin) comes from God. We are
incapable of contrition without grace (from @AthanasiusofAlex comment)

  CCC 2283 We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. The Church prays for persons who have taken their own lives.

If there is a hope for salutary (beneficial) repentance, it would logically happen at particular judgment.  We (the faithful) don't know.  We can only hope and pray.  (It never hurts to ask).

  CCC 1037 God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful
  turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in
  it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily
  prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who
  does not want "any to perish, but all to come to repentance":

At judgment, will Jesus make a judgment that this soul has willfully turned away from God, to the last, or not?  The truth cannot be hidden at judgment.

  CCC 1033  To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice.

Did the suicide willfully separate themselves from God by their own free choice?  Jesus will see the truth of the matter, and judge accordingly.

Once the person is dead, all that the Church can do is pray for them.  This includes the Church Triumphant (most importantly Mary, Mother of God) to whom prayers of intercession are offered with great frequency.

  Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death.

This intercessory prayer asks Mary to make an appeal to her Son for the sake of a sinner; this is an appeal to show mercy.  Jesus sits on the throne of judgment.  Mercy is within His authority.

Kyrie eleison (Lord have mercy), Christe eleison (Christ have mercy)

The basic question

  I'm curious about the phrase "salutary repentance."  Does this mean that someone in Hell can repent?

From the above, salutary repentance (if given) would happen at judgment.  Once particular judgment is completed, alea iacta est.  Since one does not go to Hell until after particular judgment, it would then follow that once in Hell the chance for repentance (of any sort) is moot.

To be clear, any assumption that the soul (suicide) in question is in Hell before a chance at that possible salutary repentance is unsupported by current Catholic teaching.  Judgment comes first, and then one is either with God, or is not.

  1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

The question whose answer is known only to God and the person now dead is whether or not the person was in friendship with God (perhaps imperfectly purified) or if that person had, in their heart, willfully turned their back on God and remained unrepentant to the end.

  I. The Particular Judgment

  CCC 1022 Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at
  the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his
  life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven-through
  a purification or immediately, or immediate and everlasting damnation.

The willful act of turning away from God and obstinately refusing to turn back toward Him is the surest way to damnation.

In a particular case, is it possible to be offered the chance to turn back toward God when facing particular judgment?  With God, all things are possible (Matthew 19:26)

Jesus will know the truth of what is in one's heart.  Whether or not salutary repentance is given is wholly in the hands of God.  All we can do is pray for God's mercy.
So we do.
We Catholics offer prayers for the dead.


What is the difference between a Use and a Rite?

Looks like a "Use":

denote[s] the special liturgical customs which prevailed in a particular diocese or group of dioceses
Old Catholic Encyclopedia - Use of York

and a "Rite" is :

the whole complex of the services of any Church or group of Churches
Old Catholic Encyclopedia - Rite

In practice, it looks like a "Use" is an accommodation granted by the Pope acknowledging the Bishop's desire for local customs (or a religious order's customs) to form part of worship and a rite is the state of a local church as it formed and took shape because of geographic boundaries in the early church.


First, we don't even know what a spirit is, really. Is is heavy? Is it strong? Is it colorful? Can two spirits give each other a high five?

The collective understanding of (LDS) scripture is essentially:

Everyone had/was a spirit from before they were born. (Jeremiah 1:5)
It has the form of a person.

  All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes

  Doctrine and Covenants 131:7

And that's it.

It's hard to even ask intelligent questions, let alone answer them, about something that is so little understood.

Joseph Smith talked about the creation of spirits in the King Folliet discourse:

  I have another subject to dwell upon, which is calculated to exalt man...It is associated with the subject of the resurrection of the dead — namely, the soul — the mind of man — the immortal spirit. Where did it come from? All learned men and doctors of divinity say that God created it in the beginning; but it is not so: the very idea lessens man in my estimation. I do not believe the doctrine; I know better. Hear it, all ye ends of the world; for God has told me so; and if you don’t believe me, it will not make the truth without effect...

  I am dwelling on the immortality of the spirit of man. Is it logical to say that the intelligence of spirits is immortal, and yet that it has a beginning? The intelligence of spirits had no beginning, neither will it have an end. That is good logic. That which has a beginning may have an end.

One directional eternity doesn't make sense, at least to Joesph Smith. Anything that is fundamentally eternal is eternal in any direction.

And Doctrine and Convenants 93:29:

  Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

Of course, God is said to be the Father of spirits (Hebrews 12:9, D&C 76:24). How does that fit into the picture?

In the same sermon, Joseph Smith also said:

  You ask the learned doctors why they say the world was made out of nothing, and they will answer, "Doesn’t the Bible say he created the world?" And they infer, from the word create, that it must have been made out of nothing. Now, the word create came from the word baurau, which does not mean to create out of nothing; it means to organize; the same as a man would organize materials and build a ship. Hence we infer that God had materials to organize the world out of chaos—chaotic matter, which is element, and in which dwells all the glory. Element had an existence from the time He had. The pure principles of element are principles which can never be destroyed; they may be organized and re-organized, but not destroyed. They had no beginning and can have no end.

It is the same way with the "intelligence" or "spirit" mentioned. It is eternal (in both directions), and was organized by the Father and Creator.

Now whether this is literally the Casper-like spirit normally thought of or something more principal elemental that was organized, or created, into a full fledged spirit we don't really know...because we don't really know what a spirit is.


Did Paul actually report anything about the life of Jesus?

Faulty Premise: Paul knew nothing of Jesus
Paul summarizes his own life story in Galatians 1:

11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.
13 For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. 14 I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being. 17 I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus.
18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. 20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.

By his own testimony, Paul had at least two weeks' direct contact with Peter (aka Cephas) and James, two obvious eyewitnesses of Christ.  Even if you discount the personal encounter with Jesus in Acts 9, Paul clearly had access to those who did know Christ.
Indeed, in his time, Paul was being accused not of not knowing who Jesus was, but rather of trying to claim the other disciples' experiences of his own.  Hence Paul going out of his way in vs. 19 to distance himself from the apostles...
When he says earlier that the Gospel he preaches is not of human origin, he is referring to his direct encounter with Christ, through whom we surmise he learned of Christ.  Later, Peter, who clearly knew Christ, attests that the encounter was genuine and that this is the same Gospel.
To say Paul knew nothing of Christ simply does not square with the primary sources.


What is the source DNA for the body of Jesus?

My first posting as an answer. (Pardon my english mistakes if any)

The short answer is obviously 3 (except the Mary's part).

Let's think about the Wine Miracle where water turns into wine to get some idea of characteristics of an miracle. The wine is obviously really wine although we don't know whether it is zinfandel or cabernet souvignon nor the age of it (3 years maybe?). Although the wine wasn't fermented from real grape juice that came from real grape trees with history of sunshine and raining, it was real wine in every physical aspect.

Jesus was fully humane and fully divine. So, from physical observance, Jesus must be a real human though the conception process had a jump between a non-miraculous process and another non-miraculous process during the conception.

The question may be the exact point of miracle whether it was the seed(no bad intention) or a fetus appearing Mary's womb. Then, it may be helpful to understand what they thought about birth process at the time and until about 17th century. Up util 17th century, people believed that the essence of a baby comes only from its father, none from mother's side. Figuratively, the seed and the soil. I am quite sure people reading the bible up until that time could imagine The Holy Spirit overshadowing Mary easily and agreed that Jesus is 100% from the Father. But now in 21st century, we know that half essence comes from its mother's side so that the imagination part becomes difficult (with the idea of 100% from the Father) or we need to image a fetus suddenly appearing in Mary's womb.

I think it is also possible to explain the Trinity even after accepting the half of Jesus came from Mary but this wasn't what the two apostles writing about the birth of Jesus thought about.

Anyway, we now need to imagine a bit different (the fetus) from what they imagined at the time or before 17th century (the seed) if we want to keep the intention of the apostles. Either way is miraculous.

Jesus is fully humane and fully divine. So, I am sure that it is the choice 3. But we don't know whether half of it is Mary's or what the other half looks like because of the same reason that we don't know whether the wine is of zinfandel or of cabernet souvignon. Its miraculous jump is impossible to figure out precisely. Just taking the whole as a miracle may be reasonably good enough as in the case of the Wine.

An article about Davinci's drawing surprisingly explains very well about people's thought on conception. An article (pdf)


How can we identify, sometimes, the angel of the Lord as God if the prophets also spoke as God?

The key to identifying the difference between the two lies in the appearance of the one making the statement. Prophets were ordinary men who were known members of the community. Their presence was not a one time or sudden event. Whereas with the Angel of the Lord appeared at the moment of the announcement, and most often only for a few minutes.

Since you mentioned the Book of Isaiah the Angel of the Lord only appears once in the book of Isaiah. That is in Chapter 37 verse 36, and that particular chapter is most indicative of the point I am making.

When King Hezekiah was about to acquiesce to the king of Assyria Isaiah sent a message to Hezekiah which you will notice begins with Thus saith the LORD God of Israel. While in verse 36 we find:

  Isaiah 37:36 KJV  Then the angel of the LORD went forth, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians a hundred and fourscore and five thousand: and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they were all dead corpses.

What we find in this verse is a quick and decisive action by the Angel of the Lord.

In all 63 instances of The Angel of the Lord appearing in the Old Testament you will find that the Angel appeared and only remained as long as necessary to accomplish the will of God.

Hope this helps.


Who compared the Trinity to a triangle with three right angles?

The likely1 source for this image is Nicholas's mentor, Heymeric de Campo (1395-1460),
who wrote a treatise on a geometric figure he called the "seal of eternity" 2. This is
related to the well-known image of the "shield of faith",
a triangular diagram representing the persons of the Trinity. Unlike the shield, Heymeric's picture
is a regular geometric picture; the various lines are coloured; and the interpretation is more
complex. Note that the central point does not represent God - the whole picture is "an image of
the divine government" (figura thearchica).

As shown above, there is an equilateral triangle within a circumscribing circle. In addition,
three radii of the circle are drawn to connect with the points of the triangle. Heymeric writes:

  three lines dropping down perpendicularly from these three angles [of the triangle] towards the centre of the circle
  tres lineas ab illis tribus angulis supra centrum eiusdem circuli perpendiculariter cadentes deorsum

That is, these lines are orthogonal to the circle at the point of intersection; the angle of the triangle itself is not a right angle. Heymeric tends to call them funiculi, little cords. The colours are not reproduced in Imbach and Ladner - the picture above is based on my interpretation of Heymeric's description,

  The first side of the triangle, with the portion of the circle of which it is the chord,
  and the dependent line from its angle of origin, is to be blue in colour.
  latus primum trianguli cum porcione circuli cuius est corda et linea dependente ab eius angulo
  originali sit coloris blavei [and then similarly for the other colours]

According to Heymeric, the circle represents perfection, the points of the triangle are the
persons of the trinity, and the funiculi are the efficient, exemplary, and final causes
of Aristotelian-Scholastic philosophy. These are justified with reference to three Biblical
quotations,

  From him and through him and for him are all things (Romans 11:36)
  A threefold cord is not easily broken (Ecclesiastes 4:12)
  God has weighed out the dust of the earth with three fingers (Isaiah 40:12)

The last one follows Jerome's interpretation of the Hebrew word בַּשָּׁלִ֖שׁ (Strong's 7991), which has various
meanings related to the number three; depending on context, it may refer to an officer
"of the third rank", a triangular musical instrument such as a nabla/nevel, or, as here,
a unit of measure of some kind. The three colours stand for celestial substance (blue),
life (green), and flame (red), corresponding to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
It would be tempting to imagine some knowledge of the RGB colour system, but Heymeric is
writing long before Newton, let alone Young and Helmholtz.

The bulk of Heymeric's treatise consists of a point-by-point explication of how this
figure represents the Trinitarian doctrine of Thomas Aquinas, as described in Book 1
of his Summa contra Gentiles. For example, the concept "God is blessed and his
blessedness exceeds all other blessedness" (SCG 1.100-102)
is expressed by the fact that the figure may be geometrically expanded to
any desired size (para. 66, f. 84v); and "Creatures may carry a resemblance to God"
(SCG 1.29) by the radii,
representing causality, that drop down like rays of light (para. 45, f. 83r).
In particular, the orthogonality of these lines to the circle is used almost as a pun,
for the "rectitude" and "rightness" of God, whenever these ideas arise in the comparison.

In the adaptation by Nicholas of Cusa, the diagram is "really" meant to be infinite,
so that (according to his mathematics) the component parts merge into an indistinguishable unity.
This mirrors the continual assertion of Heymeric that the figure is only a metaphor,
suitable to our senses and imagination, of something transcendental; and both authors are
known for their insistence on the fallibility of human reasoning.

1. Paul Wilpert. De docta ignorantia / Die belehrte Unwissenheit, volume 1.
Hamburg: Felix Meiner, 1964 (1st ed.). Note at 15a.120.n34.
2. Tractatus de sigillo eternitatis omnium arcium et scienciarum exemplari
a magistro Heymerico de Campo Basilee tempore concilii editus. In Cusanusstift
MS 106, f. 77r - 85r. Written between 1432 and 1435. The Latin quotations in this answer
are reproduced from Heymericus de Campo Opera Selecta, volume 1,
Ruedi Imbach and Pascal Ladner (eds.), Univ. Freiburg Schweiz, 2001. The English translation is my own fault.


What is the name of this fragment? Where can I find more?

You can start with the finder's website and this article from The Gospel Coalition.

As to where to find more, Craig Evans might know.


Job 38:4-7 “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? ... When the morning stars sang together, And all the sons of God shouted for joy?"

"Morning stars" and "sons of God" appear to be references to angels. (One could debate this, of course.) If they sang and shouted when the Earth was created, and according to Genesis 1 the Earth was created before humans, then the angels must have been created before humans.

Satan tempted Adam and Eve in Genesis 3, and as you mention there's the reference to an angel standing guard at Eden. So if angels were created after humans, it was not long after. Not more than one generation, anyway.

Christians generally interpret the "let us ..." statements of Genesis 1 as the persons of the Godhead speaking to each other, i.e. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit conversing among themselves. There's no indication of angels participating in creation or of humans being created in the image of angels, but both Father and Son are described as creating, so this generally makes more sense than supposing that the "we" means God and angels. (I'm not sure how Jews interpret this.)


When was the idea of all humans worth equal incorporated into Lutheran Christianity?

At least one scholar would say, this was the inherent message of Christianity, from the very beginning.
In Paul Among the People: The Apostle Reinterpreted and Reimagined in His Own Time, Sarah Ruden seeks to compare Paul's writings with that of the culture in which he lived. Over and over again, her project is to show how remarkably liberal Paul is when it comes to elevating the worth of those who were not considered fully human in Roman society. Whether it be the role of women (whom the culture would have seen as disposable sex objects) or slaves, Ruden advances the hypothesis that the modern notion of the fundamental worth of all individuals is the defining motivation of the Apostle Paul.
Her thesis is this:

Paul created the Western individual human being, unconditionally precious to God and therefore entitled to the consideration of other human beings. There is no sign that Paul intended all the social change that gradually (and sometimes traumatically) resulted, the development of the rights and freedoms that characterize the West. He laid down the law against only the worst abuses, such as pederasty, male promiscuity, and forced marriage. But broad social change did follow inevitably from the idea he spread: that God’s love was sublime and infinite, yet immediately knowable to everyone. No other intellect contributed as much to making us who we are.
Ruden, Sarah (2010-02-10). Paul Among the People: The Apostle Reinterpreted and Reimagined in His Own Time (Kindle Locations 180-181). The Doubleday Religious Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

Slavery
In her analysis of slavery in the Greco-Roman world, for example, Ruden points out how radically different Paul's letter to Philemon is than society at large. Whereas the culture viewed slaves as pets and runaways as moral lowlifes, Paul radically reaches out to the slave-owning Philemon, urging him to view Onesimus as a brother. Ruden writes:

The letter to Philemon may be the most explicit demonstration of how, more than anyone else, Paul created the Western individual human being, unconditionally precious to God and therefore entitled to the consideration of other human beings
... as I wrote above, Paul had a much more ambitious plan than making Onesimus legally free. He wanted to make him into a human being, and he had a paradigm. As God chose and loved and guided the Israelites, he had now chosen and loved and could guide everyone. The grace of God could make what was subhuman into what was more than human. It was just a question of knowing it and letting it happen. The way Paul makes the point in his letter to Philemon is beyond ingenious. He equates Onesimus with a son and a brother. He turns what Greco-Roman society saw as the fundamental, insurmountable differences between a slave and his master into an immense joke.

Women
When it comes to the role of women, Paul is equally radical. Many feminists like to point out how "backwards" Paul is in demanding that women cover their heads, for example. Ruden points out this was actually something that enhanced the status of women in his day.

I think Paul’s rule aimed toward an outrageous equality. All Christian women were to cover their heads in church, without distinction of beauty, wealth, respectability—or of privilege so great as to allow toying with traditional appearances ... f the women complied—and later church tradition suggests they did—you could have looked at a congregation and not necessarily been able to tell who was an honored wife and mother and who had been forced, or maybe was still being forced, to service twenty or thirty men a day. This had never happened in any public gathering before. The new decree made independent women of uncertain status, or even slave women , honorary wives in this setting.

Or when it comes to divorce:

A marriage—or a divorce—for spiritual purposes was unheard of up until Christianity, and was entirely against Greco-Roman social norms. Paul’s vocabulary itself moves toward change. In verses 10 and 11 are the traditional terms, pointing to the spiritually poisonous traditional gap in power: the wife must not “separate” from her husband—or if she does, she must either stay unmarried or become reconciled to the same man—and the husband must not “divorce” his wife (literally “throw out,” the same word as for disowning a child). Under the laws of the Greeks and Romans, the wife could only remove herself, forfeiting her home and children; the husband, in a divorce, sent the wife back to her parents’ house with nothing but her dowry, and if she had neither parents nor a dowry, he could put her on the street. Nothing could entitle her to a share in his home or to a new one of her own

Sex
Ruden goes into great detail showing how coarse and abusive Roman society was. Divorce was a casual thing, Pedophilia and the rape of young boys was common place. Society encouraged virile men to objectify any beneath them. Ruden uses contemporary sources to show this, then remarks on how different Paul is.  She writes:

For the polytheists, the essence of porneia was treating another human being as a thing. If I had been one of Paul’s typical early readers, whatever else I understood from his use of the word, I would have picked up that treating another human being as a thing was no longer okay.

This theme is the theme of Ruden's work - that Paul's understanding of who Christ is is inherently the unintentional birth of the Western notion that all people are inherently eual in the sight of God.

C.S. Lewis, writing half a century before, also agrees that this notion of the eternal worth of the human being is inherent to the immortality promised by the Gospel. In Mere Christianity, he writes:

If individuals live only seventy years, then a state, or a nation, or a civilisation, which may last for a thousand years, is more important than an individual. But if Christianity is true, then the individual is
not only more important but incomparably more important, for he is everlasting and the life of a state or a civilisation, compared with his, is only a moment.

Glibbly, one can also point to Galatians 3:28, in which Paul writes:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

She is under no illusions that Paul would have forseen the present situation - but she definitely would argue that our society has taken the radical Christian method of eequality to its natural conculsion.


St. Augustine of Hippo was influenced, and in many ways owed his conversion, to the writings of the neo-platonists.

Most Christians would accept him as the most prolific Christian philosopher of the first millennium; St. Thomas Aquinas, as his successor in the next millennium, reintroduced his wisdom in the form of the Summa Theologica; wherein you will find all your answers.

Catholic encyclopedia also has a good treatment on Existence.

In my own words, I'd say that Catholic philosophy defines existence, as we know it, as God's creation. God, on the other hand, is the prime mover.  Existence does not signify matter or energy, as Angels exist and the immortal soul exists yet are not observable.  And God's existence, as a pure spirit, cannot be defined my the human intellect.


Is the marital act of consumating marriage part of Sacred Tradition in the Catholic Church?

It is tied to the Sacrament, if you take a look at the rules for obtaining an annulment (which declares that a sacramental union does not exist).

One of the acceptable cases to have an annulment granted is if consummation never took place.


What is “spirit” in Holy Spirit?

Spirit = pneuma

Vines definition

primarily denotes the wind" (akin to pneo, "to breathe, blow"); also "breath;" then, especially "the spirit," which, like the wind, is invisible, immaterial and powerful.

What can be confusing is that the word "spirit" can be used in different ways.

God is called a spirit to differentiate him from the material world.

  John 4:24  God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him
  in spirit and in truth.

There is a person in the Godhead that is called the Holy Spirit because the work he does is similar to receiving a breath of inspiration. Both Jesus and God send forth the Spirit.

  John 14:16-17  And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you
  another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;  Even the
  Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him
  not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you,
  and shall be in you.

  John 16:13  Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will
  guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but
  whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you
  things to come.

  John 20:22  And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith
  unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

There is a function of the Holy Spirit as one by whom new life is imparted.

  John 6:63  It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth
  nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they
  are life.

The Holy Spirit is a spirit in that he is not of the material universe. He is also a spirit in that he leads us and teaches us by inspiration similar to receiving life giving breath. He is also a spirit because of our new life in Christ (our spiritual life) is made possible through his quickening.


Is it ever revealed that Paul released those that he imprisoned?

No where in the NT does it suggest that Saul/Paul was able to undo his wrong in persecuting the Christians after his conversion. He himself became the object of persecution himself so he would have had no power with the Jewish authorities and it was they that eventually organised his arrest. The persecutors are never concerned about Justice and can justify the most terrible wrong in their religious zeal - just think about the miscarriages of justice around Jesus's trial.


Did Justin Martyr and Marcion of Sinope have any contact with one another?

Joseph B. Tyson (Marcion and Luke-Acts, page 24) says that almost everything we know about Marcion comes from polemics written by heresiologists in the second to fourth centuries, particularly Irenaeus. Neither Marcion nor Justin Martyr has left any extant writings that could connect the two in any meaningful way.

Irenaeus (Against Heresies, iv.6) mentions a book by Justin Martyr 'Against Marcion', but this fragment scarcely suggests contact - in fact the reference to 'Against Marcion' suggests estrangement. Justin Martyr's First Apology, chapters 26,58 are also polemics against Marcion. Tyson points out (ibid, page 29) that in the First Apology, written about 150 CE, Martyr expresses no knowledge of Marcion's activities in Rome nor about his excommunication from the church there, saying that what is striking is that Justin Martyr is surprised that Marcion is still teaching. All this points to Martyr's knowledge of Marcion to be by reputation, rather than personal contact.

The estimated range of dating for the works of Justin Martyr is 150-160 CE, which would mean they were written towards the end of Marcion's lifetime. Whether any of these reached Marcion and whether he chose to read them is unknown. It is reasonable to assume they had no personal contact, either directly or indirectly.


Roughly how many Christian priests, and how many 'rotten apples' are there?

In a way, it would be unfair to single out the Catholic Church,given that similar problems have surfaced among Protestant clergy and Jewish rabbis. However, the Catholic Church has received most reporting on the issue of child sex abuse.  We will never know the total number of priests who have offended as the preference of most denominations, not only the Catholic Church, has always been to deny the problem if possible and, if this is not possible, to deal with it internally. It has long been the practice to cover up offences and move offending clergy to other parishes, which may be located in other countries if there is a risk of police intervention. As long ago as the early 1870s, Mother Superior Saint Mary Mackillop was excommunicated by the Church, not because she personally exposed a paedophiliac priest operating in Adelaide, Australia, but because one of her nuns simply reported the priest to his bishop, and the priest had to be relocated to Ireland.

In many cases, a priest will have died before any of his victims has plucked up the courage to report past abuse. In many more cases, victims suicide or simply choose not to relive the past trauma by going to the police. Some have received small amounts of compensation and some counselling, on the strict understanding of confidentiality. Thus, we can only look at the numbers that have been reported and hope there were not too many more.

I can best report on the problem as we find it in Australia, as a representative sample that may apply in other jurisdictions. Official figures say there were 3085 priests (1948 diocesan priests and 1137 in religious orders) and 930 religious brothers in Australia in 2009; 495 diocesian priests - nearly a quarter - are retired and if they are no longer active in the Church they are  of little interest in this type of comparison.

An incomplete list published by Broken Rites, reports that over 200 Catholic priests and brothers were tried and convicted in Australia since 1993 for criminal offences against children. A large number of priests also faced civil actions taken out by victims who were unwilling to relive the terrible events in criminal trials. Victims run into the thousands.

A newspaper article published in 12 November 2012, says a psychologist who was employed by the Brothers of St John of God claims that more than 70 per cent of the Brothers of St John of God [in Australia] are suspected child abusers. I personally note that suspicion does not mean guilt is proven.

The unstated question is whether these figures are significantly worse than those in the population at large.  I have seen Catholic suggestions that around 5 per cent of men are paedophiles, and other more specific suggestions of a similar percentage among male leaders in groups such as the Boy Scouts.


Yes and no. Yes he added it, no it is not the atrocity that it necessarily implies.

Part of Luther's defense of the translation is that inclusion of the word "alone" is more grammatically correct than its exclusion. While I'm not an expert in German, I do speak enough of it to know that he does have a point.

His problem, though, is in the interpretation of the verse. If we're being true to the original Greek the passage is better understood, "of the set {faith, works of the law} man is only reconciled by faith."


What is the basis for believing that 40 lashes would be deadly (especially in Roman law or jurisprudence)?

This is a false assumption!

For one thing, the Romans were not limited in the number of strokes they could mete out.

True some died under the sentence of flagellation, but historians generally do not give the number of strokes applied.

  In the Roman Empire, flagellation was often used as a prelude to crucifixion, and in this context is sometimes referred to as scourging. Most famously according to the gospel accounts, this occurred prior to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.

  Whips with small pieces of metal or bone at the tips were commonly used. Such a device could easily cause disfigurement and serious trauma, such as ripping pieces of flesh from the body or loss of an eye. In addition to causing severe pain, the victim would approach a state of hypovolemic shock due to loss of blood.

  The Romans reserved this treatment for non-citizens, as stated in the lex Porcia and lex Sempronia, dating from 195 and 123 BC. The poet Horace refers to the horribile flagellum (horrible whip) in his Satires. Typically, the one to be punished was stripped naked and bound to a low pillar so that he could bend over it, or chained to an upright pillar so as to be stretched out. Two lictors (some reports indicate scourgings with four or six lictors) alternated blows from the bare shoulders down the body to the soles of the feet. There was no limit to the number of blows inflicted—this was left to the lictors to decide, though they were normally not supposed to kill the victim. Nonetheless, Livy, Suetonius and Josephus report cases of flagellation where victims died while still bound to the post. Flagellation was referred to as "half death" by some authors, as many victims died shortly thereafter. Cicero reports in In Verrem, "pro mortuo sublatus brevi postea mortuus" ("taken away for a dead man, shortly thereafter he was dead"). - Flagellation (Wikipedia)

The floggings used by Romans were by far more sever than the ones used by the Jewish people in ancient times. It wasn't uncommon for the victims of the Roman scourge to die from the ensuing blood loss and/or shock (See: here). The Centurion in charge would order the "lictors" to halt the flogging when the criminal was near death.

  Scourging, called verberatio by the Romans, was possibly the worst kind of flogging administered by ancient courts. While the Jews administered whippings in the synagogues for certain offenses, these were mild in comparison to scourging. Scourging was not normally a form of execution, but it certainly was brutal enough to be fatal in many cases. A person certainly could be beaten to death by the scourge if that was desired. Its purpose was not only to cause great pain, but to humiliate as well. To scourge a man was to beat him worse than one would beat a stupid animal. It was belittling, debasing, and demeaning. It was considered such a degrading form of punishment that, according to the Porcian (248 B.C.) and Sempronian (123 B.C.) laws, Roman citizens were exempt from it. It was, therefore, the punishment appropriate only for slaves and non-Romans, those who were viewed as the lesser elements in Roman society. To make it as humiliating as possible, scourging was carried out in public.

  The instrument used to deliver this form of punishment was called in Latin a flagellum or a flagrum. This was much different from the bull whip that is more common in our culture. It was instead more like the old British cat o’ nine tails, except that the flagellum was not designed merely to bruise or leave welts on the victim. The flagellum was a whip with several (at least three) thongs or strands, each perhaps as much as three feet long, and the strands were weighted with lead balls or pieces of bone. This instrument was designed to lacerate. The weighed thongs struck the skin so violently that it broke open. The church historian Eusebius of Caesarea recounts with vivid, horrible detail a scene of scourging. He says, “For they say that the bystanders were struck with amazement when they saw them lacerated with scourges even to the innermost veins and arteries, so that the hidden inward parts of the body, both their bowels and their members, were exposed to view” (Ecclesiastical History, Book 4, chap. 15).

  The victim of a scourging was bound to a post or frame, stripped of his clothing, and beaten with the flagellum from the shoulders to the loins. The beating left the victim bloody and weak, in unimaginable pain, and near the point of death. It is no doubt that weakness from his scourging was largely the reason Jesus was unable to carry his cross all the way to Golgotha (Matt. 27:32 and parallels).

  As noted above, the beating administered by synagogues was not nearly as drastic as a Roman scourging. First, the instrument used in the synagogues was a lighter whip and was not weighted with metal or bone. Second, according to the tradition recorded in the Mishnah (tractate Makkot), the judges would determine if the victim could survive the full measure of the beating required by the law (forty lashes). If he could not, the number of lashes was reduced. Third, the Law of Moses limited whippings to forty lashes (Deut. 25:3), which was a provision to prevent excessive humiliation. The Jews usually stopped at thirty-nine (lest they counted wrong and violated the law by giving more than forty; cf. Paul’s reference to “thirty-nine stripes” in 2 Cor. 11:24). Scourging, however, was much more traumatic, even to the point of being fatal. The flagellum was a much more torturous instrument, the lashes were delivered without any compassion or consideration for the victim’s health, and Roman law imposed no limit to the number of lashes inflicted at scourging. Roman law mandated scourging as part of capital sentences, but this probably had the effect of shortening the victim’s agony once on the cross. The victim would have been so weak from blood loss and pain that he would die more quickly than if he had not been scourged. This seems to have been the case with Jesus (although the scourging was probably not the only thing that caused him to die relatively quickly). - The Scourging of Jesus

Taking the above into consideration, we can see that Hebrew Law something quite different in how they dealt with criminal behaviour.

Not only had the ancient Hebrews had a mild form of whipping people, they also limited the number of strokes to 40. And later it was reduced to 39 in order to avoid giving more than 40 lashes by accident.

The Romans used a number of differ whips, when they chastised someone. Generally speaking the type of instrument used depended on the offence committed.

  Judges among the Romans, as has been just now mentioned, used a great variety of instruments for inflicting the punishment of whipping. Some consisted of a flat strap of leather, and were called Ferulae; and to be lashed with these Ferulæ, was considered as the mildest degree of punishment. Others were made of a number of cords of twisted parchment, and were called Scuticæ. These Scuticæ were considered as being a degree higher in point of severity than the Ferulæ, but were much inferior in that respect, to that kind of scourge which was called Flagellum, and sometimes the Terrible Flagellum, which was made of thongs of ox-leather, the same as carmen used for their horses. We find in the third satire of the first book of Horace, a clear and pretty singular account of the gradation in point of severity that obtained between the above-mentioned instruments of whipping. In this satire, Horace lays down 11 the rules which he thinks a judge ought to follow in the discharge of his office; and he addresses himself, somewhat ironically, to certain persons who, adopting the principles of the Stoics, affected much severity in their opinions, and pretended that all crimes whatever being equal, ought to be punished in the same manner. “Make such a rule of conduct to yourself (says Horace) that you may always proportion the chastisement you inflict to the magnitude of the offence; and when the offender only deserves to be chastised with the whip of twisted parchment, do not expose him to the lash of the horrid leather scourge, for that you should only inflict the punishment of the flat strap on him who deserves a more severe lashing, is what I am by no means afraid of.” - History of Flagellation

Flogging for the Jews was a discipline measures in order to correct their fellow Israelite. One was encumbered to discipline their fellow man and not to degrade him into an animal, to maim him or to take his life! They probably used some form of reed, just as the ancient Chinese used bamboo for the purpose of flagellation.

The Jews never used the Roman Flagellum as a instrument of torture, for in was without doubt reserved for extreme cases of criminal discipline, usually involving execution.

  Forty stripes he may give him, and not exceed: lest, if he should exceed, and beat him above these with many stripes, then thy brother should seem vile unto thee. - Deuteronomy 25:3 (KJV)

Although Scriptures tell us that Moses limited the Number of lashes to 40. The number often was reduced to 39.

  According to the Torah (Deuteronomy 25:1-3) and Rabbinic law lashes may be given for offenses that do not merit capital punishment, and may not exceed 40. However, in the absence of a Sanhedrin, corporal punishment is not practiced in Jewish law. Halakha specifies the lashes must be given in sets of three, so the total number cannot exceed 39. Also, the person whipped is first judged whether they can withstand the punishment, if not, the number of whips is decreased. Jewish law limited flagellation to forty strokes, and in practice delivered thirty-nine, so as to avoid any possibility of breaking this law due to a miscount.

In Talmudic Law the number was reduced by one in case of miscounting.

  Talmudic law not only made detailed provision for the manner in which floggings were to be carried out, but also altered the concept of the biblical punishment; the maximum of 40 lashes was reduced to 39 (Mak. 22a), so as to avoid the danger of exceeding 40 even by mistake; and the offenses which carried the punishment of flogging were exactly defined, depriving it of its character as a residuary and omnibus punishment. The number of 39 lashes became the standard rather than the maximum number; but in order to prevent death by flogging – which would amount to a violation of the biblical injunction of "not more" than flogging – the person to be flogged was first physically examined in order to determine the number of lashes that could safely be administered to him (Mak. 3:11). Where, as a result of such examination, less than 39 lashes were administered, and it then turned out that the offender could well bear more, the previous estimate would be allowed to stand and the offender discharged (Maim. Yad, Sanhedrin 17:2). But the offender would also be discharged where physical symptoms manifested themselves during the course of the flogging, so that he would not be able to stand any more lashes, even though on previous examination he had been found fit to stand more (ibid. 17:5). It also happened that as a result of such examination, floggings were postponed for another day or later, until the offender was fit to undergo them (ibid. 17:3).

Roman Falgrum

  Torture Methods

  Written evidence from the time of Jesus reveals that torture was not only carried out but actually regulated under the Roman state. A stone inscription found in the modern Italian town of Pozzuoli (ancient Puteoli), dating to the first century C.E., details regulations for the hiring of people to torture or execute slaves, whether by court order or in response to an owner’s request:

    [Members of t]he workforce which shall be provided for ... inflicting punishment ... None of them is to be over fifty years of age or under twenty, nor have any sores, be one-eyed, maimed, lame, blind, or branded. The contractor is to have no fewer than thirty-two operatives.

    If anyone wishes to have a slave – male or female – punished privately, he who wishes to have the punishment inflicted shall do so as follows. If he wants to put the slave on the cross or fork, the contractor must supply the posts, chains, ropes for flog- gers, and the floggers themselves. ... The magistrate shall give orders for such punish- ments as he exacts in his public capacity, and when orders are given (the contractor) is to be ready to exact the punishment. He is to set up crosses and supply without charge nails, pitch, wax, tapers, and anything else that is necessary for this in order to deal with the condemned man ...(The Roman World: A Sourcebook, David Cherry, editor, Blackwell Publishers 2001, pp. 26-27; text translation from J. F. Gardiner and T. Wiedemann, The Roman Household: A Sourcebook, London 1991, pp. 24-26).

The linked video in the article states that according to the Shroud of Turin, the man in the image received over 120 lashes.

The following article(s) May be of interest:

Scourging and Crucifixion In Roman Tradition
The Roman Scourge


What is the biblical basis for specifically associating armageddon with fire from heaven?

The Biblical basis for the belief that fire will fall from heaven during the end times

For Christians that take some or all of Revelation literally, Revelation 20 covers the Battle of Armageddon and includes the following verse:

  They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of God’s people, the city he loves. But fire came down from heaven and devoured them.
  Revelation 20:9 (NIV)

The wicked were just raised up and have assembled to make war with the people of God, the righteous who just ruled for a thousand years. But God destroys them with fire from heaven.

Revelation 8:6 - 9:6 contains quite a few portions that refer to the Earth, sky, and fire in interesting ways as well.

This section of Revelation covers the first five of seven Trumpets, which when sounded by the angels carrying them, horrible plague-like travesties befall the Earth and mankind.

  The first angel sounded his trumpet, and there came hail and fire mixed with blood, and it was hurled down on the earth. A third of the earth was burned up, a third of the trees were burned up, and all the green grass was burned up.
  Revelation 8:7 (NIV)

8:7 is probably the most definitive verse of them all. Very clearly, the verse says that hail, fire, and blood are "hurled down on the Earth", then a third of it is burned up.

  The second angel sounded his trumpet, and something like a huge mountain, all ablaze, was thrown into the sea.
  Revelation 8:8 (NIV)

Again, something involving fire is hurled at the Earth, specifically the sea in this case.

  The third angel sounded his trumpet, and a great star, blazing like a torch, fell from the sky on a third of the rivers and on the springs of water
  Revelation 8:10 (NIV)

This is a bit more ambiguous, but still, something on fire falls from the sky.

  The fourth angel sounded his trumpet, and a third of the sun was struck, a third of the moon, and a third of the stars, so that a third of them turned dark.
  Revelation 8:12

This doesn't speak about fire from heaven, but the Sun is 'a great fire in the heavens'. It is keeping with the theme of the previous three, involving fire and the sky.

  The fifth angel sounded his trumpet, and I saw a star that had fallen from the sky to the earth.
  Revelation 9:1 (NIV)

Another star falls. People tend to imagine that including fire.

Who believes this?

The Christians who would believe there will be a literal fire from heaven falling to the Earth during or around the Battle of Armageddon are mostly the ones whose eschatology is a very short, premillennial, LaHaye style tribulation. Revelation 13:13 and 20:9, however, could be taken by pretty much any literalist. The Seventh Day Adventists are the first that come to my mind (SDA eschatology is unique and very interesting.)

There's quite a few issues with that belief, but that is outside of the scope of this question.

Sources

The Old Testament includes a lot of Holy Fire too.
Some believe there will be meteors and comets that make this fire.
Here's a random blogger who takes this interpretation.
Another random blogger.

A similar event

Less about the same thing, the Beast from the Earth purportedly makes great signs to show its power. Fire from heaven is one of them:

  And it performed great signs, even causing fire to come down from heaven to the earth in full view of the people.
  Revelation 13:13 (NIV)

If I took this literally, I would envision fire in small quantities coming down and lighting a pile of wood, much like Elijah did. That's different than a sort of cosmic event like you were describing, but similar enough that it is worth mentioning.


Is faith in The Holy Trinity a choice or a gift?

If I understand correctly, faith is a theological virtue that God gives to people, as opposed to human virtues that require some human effort to obtain.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a7.htm:

1813 ...They [theological virtues] are infused by God into the souls of the faithful to make them capable of acting as his children...
1814 Faith is the theological virtue by which we believe in God and believe all that he has said and revealed to us, and that Holy Church proposes for our belief, because he is truth itself....
1815 The gift of faith remains in one who has not sinned against it...

This gift of faith is then possibly infused during baptism and sealed at confirmation. It may also be obtained by praying to God and asking him for the gift of faith for oneself or for someone else. God can surely also dispense the gift of faith as he pleases without any human intervention according to his will.
To answer your question, it is a combination of both. It starts as a gift, but our human choices determine whether we acknowledge, accept and retain this gift, or whether we sin against, reject and dispose of this gift. God created us to have a free-will, so he won't let us believe something if we don't want to believe it. So I guess the gift of God and our choice to believe will always operate together in some way.