How was the 70 weeks of Daniel understood over the ages?

Up until about the time of John Darby circa 1850, Christians believed the 70 weeks of Daniel had been fully completed.  There was no "gap" theory.
Introductioin
In looking for an answer, it often helps to review what others who came before the current time thought about the 70 weeks or 490 years of Daniel 9:24-27.  This is not to say whether or not their calculations were accurate in terms of starting and ending dates, but rather it is only to answer whether they thought the 70 weeks had been completed.  We will see in fact a variety of starting and ending dates in their answers; however, we will find that yes, they all thought the 70 weeks had been fulfilled in the 1st century.  None were looking for some sort of temporally disconnected one week (7 years) or 3 ½ years that remained to be fulfilled.  This is so up until the mid 1800’s.
The focus of this post will not attempt to address the implications for the modern believer who might be looking for some future fulfillment yet to come, but rather, simply to answer the question whether the 70 weeks of Daniel have been fulfilled or not.
Historical Review
We will consider a number of early Christians who delved into Daniel.
Julius Africanus wrote about 220 CE and influenced Eusebius and other historians.  He believed that all 70 weeks had been fulfilled in Christ’s time.

It is by calculating from Artaxerxes, therefore, up to the time of Christ that the seventy weeks are made up, according to the numeration of the Jews [literal versus prophetic year].
Julius Africanus, XVI, From Fragments of the Chronography as quoted by Schaff
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf06.v.v.xvi.html

Athanasius of Alexandria was opposed Arianism and promoted consubstantiation between God the Father, Son, and Spirit.  He wrote around 350 CE.  He argued that the full 70 weeks was fulfilled to answer accusations that Messiah was yet to come; some were still looking for Christ.

Perhaps with regard to the other (prophecies) they [those still expecting a future fulfillment of the 70 weeks] may be able even to find excuses and to put off what is written to a future time. But what can they say to this, or can they face it at all? Where [Daniel 9:24] not only is the Christ referred to, but He that is to be anointed is declared to be not man simply, but Holy of Holies; and Jerusalem is to stand till His coming, and thenceforth, prophet and vision cease in Israel.
Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word, chapter 39
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.vii.ii.xxxix.html

Tertullian wrote about 200 CE and is considered the father of Latin Christianity understood the 70 weeks as completely fulfilled by the coming of Christ and destruction of the Temple in 70 CE.

Accordingly the times must be inquired into of the predicted and future nativity of the Christ, and of His passion, and of the extermination of the city of Jerusalem, that is, its devastation. For Daniel says, that “both the holy city and the holy place are exterminated together with the coming Leader, and that the pinnacle is destroyed unto ruin.”
Tertullian, An Answer to the Jews, chapter VIII
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.iv.ix.viii.html

There are other early commentators such as Hippolytus, Origen, and others.  Basically, regardless of their starting and even ending points, they all understood that the 70-week decree was fulfilled.
Origen circa 220 CE

The weeks of years, also, which the prophet Daniel had predicted, extending to the leadership of Christ, have been fulfilled.
https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04/anf04.vi.v.v.i.html

And according to Daniel, seventy weeks were fulfilled until (the coming of) Christ the Ruler.
https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04/anf04.vi.v.v.ii.html

Clement of Alexandria wrote circa 200 CE

From the captivity at Babylon, which took place in the time of Jeremiah the prophet, was fulfilled what was spoken by Daniel the prophet as follows: “Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people, and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to seal sins, and to wipe out and make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal the vision and the prophet, and to anoint the Holy of Holies. Know therefore, and understand, that from the going forth of the word commanding an answer to be given, and Jerusalem to be built, to Christ the Prince, are seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; and the street shall be again built, and the wall; and the times shall be expended. And after the sixty-two weeks the anointing shall be overthrown, and judgment shall not be in him; and he shall destroy the city and the sanctuary along with the coming Prince. And they shall be destroyed in a flood, and to the end of the war shall be cut off by desolations. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week; and in the middle of the week the sacrifice and oblation shall be taken away; and in the holy place shall be the abomination of desolations, and until the consummation of time shall the consummation be assigned for desolation. And in the midst of the week shall he make the incense of sacrifice cease, and of the wing of destruction, even till the consummation, like the destruction of the oblation.”2071 That the temple accordingly was built in seven weeks, is evident; for it is written in Esdras. And thus Christ became King of the Jews, reigning in Jerusalem in the fulfilment of the seven weeks. And in the sixty and two weeks the whole of Judæa was quiet, and without wars. And Christ our Lord, “the Holy of Holies,” having come and fulfilled the vision and the prophecy, was anointed in His flesh by the Holy Spirit of His Father. In those “sixty and two weeks,” as the prophet said, and “in the one week,” was He Lord. The half of the week Nero held sway, and in the holy city Jerusalem placed the abomination; and in the half of the week he was taken away, and Otho, and Galba, and Vitellius. And Vespasian rose to the supreme power, and destroyed Jerusalem, and desolated the holy place. And that such are the facts of the case, is clear to him that is able to understand, as the prophet said. https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02/anf02.vi.iv.i.xxi.html

Future View
The typical starting point for when the “gap” theory between the 69th and 70th week was introduced sources to John Darby, a founder of the Plymouth Brethren.  He wrote in the 1830’s.  Aside from the historic view, there were others near that time, but still before him, who disagreed with Darby; they were men like Matthew Henry (c1700), John Calvin (c1550), and Sir Isaac Newton (c1700), and bibles like the Geneva Bible.  They maintained the “fulfilled historic” view, rather than the “future view”.
From Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible, Daniel Chapter IX, section III, to wit,

"1. The times [Daniel's 70 weeks] here determined are somewhat hard to be understood. In general, it is seventy weeks, that is, seventy times seven years, which makes just 490 years. The great affairs that are yet to come concerning the people of Israel, and the city of Jerusalem, will lie within the compass of these years.
...
It does serve still to refute and silence the expectations of unbelievers, who will not own that Jesus is he who should come, but still look for another. This prediction [Daniel's 70 weeks] should silence them, and will condemn them; for, reckon these seventy weeks from which of the commandments to build Jerusalem we please, it is certain that they have expired above 1500 years ago; so that the Jews are for ever without excuse, who will not own that the Messiah has come when they have gone so far beyond their utmost reckoning for his coming. "
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/henry/mhc4.Dan.x.html

And then there is this from John Calvin.

After the grace of Christ had been obstinately rejected, then the extension of abominations followed; that is, God overwhelmed the temple in desecration, and caused its sanctity and glory to pass utterly away. Although this vengeance did not take place immediately after the close of the last week, yet God sufficiently avenged their impious contempt of his gospel, and besides this, he shews how he had no longer need of any visible temple, as he had now dedicated the whole world to himself from east to west.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom25.iv.xxxviii.html

Sir Isaac Newton also believed the 490 years were fulfilled.

For by joining the accomplishment of the vision with the expiation of sins, the 490 years are ended with the death of Christ.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/newton_isaac/prophecies/daniel10.cfm

The key verse that was changed to allow the change from “fulfilled” to “future” was to whom the “he” referenced.  Again, prior to Darby, no one thought the “he” referenced anyone but Messiah.

And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
Daniel 9:27 (bold mine)

Prior to Darby, all of the writers referred the “he” to Messiah.  But Darby believed it referred to the prince who destroyed the city in 70 CE or Titus or more generally the Romans.  Thus he looked for some sort of revived Roman Empire consisting of 10 states (toes).
Cyrus I. Scofield picked up the new teaching and published it.  Since the Scofield Reference Bible of 1917, this theory has gained in popularity.  Another person who picked up the new tradition was Sir Robert Anderson who published The Coming Prince.
Conclusion
Up until about 1850, all the research points to the fulfillment of the 70 weeks of Daniel.  After Darby, even though his contemporaries argued against the gap idea, the belief in a future fulfillment was popularized.


Exodus 20:13 (NIV) “You shall not murder.

  Exodus 20:13 (KJV) Thou shalt not kill.

The meaning* of the Hebrew word for "kill/murder" used in this verse has a wide range of meanings as explained in  this article. The act of killing in a warfare is not what this 6th commandment means.

The commands for the killings in the Old Testament had proper reasons.

  Deuteronomy 20:16-18 (NIV) However, in the cities of the nations the
  Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive
  anything that breathes. Completely destroy them—the Hittites,
  Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord
  your God has commanded you. Otherwise, they will teach you to follow
  all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you
  will sin against the Lord your God.

To annihilate all the inhabitants of Canaan:  God promised the land of Canaan to the people of Israel. It was necessary to annihilate all the inhabitants of Canaan before they could settle there. It is logical that no one will allow a foreigner to occupy his land. Israelites had to fight their way into Canaan in order to rule and possess it. Once the whole promised land was occupied, God never commanded them to extend their territory by attacking their neighboring countries. The whole Canaan was taken under the rule of David, and after him God never commanded them to extend their territory.
To get rid of Idolaters: God did not want the Israelite to mingle with the idolaters in Canaan less they also become like them. God also did allow them to marry idolaters. It was the command of God to annihilate all idol worshipers in Canaan but the Israelites failed to do it which resulted in idolatry in Israel. This idolatry caused the destruction of Israel under Assyria and Judah under Babylon.

Regarding the killings and tortures done by the Catholic Church, it had more to do with politics and ignorance, rather than the commands in the Bible nor from God.

* As Caleb commented, the meaning of the word "kill" could mean "murder" at the time when KJV was written.


According to Catholicism, is there hope for people to get saved after they're dead?

There are no chances after death.

  1021 Death puts an end to human life as the time open to either
  accepting or rejecting the divine grace manifested in Christ.592 The
  New Testament speaks of judgment primarily in its aspect of the final
  encounter with Christ in his second coming, but also repeatedly
  affirms that each will be rewarded immediately after death in
  accordance with his works and faith. The parable of the poor man
  Lazarus and the words of Christ on the cross to the good thief, as
  well as other New Testament texts speak of a final destiny of the
  soul--a destiny which can be different for some and for others.

  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 purification594 or immediately,595 -- or immediate and everlasting
  damnation.

CCC on life everlasting

However, the Catholic Church does not teach that you need to be Catholic, or believe in Jesus to be saved. People, who through no fault of their own have never heard of Jesus, or the Catholic Church and live as best they know how have the hope of salvation. However, God desires all people to be members of his Church, so we are called to evangelize.

  845 To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son's Church. The Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. The Church is "the world reconciled." She is that bark which "in the full sail of the Lord's cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world." According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah's ark, which alone saves from the flood.334

  "Outside the Church there is no salvation"

  846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the
  Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation
  comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

  Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation the
  one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to
  us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the
  necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time
  the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through
  a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic
  Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse
  either to enter it or to remain in it

  847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of
  their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

  Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere
  heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as
  they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may
  achieve eternal salvation.

  848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through
  no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith
  without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the
  obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."

CCC on the Church


Is the Society of St. Pius X schismatic or not?

Societies of Apostolic Life, "without taking religious vows, pursue the apostolic purpose proper to each society. Living a fraternal life in common in their own special manner, they strive for the perfection of charity through the observance of the constitutions" [Canon 731]. The Society of S Pius X is constituted as a Society of Apostolic Life with the canonical approval of the Bishop of Fribourg [Canon 579]. Such Societies, "since they are dedicated in a special way to the service of God and of the whole Church, are in a particular manner subject to its supreme authority" [Canon 590].
The Society itself says

The Society of St. Pius X humbly submits to the authority of the pope, supreme guardian of the faith, and pays him all the reverence due to the chosen head of God’s Church.
If and when the time-honored teachings of the Church are obscured or perhaps even seemingly contradicted by the authorities in Rome, however, the SSPX stands firm for tradition.

Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated four priests as bishops in 1998 without authority, an act which was schismatic under Canon Law [Canon 751] and resulted in all five being excommunicated by Pope John Paul II.
In 2009, Pope Benedict XVI remitted the excommunication of the four bishops consecrated without authority by Archbishop Lefebvre, and explained in an apostolic letter:

An episcopal ordination lacking a pontifical mandate raises the danger of a schism, since it jeopardizes the unity of the College of Bishops with the Pope. Consequently the Church must react by employing her most severe punishment – excommunication – with the aim of calling those thus punished to repent and to return to unity. Twenty years after the ordinations, this goal has sadly not yet been attained. The remission of the excommunication has the same aim as that of the punishment: namely, to invite the four Bishops once more to return.

He went on

This gesture was possible once the interested parties had expressed their recognition in principle of the Pope and his authority as Pastor, albeit with some reservations in the area of obedience to his doctrinal authority and to the authority of the Council.

This mirrors the Society's own statement.
Pope Benedict then dealt with the status of the Society and its ministers:

As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church. There needs to be a distinction, then, between the disciplinary level, which deals with individuals as such, and the doctrinal level, at which ministry and institution are involved. In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.

Thus although the ministers within the SSPX who were illegitimately consecrated have been released from the individual penalty of that schismatic act, the fact that they belong to an organisation constituted as a Society of Apostolic Life which has reservations about the authority of the Pope and the Second Vatican Council [cf Canon 590] means that they cannot minister within the Church: they remain under interdict.
Because the Society itself (in the second sentence quoted at the top of this answer) has set itself to be the authority to determine if "time-honoured teachings are obscured or seemingly contradicted," it remains schismatic.


Has the US Catholic Church given an imprimatur to any English Bible translations intended for children?

The US Conference of Catholic Bishops has published a partial list of approved translations, which contains

  Translation for Early Youth, A Translation of the New Testament for Children, Contemporary English Version, American Bible Society

However, this version is only approved for private use and study. It would appear that the only version approved for public use in the United States is the New American Bible Revised Edition (NABRE).


A formal definition by a council is not always the first instance something was accepted as true (or as a sacrament). Often the council reacted to an attack on an already accepted tenet of faith. Because the attack, the position of the Church had to be officially defined, in order to be formally defended.

There are patristic sources, among whom Augustine, who call Marriage a sacrament, and others who early on describe it in sacramental terms.

"And these are the nuptials of the Lord, so that like that great Sacrament they might become two in one flesh, Christ and the Church. From these nuptials a Christian people is born, when the Spirit of the Lord comes upon that people."
 Pacian, Sermon on Baptism,6(ante A.D. 392),in JUR,II:144

And

"It is certainly not fecundity only, the fruit of which consists of offspring, nor chastity only, whose bond is fidelity, but also a certain sacramental bond in marriage which is recommended to believers in wedlock. Accordingly it is enjoined by the apostle: 'Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the Church.' Of this bond the substance undoubtedly is this, that the man and the woman who are joined together in matrimony should remain inseparable as long as they live..."
 Augustine, On Marriage and Concupiscence,1,10[11](A.D. 420),in NPNF1,V:268

Within the Catholic Church, the International Theological Commission wrote the document 'Propositions on the Doctrine of Christian Marriage'. In it, they write the following, confirming the comments by Matthew on the main question that further clarify that the Church sees this sacrament as going back to Christ:

  2.1. Real Symbol and Sacramental Sign

  Jesus Christ disclosed in a prophetic way the reality of matrimony as it was intended by God at man’s beginnings (cf. Gen 1:27; 2:24; Mk 10:6, 7-8; Mt 19:4, 5) and restored it through his death and Resurrection. For this reason Christian marriage is lived “in the Lord” (1 Cor 7:39) and is also determined by elements of the saving action performed by Christ.

  Already in the Old Testament the matrimonial union was a figure of the Covenant between God and the people of Israel (cf. Hos 2; Jer 3:6-13; Ezek 16 and 23; Is 54), In the New Testament, Christian marriage rises to a new dignity as a representation of the mystery that unites Christ and the Church (cf. Eph 5:21-33). Theological interpretation illuminates this analogy more profoundly: the supreme love and gift of the Lord who shed his blood and the faithful and irrevocable attachment of his Spouse the Church become models and examples for Christian matrimony.

  This resemblance is a relationship of real sharing in the Covenant of love between Christ and the Church. From its own standpoint, Christian marriage, as a real symbol and sacramental sign, represents the Church of Christ concretely in the world and, especially under its family aspect, it is called rightly the “domestic Church” (LG 11).

  2.2. Sacrament in a Real Sense

  In such a way matrimony takes on the likeness of the mystery of the union between Jesus Christ and his Church. This inclusion of Christian marriage in the economy of salvation is enough to justify the title “sacrament” in a broad sense.

  But it is also at once the concrete condensation and the real actualization of this primordial sacrament. It follows from this that Christian marriage is in itself a real and true sign of salvation, which confers the grace of God. For this reason the Catholic Church numbers it among the seven sacraments (cf. DS 1327, 1801).

  A unique bond exists between the indissolubility of marriage and its sacramentality, that is, a reciprocal, constitutive relationship. Indissolubility makes one s grasp of the sacramental nature of Christian matrimony easier, and from the theological point of view, its sacramental nature constitutes the final grounds, although not the only grounds, for its indissolubility.

Source: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_1977_sacramento-matrimonio_en.html


Do the Dead Sea scrolls describe any prophecy which was fulfilled after they were written?

Yes!

The Dead Sea Scrolls are not themselves a unique set of content, but rather a collection --rather like someone's private library-- of various texts from the time period that were all preserved together and help us understand the state of those texts at a specific point in time.

One example would be the Isaiah scroll, a basically complete copy of the entire book of Isaiah in one place. The book of Isiah was written ~750 years before Christ and includes many specific descriptions of what is life, dead and resurrection would be like.

  Isaiah 53:7-9 (ESV)
  He was oppressed, and he was afflicted,
  yet he opened not his mouth;
  like a lamb that is led to the slaughter,
  and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent,
  so he opened not his mouth.
  By oppression and judgment he was taken away;
  and as for his generation, who considered
  that he was cut off out of the land of the living,
  stricken for the transgression of my people?
  And they made his grave with the wicked
  and with a rich man in his death,
  although he had done no violence,
  and there was no deceit in his mouth.

You can see these verses on the scroll here. If you are interested there are lots of commentaries available on the hundreds of specific things Isaiah foretold about the Messiah that were fulfilled in the person of Jesus.

Also be aware that other works besides canonical scriptural texts were among the scrolls found. There are other works from the time period. The find has no particular affect on what text are or are not considered scripture any more than looking at the titles in a pastor's library today would prove one way or another what he believed, but the quality and quantity of texts found together do provide collaborative evidence for the integrity of other copies of the texts that were found elsewhere and in smaller chunks.


Who was Jasher, the author of a book referenced in the bible?

Nobody knows who the original author of the Book of Jasher was, although it is mentioned in Joshua 10:12-13 and in 2 Samuel 1:18-27.  Neither has the original manuscript survived.
What we do know is that it was also known as the “Book of the Upright One” in the Greek Septuagint and the “Book of the Just Ones” in the Latin Vulgate.  The Book of Jasher was probably a collection or compilation of ancient Hebrew songs and poems praising the heroes of Israel and their exploits in battle. The Book of Jasher is mentioned in Joshua 10:12-13 when the Lord stopped the sun in the middle of the day during the battle of Beth Horon. It is also mentioned in 2 Samuel 1:18-27 as containing the Song or Lament of the Bow, that mournful funeral song which David composed at the time of the death of Saul and Jonathan.
There is a book called “The Book of Jasher” today, although it is not the same book as mentioned in the Old Testament. It is an eighteenth-century forgery that alleges to be a translation of the “lost” Book of Jasher by Alcuin, an eighth-century English scholar. There is also a more recent book titled “The Book of Jashar” by science fiction and fantasy writer Benjamin Rosenbaum. This book is a complete work of fiction.
Another book by this same name, called by many “Pseudo-Jasher,” while written in Hebrew, is also not the “Book of Jasher” mentioned in Scripture. It is a book of Jewish legends from the creation to the conquest of Canaan under Joshua, but scholars hold that it did not exist before A.D. 1625. In addition, there are several other theological works by Jewish rabbis and scholars called “Sefer ha Yashar,” but none of these claim to be the original Book of Jasher.
Here is an extract from a Wikipedia article on the Sefer haYashar, or the Book of the Upright:

Sefer haYashar (ספר הישר) is a medieval Hebrew midrash, also known as the Toledot Adam and Divrei haYamim heArukh. The Hebrew title "Sefer haYashar" might be translated as the "Book of the Correct Record" - but it is known in English translation mostly as The Book of Jasher following English tradition. Its author is unknown.

The book is named after the Book of Jasher mentioned in Joshua and 2 Samuel.  Although it is presented as the original "Book of Jasher" in translations such as that of Moses Samuel (1840), it is not accepted as such in rabbinical Judaism, nor does the original Hebrew text make such a claim. It should not be confused with the very different Book of Jasher (Pseudo-Jasher) printed by Jacob Ilive in 1751, which was purported to have been translated by the English monk Alcuin. It should also not be confused with an ethical text by the same name, which, according to the Encyclopaedia Judaica, Volume 14, p. 1099, was "probably written in the 13th century."

The Bible twice quotes from a Sefer haYashar, and this midrashic work includes text that fits both Biblical references - the reference about the Sun and Moon found in Joshua, and also the reference in 2 Samuel (in the Hebrew but not in the Septuagint) to teaching the Sons of Judah to fight with the bow. This appears in Jasher 56:9 among the last words of Jacob to his son Judah: Only teach thy sons the bow and all weapons of war, in order that they may fight the battles of their brother who will rule over his enemies. (MCR)

But the book as a whole was written much later - as shown by chapter 10, covering the descendants of Noah, but containing medieval names for territories and countries, most obviously Franza for France and Lumbardi in Italia for Lombardy. The text of this chapter closely follows the beginning of Josippon, a tenth-century rabbinic text that lists the various peoples living in Europe in ca. 950.  Source: Sefer haYashar (midrash)

Based on the Hebrew used and other indicators, it seems that this work was written in Naples in the early 16th century, probably by a Jew who lived in Spain or southern Italy.  Nothing is known of the man who wrote the original book of Jasher, possibly some 4,000 years ago.


What's the scriptural basis for Protestants to believe that their future sins have been forgiven?

I cannot speak for all Protestants, but I did find this quote from John Stott, which explains the past, present and future aspects of the forgiveness of sins for those who have come to saving faith in Christ Jesus:

I have been saved – in the past – from the penalty of sin – by a crucified Saviour: “For in this hope we were saved" (Romans 8:24). "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures" (1 Corinthians 15:3).
I am being saved – in the present – from the power of sin – by a living Saviour: "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God" (1 Corinthians 1:18).
I shall be saved – in the future – from the presence of sin – by a coming Saviour: "God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him!" (Romans 5:8-9) "For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Corinthians 5:21).

That is not to suggest that a Christian can continue to sin with impunity.  First John 3:6-9 clearly states that a true Christian will not live in continual sin. In response to the accusation that grace promotes sin, the apostle Paul declared:

"What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?" (Romans 6:1-2).
"In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. Do not offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God, as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer the parts of your body to him as instruments of righteousness. For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace. What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!" (Romans 6:11-15)
"No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him" (1 John 3:6).

When Christians sin (as we all do), we are to confess our sins before God:

"If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9).

The concept of relational forgiveness is based on the fact that when we sin, we offend God and grieve the Holy Spirit:

"And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption" (Ephesians 4:30).

That is why we confess our sins to God, not to maintain our salvation, but to bring ourselves back into close fellowship with the God who loves us and has already forgiven us. I hope this goes some way to explaining the Protestant view of sins past, present, and future, being forgiven on the basis of the shed blood of Christ Jesus and His righteousness being imputed to us.


At what point did the Roman See start self-identifying as the Catholic Church?

Interestingly enough, it was not until about 50 years ago in the Sixties that the Roman Catholic Church renamed itself as the Catholic Church.  We will get to that, but first here’s a summary background on church terminology as it changed over the centuries from “wherever Christ is” to the self-identified Catholic Church with the Pope at its head.  Early dates are estimates.

  •  110 CE catholic church wherever Christ Jesus is

  •  110 CE catholic church in Smyrna and everywhere

  •  150 CE church of God at XYZ city, like Rome or Corinth

  •  200 CE catholic church everywhere

  •  400 CE Roman Church self identifies

  •  Centuries of Roman Church and catholic church and Roman Catholic terminology

  •  1950 Roman Catholic Church last usage

  •  1965 Catholic Church (those in communion with the Pope) first usage

CATHOLIC ABOUT THE WHOLE

To expand on these changes, the first mention of catholic church is in the Ignatian letters written about 110 CE.  Catholic means “about the whole” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_(term).  This first grouping is from roughly 110 CE to about 160 CE.

  [Ignatius] The Church of God which sojourns at Smyrna, to the Church of God sojourning in Philomelium, and to all the congregations of the Holy and Catholic Church in every place:
  http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.iv.iv.html

  [Polycarp’s martyrdom] all the people wondered that there should be such a difference between the unbelievers and the elect, of whom this most admirable Polycarp was one, having in our own times been an apostolic and prophetic teacher, and bishop of the Catholic Church which is in Smyrna.
  http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.iv.iv.xvi.html

  [Ignatius] wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.
  http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.vii.viii.html

  [Clement’s epistle] The Church of God which sojourns at Rome, to the Church of God sojourning at Corinth,
  http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ii.ii.i.html

  [Polycarp’s epistle] Polycarp, and the presbyters with him, to the Church of God sojourning at Philippi
  http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.iv.ii.html

  Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church of God which is at Philippi
  http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.xvii.html

ALL BUT

About 50 years later, during the debate on the validity of the baptism by heretic question, the reiteration of the idea that the whole church is catholic remains.  Oddly, it is alleged that every church is catholic, but not the one led by Pope Stephen!

Cyprian’s council in which everyone claims to be the Catholic Church.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.vi.i.html

  And yet on this account there is no departure at all from the peace and unity of the Catholic Church, such as Stephen [of Rome] has now dared to make;
  http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.iv.lxxiv.html

ROMAN CHURCH and ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH

Roughly another 200 years later to circa 400 CE the church at Rome begins to identify as the Roman Church.

  Gregory, a servant of God, presbyter and abbot of the monastery of Saint Theodore in the province of Sicily constituted in the territory of Panormus, has given us to understand that men of the farm of Fulloniacus, which belongs to the holy Roman Church,
  http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf212.iii.v.i.viii.html

  Then follow four books which I [Augustine] wrote to Boniface, bishop of the Roman Church,
  http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf105.xviii.ii.html

For the next 1,300 years, we continue to find that idea of the church at Rome, excepting the Schism, as the Roman Church.  And then it begins to show up again as the Roman Catholic Church.  For example in 1870 at the Second Session of the First Vatican Council, the Roman church uses that moniker to refer to itself as part of the overall catholic church.

  I, Pius, bishop of the catholic church, with firm faith believe and profess each and every article contained in the profession of faith which the holy Roman church uses, namely:
  http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm

Finally, in 1943 referring to an earlier institute, we find the idea that the Roman Church is positioning itself as the Catholic Church.

  … finally "in order that a center of higher biblical studies might be established in Rome, which in the best way possible might promote the study of the Bible and all cognate sciences in accordance with the mind of the Catholic Church" he [Pope Pius X] founded the Pontifical Biblical Institute,
  http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12DIVIN.HTM

Moreover in 1951, we find the idea that the Catholic Church in Rome is the mother of all.

  With all the more reason, then, does the Catholic Church, most loving mother of all men, call on all her children to be zealous in helping these intrepid missionaries by their offerings, by prayer and by fostering missionary vocations.
  http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12EVANG.HTM

CATHOLIC CHURCH with POPE AT HEAD

In fairly quick succession, the idea continues and forms.  In 1964 the idea that Rome is the Catholic Church appears to be first clearly promulgated

  We beg the separated brethren to consider the inconsistency of this position, not only in that, without the Pope the Catholic Church would no longer be Catholic, but also because, without the supreme, efficacious and decisive pastoral office of Peter the unity of the Church of Christ would utterly collapse.
  http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6eccles.htm

Lastly, according to this Wikipedia article,

  The use of "Catholic Church" is usually preferred by the Holy See and most of its adherents. The last official magisterium document to use "Roman Catholic Church" was issued by Pope Pius XII in 1950.[14] "Catholic Church" was used by Pope Paul VI when signing the documents of the Second Vatican Council.[15] [held 1962-1965] This preference also usually appears on the website of the Holy See. In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, only "Catholic Church" is used.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_(term)

SUMMARY

In sum, it has taken centuries of semantics and positioning to move from the first identification that the Catholic Church is where Christ Jesus is and identified in their numerous cities to the distinguishing of the Roman Church from the Catholic Church and then to the Roman Catholic Church and finally to the recent self-identification that the Catholic Church is headquartered at Rome with those in communion with her head.


What is Timothy's role in the early church?

Apparently Timothy was a traveling preacher like Paul, who Paul mentioned in several of his epistles, as well as writing two epistles directly to Timothy.  Paul called Timothy his own "son in the faith" in both epistles to Timothy, and they did a lot of traveling together,  (Acts 20: 4, 1 Thessalonians 1: 1, 2 Corinthians 1: 1), and he did a lot of traveling and preaching on his own.  He was imprisoned and released at least once (we're not told why), and Paul considered him his most capable and most trusted assistant.


Why does Jesus say this about disciples forgiving others their sins?

Let's see if we can analyze the situation and see exactly what transpired in this situation.

John 20:16 through 18 ESV Jesus said to her, "Mary." She turned and said to him in Aramaic, "Rabboni!" (which means Teacher). Jesus said to her, "Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'" Mary Magdalene went and announced to the disciples, "I have seen the Lord"—and that he had said these things to her.

These are the verses just prior to the ones you quoted, and we see here that first of all Jesus had not yet ascended to the father. So apparently there was some reason of which we are unaware that Jesus had to return to the Father and the Holy Spirit, before anything else could happen in the physical realm.
One theory is that he had to go to heaven in his physical body and deposit it somewhere, and reassume his Spiritual being. But that of course is conjecture.
Now let's take a look at verse 19.

John 20:19 ESV On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being locked where the disciples were for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, "Peace be with you."

Notice that it says on the evening of that same day The importance of this comes from:

John 14:25 through 27 ESV "These things I have spoken to you while I am still with you.  But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you. Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. Not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your hearts be troubled, neither let them be afraid.

When Jesus ascended to the father he returned with the Holy Spirit, but knew he could not stay himself since he had to return to where the Father was in order to take his rightful place at the right hand of then power as is indicated in:

Matthew 26:64  Jesus said to him, "You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven."
Mark 14:62  And Jesus said, "I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven."
Luke 22:69  But from now on the Son of Man shall be seated at the right hand of the power of God."

Now when Jesus breathed on them He was giving them a special form of the Holy Spirit, and a special power to begin the spread of the Gospel.

John 20:21 through 23 ESV Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you." And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld."

notice that he said as the Father sent me so I am sending you, Jesus was giving them special powers just as the Father had given him the ability to forgive sins on Earth.

Matthew 9:2  And behold, some people brought to him a paralytic, lying on a bed. And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Take heart, my son; your sins are forgiven."

and

Matthew 9:5  For which is easier, to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Rise and walk'?

It is important to notice that Jesus said *' Your sins are forgiven' and not your sins will be forgiven.
This is important because:

Matthew 9:6  But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins"—he then said to the paralytic—"Rise, pick up your bed and go home."

Remember this was before the Holy Spirit came down to inhabit all Christians.

Act 2:1 through 4  When the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in one place. And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. And divided tongues as of fire appeared to them and rested on each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Hope this helps.


Do Catholics really believe in contemporary miracles?

From the wikipedia on Religion in the United States:

  A late 2009 online Harris poll of 2,303 U.S. adults (18 and older)[59]
  found that "82% of adult Americans believe in God", the same number as
  in two earlier polls in 2005 and 2007. Another 9% said they did not
  believe in God, and 9% said that they were not sure. It further
  concluded, "Large majorities also believe in miracles (76%), heaven
  (75%), that Jesus is God or the Son of God (73%), in angels (72%), the
  survival of the soul after death (71%), and in the resurrection of
  Jesus (70%). Less than half (45%) of adults believe in Darwin's theory
  of evolution but this is more than the 40% who believe in
  creationism..... Many people consider themselves Christians without
  necessarily believing in some of the key beliefs of Christianity.
  However, this is not true of born-again Christians. In addition to
  their religious beliefs, large minorities of adults, including many
  Christians, have "pagan" or pre-Christian beliefs such as a belief in
  ghosts, astrology, witches and reincarnation.... Because the sample is
  based on those who agreed to participate in the Harris Interactive
  panel, no estimates of theoretical sampling error can be calculated."

And from the actual poll, which was conducted at the end of 2009.

To = Total
Ca = Catholic
Pr = Protestant
Jw = Jewish
BA = Born-AgainChristian
                                                    To Ca Pr Jw BA
                                                    %  %  %  %  %
God                                                 82 94 92 79 97
=> Miracles <=                                   => 76 81 87 63 95 <=
Heaven                                              75 86 90 48 97
Jesus is God or the Son of God                      73 90 91  6 97
Angels                                              72 83 88 36 95
Survival of the soul after death                    71 82 85 37 91
The resurrection of Jesus Christ                    70 87 88  5 97
Hell                                                61 70 73 21 89
The Virgin birth (Jesus born of Mary)               61 74 79  5 92
The Devil                                           60 69 77  7 89
Darwin’s theory of evolution                        45 51 32 80 16
Ghosts                                              42 44 33 10 37
Creationism                                         40 37 56 20 68
UFOs                                                32 32 26 20 25
Astrology                                           26 26 20 19 21
Witches                                             23 22 23  8 27
Reincarnation – that you were once another person   20 19 13 18 14

So, the answer, if America is any representation of the whole, is 81% of Catholic [in America] believe in miracles.

Having not investigated the polling methods, I can't speak with any authority as to whether the numbers are accurate. Now can I say by what criteria the pollsters categorized people as Catholic and believing in miracles. My suspicion is that they were direct questions. And for what it's worth, most folks who I would say used to be Catholic would probably self-identify as Catholic.


What does Paul mean by "Love believes all things?"

Since Paul didn't expand on this, the best we can do is to review what noted theologians have said about this.  To get some good answers, you really need to look no further than Bible commentaries.

Bear in mind that the type of love here is agape love, which is also translated as charity, or selfless love.  It's not speaking of romantic love as on "love is blind", it's speaking of the selfless love that puts others first.

The general consensus is that it means that if you are truly charitable, you will have the type of love trusts by default.  That you're not cynical by nature.

To back this up:

From the Pulpit Commentary

  Believeth all things. Takes the best and kindest views of all men and
  all circumstances, as long as it is possible to do so. It is the
  opposite to the common spirit, which drags everything in deteriorem
  partem, paints it in the darkest colours, and makes the worst of it.
  Love is entirely alien from the spirit of the cynic, the pessimist,
  the ecclesiastical rival, the anonymous slanderer, the secret
  detractor.

From Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

  believeth all things; that are to be believed, all that God says in
  his word, all his truths, and all his promises; and even sometimes in
  hope against hope, as Abraham did, relying upon the power,
  faithfulness, and other perfections of God; though such a man will not
  believe every spirit, every preacher and teacher, nor any but such as
  agree with the Scriptures of truth, the standard of faith and
  practice; nor will he believe every word of man, which is the
  character of a weak and foolish man; indeed, a man of charity or love
  is willing to believe all the good things reported of men; he is very
  credulous of such things, and is unwilling to believe ill reports of
  persons, or any ill of men; unless it is open and glaring, and is well
  supported, and there is full evidence of it; he is very incredulous in
  this respect:

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

  believeth all things—unsuspiciously believes all that is not palpably
  false, all that it can with a good conscience believe to the credit of
  another. Compare Jas 3:17, "easy to be entreated"; Greek, "easily
  persuaded."


What is the very least a Catholic needs to believe about Genesis 2 and 3?

Your question seems to be from a perspective of what is taught as historically
accurate and what is considered metaphor. I think there are some foundational ideas which need to be dealt with first in order for you to truly understand the answer to your question.
First, in your question there is an implicit assumption about the Catholic Church's relationship to Scripture which is skewed. The Catholic Church does not go through scripture and declare the meaning of every sentence or whether is it historically accurate or metaphor. There are actually very few passages in which the Church would definitively teach a particular meaning. For example, Mark 14:22:  While they were eating, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, and said, “Take it; this is my body.” This definitive interpretation comes about from the experience of the Church.
It is better to ask if the Church has defined anything in regard to Genesis 1 and 2.
Second, metaphor can be true. Its truth, though, may be harder to comprehend and less precise than the truth of a mathematical statement such as 2 + 2 = 4. I think you meant what is historically true and what is metaphor.
When looking for 'official' Catholic teaching, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) is the first place to go to. (In the CCC, sections are numbered for easy reference, as in the 289 that follows.)
Here is sampling:

289 Among all the Scriptural texts about creation, the first three chapters of Genesis occupy a unique place. From a literary standpoint these texts may have had diverse sources. The inspired authors have placed them at the beginning of Scripture to express in their solemn language the truths of creation—its origin and its end in God, its order and goodness, the vocation of man, and finally the drama of sin and the hope of salvation. Read in the light of Christ, within the unity of Sacred Scripture and in the living Tradition of the Church, these texts remain the principal source for catechesis on the mysteries of the “beginning”: creation, fall, and promise of salvation.
375 The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original “state of holiness and justice.” This grace of original holiness was “to share in... divine life.”
390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.

You could actually read from 279-481 of the CCC. These have resulted from millennia of contemplating the Scriptures.
I think some other answers will delve into the Papal Encyclical Humani Generis of Pope Pius XII which will deal with Adam and Eve and polygenism (the human race is of different origins). For a betting understanding of what is in this Encyclical, a few other ideas are needed for background.

There are different levels of Church teaching. There is a difference between Church teaching and dogmatic Church teaching. A Papal Encyclical is not dogmatic Church teaching, but it can be said to be Church teaching.

With regard to polygenism, the definition of human being can be different between a biological view and a philosophical view. For example, from a philosophical view of human being could be a creature with a rational soul, while a biological one would focus on physical traits. So, from a philosophical view not all Homo Sapiens need be humans. An excellent explanation of this can be found here

This reply may not answer your question in the way you want, but I think it provides some necessary context for the answer.


According to Catholicism, what are angels and what are they for?

A thorough answer would occupy volumes as this article shows: Angels | New Advent. The following serves as an introduction

A good summary and introduction is found in the Catechism of the catholic Church 328-336. In part (sans footnotes)

  I. THE ANGELS

  The existence of angels - a truth of faith

  328 The existence of the spiritual, non-corporeal beings that Sacred Scripture usually calls "angels" is a truth of faith. The
  witness of Scripture is as clear as the unanimity of Tradition.

  Who are they?

  329 St. Augustine says: "'Angel' is the name of their office, not of their nature. If you seek the name of their nature, it is 'spirit';
  if you seek the name of their office, it is 'angel': from what they
  are, 'spirit', from what they do, 'angel.'" With their whole beings
  the angels are servants and messengers of God. Because they "always
  behold the face of my Father who is in heaven" they are the "mighty
  ones who do his word, hearkening to the voice of his word".

  330 As purely spiritual creatures angels have intelligence and will: they are personal and immortal creatures, surpassing in
  perfection all visible creatures, as the splendor of their glory bears
  witness.

This answers but two of your bullet points

Where they will be? I do not understand. Their abode is the heavens but they go wherever God's want them to accomplish his will which is done in heaven.
How many are there?

I quote from the New Advent article

  The number of angels

  The number of the angels is frequently stated as prodigious (Daniel
  7:10; Apocalypse 5:11; Psalm 67:18; Matthew 26:53). From the use of
  the word host (sabaoth) as a synonym for the heavenly army it is hard
  to resist the impression that the term "Lord of Hosts" refers to God's
  Supreme command of the angelic multitude (cf. Deuteronomy 33:2; 32:43;
  Septuagint). The Fathers see a reference to the relative numbers of
  men and angels in the parable of the hundred sheep (Luke 15:1-3),
  though this may seem fanciful. The Scholastics, again, following the
  treatise "De Coelesti Hierarchia" of St. Denis, regard the
  preponderance of numbers as a necessary perfection of the angelic host
  (cf. St. Thomas, Summa Theologica I:1:3).


What is a special sign of predestination? (Catholic)

Part II, §4 "Synthesis," ch. IV "On the Certainly of Predestination," § "Signs of Predestination" of Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.'s Predestination: The Meaning of Predestination in Scripture and the Church says:

  Signs of Predestination

  Can we be certain in this life that we are predestined? In answer to this question the Council of Trent says: "No one, so long as he is in this mortal life, ought so far to presume as regards the secret mystery of divine predestination as to determine for certain that he is assuredly in the number of the predestinate; as if it were true that he who is justified either cannot sin any more, or, if he do sin, that he ought to promise himself an assured repentance. For, except by special revelation, it cannot be known whom God hath chosen unto Himself."14 The reason for this is because, without a special revelation, we cannot know for certain what depends solely upon God's free will. Not one of the just, unless it is specially revealed, knows whether he will persevere in the performance of good works and in prayer. We shall be, says St. Paul, "heirs indeed of God and joint heirs with Christ; yet so, if we suffer [perseveringly] with Him, that we may be also glorified with Him."15

  Are there, however, any signs of predestination such as to give one a sort of moral certainty of perseverance? The Fathers, especially John Chrysostom, Augustine, Gregory the Great, Bernard, and Anselm, according to certain statements of Holy Scripture, pointed out several signs of predestination often enumerated by the theologians as follows:

  a good life;
  the testimony of a conscience that is free from serious sins and prepared rather to die than offend God grievously;
  patience in adversities endured for the love of God;
  readiness to hear the word of God;
  compassion for the poor;
  love of one's enemies;
  humility;
  a special devotion to the Blessed Virgin whom we ask every day to pray for us at the hour of our death.

  Among these signs, certain ones, such as Christian patience in adversity, are proof that the inequality of natural conditions is at times more than compensated by divine grace. This is borne out by the beatitudes as recorded in the Gospel: "Blessed are the poor in spirit, the meek, they that mourn, they that hunger and thirst after justice, the merciful, the clean of heart, the peacemakers, they that suffer persecution for justice' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."16 These are the predestined. St. Thomas points out especially in his teaching that to bear patiently a heavy cross and for a long time is a sign of predestination.

  Notes14. Denz., no. 805 [=Council of Trent session 6, ch. 11]; cf. no. 826 [=Council of Trent session 6, canon 16].15. Rom. 8: 17.16. Matt. 5: 3–10.


There are three types of the law in the Bible:

moral (part of which are also 10 commandments),
ceremonial (for example Hebrew ceremonial holidays and activities),
civil (Hebrew "country laws" and punishments)

Most christians agree, that ceremonial and civil laws are not binding anymore (ceremonial laws pointed to Christ and ended with the cross).

The most interesting question is if the 10 commandments are binding for a christian. Does Jesus want you to "have other gods" or "commit adultery" or steal?

I think he doesn't want us to do that...

Colossians 2:14 is speaking about ceremonial laws (the regulations which were nailed to the cross were Hebrew ceremonial laws), Matthew 5:18.19 is speaking about moral law (10 commandments) and both teachings are in harmony.


Remit of Defender of the Bond in Catholic declaration of nullity investigations

I am not a canon lawyer, and Stack Exchange should not be relied upon for legal advice, but the canon lawyer Edward Peters does have something to say on this.

Canon 1432 of the Johanno-Pauline Code states “A defender of the bond is to be appointed in a diocese for cases concerning the nullity of sacred ordination or the nullity or dissolution of a marriage; the defender of the bond is bound by office to propose and explain everything which reasonably can be brought forth against nullity or dissolution.” There is no warrant here — or anywhere else in the 1983 Code — for Defenders of the Bond to make arguments for nullity.
Dignitas connubii  56 § 3 itself states “In every grade of trial, the defender is bound by the obligation to propose any kind of proofs, responses and exceptions that, without prejudice to the truth of the matter, contribute to the protection of the bond (cf. can. 1432)” and § 5 thereof drives home that “The defender can never act in favor of the nullity of marriage; if in a special case he has nothing that can be reasonably proposed or argued in favor of the bond, the defender can remit himself to the justice of the court.” Again, plainly, there is no canonical authorization for Defenders of the Bond to make arguments for nullity, and indeed, there is an express prohibition against such conduct.

Thus it would appear that there is no way for the Defender of the Bond licitly to do anything which might enhance the progress of the application for nullity.
It appears that some are interpreting an address by Pope Francis as an endorsement of the Defender of the Bond acting as a general counsel/adviser/Friend of the Tribunal, when he said

La sua presenza e il compimento fedele del suo compito non condiziona il giudice, bensì consente e favorisce l’imparzialità del suo giudizio, essendogli posti dinanzi gli argomenti a favore e contrari alla dichiarazione di nullità del matrimonio.

The official English translation of this says of the Defender of the Bond that

his presence and the faithful fulfilment of his task does not condition the judge, but rather allows and promotes the impartiality of his judgement by setting before him the arguments for and against annulment.

but it is doubtful that this is (a) a correct translation; (b) consonant with Canon Law. A reading which is consonant with Canon Law would be that the Defender sets forth the counter-argument to that of the applicant, thus ensuring that the judge has before him "the arguments for and against annulment." Pope Francis is not a canon lawyer, and his pronouncements and speeches have to be read and interpreted in the light of what has been formally promulgated by the Magisterium. Dignitas connubii 56 §5 specifically prohibits the Defender acting in favour of nullity.
I suppose that it is possible that a Defender of the Bond, having presented the argument against nullity, may be asked by the Tribunal to swap roles and stand as an adviser, as he is likely to be an expert in matters of nullity and relevant law and precedent. But in order to counter any perceived conflict of interest, if this is really necessary then good practice would surely be that this change of role should be made clear in the proceedings. Personally I feel that any dual role in proceedings is not good practice and the applicant should have their own expert [perhaps even appointed on their behalf by the Tribunal] to advise the judge on their application.
Addressing the question Is it his obligation or right to do so?, my answer is that not only does he not have an obligation to explain how best to interpret evidence for nullity, he actually has an obligation not to do that.


Are there any traditions that believe in the complete cessation of miracles?

According to this message from the Church of Christ, miracles have ceased completely.
I don't know that this fits the bill of "major traditions".  From what I can see, it's not just a single independent non-denominational Church.  The website does list several of them.  I suppose it depends on where you draw the line at "significant".  Interestingly enough, a Google search for "all miracles have ceased" turns up a number of [insert city name] Church of Christ hits.

And they're not the only group.  I also found this sermon preaching the same message.  I can't make out any recognizable denomination here.  They simply seem to refer to themselves as "The Church".

Bible Truths.Net teaches the same thing.

Apparently there are those out there that believe in a complete cessation of miracles, which is really only one step away from the teaching outlined in my answer to your other question.

As I look further into this, it turns out that "Cessationist" is a term a bit like "Fundamentalist".  It means different things depending on who's supplying the definition.  Based on that, although on every site I've run across, "Cessationism" referes to the belief in the end, specifically, of the Charismatic gifts. (Speaking in tongues, faith healing, resurrection, prophecy, etc.), not all miracles.

As for the ones that believe in total cessation, I've been searching for a while, trying to find a proper term for the belief, and I can't find a single one.  They're not referred to as "cessationists" by anyone that's cite-worthy.  I've seen the term used in this context on two Tripod websites and a few blogs, but nothing  official that would stand up to the normal test for accepted external source references.

So back to an attempt at an answer, there do appear to be groups, and they may represent a "significant" portion of Christianity, that do believe in the complete cessation of miracles after the New Testament times.  But I'm no closer than you were in finding a proper name for them, or their belief, other than an unofficial "Total Cessationists" (which I just made up and doesn't count.).


Who is the John Owen that translated Calvin's Commentary on Romans?

The John Owen who translated many of John Calvin's works was the Vicar of Thrussington, Leicestershire.

  OWEN , JOHN ( 1788 - 1867 ), cleric and author ; son of Owen and Eleanor Owen , Cilirwysg , Llanfihangel Ystrad, Cards. The parents were Calvinistic Methodists but two of their sons took orders — John Owen and David Owen (for the latter see Yr Haul , 1842 , 195). John Owen was educated at Ystradmeurig under John Williams ( 1745/6 - 1818 ) (q.v.) . Ordained at S. Asaph ( deacon 1811 , and priest 1812 ), he was curate at Hirnant 1811-3 , S. Martin , Leicester , and Thrussington (Leics.) , becoming vicar of Thrussington in 1845 (and rural dean in 1853 ); he was buried at Thrussington on 31 July 1867 . He published memoirs of Daniel Rowland ( Llangeitho ) and Thomas Jones , Creaton ( 1752 - 1845 ) (q.v.) , and commentaries.

Source: http://yba.llgc.org.uk/en/s-OWEN-JOH-1788.html

See also:


What is the scientific effectiveness of "street preaching" as a method of evangelization?

In addition to Ken Graham’s excellent answer to this question, let me expand on the itinerant Protestant preachers who boldly declared the word of God in the open air, in fields and in public places, even when to do so would result in persecution.   From 1660 and the restoration of the English Monarchy, non-conformists were forbidden to preach anywhere unless they were ordained by an Anglican bishop.  John Bunyan, who wrote The Pilgrim’s Progress, was twice imprisoned for his failure to comply.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bunyan#Imprisonment
Other Protestant preachers who engaged in open air preaching include:

John Wesley, founder of Methodism declared, "I am well assured that I did far more good to my Lincolnshire parishioners by preaching three days on my father's tomb than I did by preaching three years in his pulpit ... To this day field preaching is a cross to me, but I know my commission and see no other way of preaching the gospel to every creature."

Wesley's contemporary, Anglican preacher George Whitefield stated: "I believe I never was more acceptable to my Master than when I was standing to teach those hearers in the open fields ... I now preach to ten times more people than I should, if had been confined to the churches."

It was said that one of the regular practices of America evangelist Dwight L. Moody in the late 1860s "was to exhort the passers-by in the evenings from the steps of the court house. Often these impromptu gathering drew as many hecklers as supporters."

Charles Spurgeon, the famous open-air Baptist preacher of England, believed that open-air preaching was instrumental in getting people to hear the gospel who might otherwise never hear it and many open-air preachers today believe that it reaches many more people at once than other approaches to evangelism do.

Groups such as Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons are famous in particular for spreading their beliefs by door to door evangelism at people's homes, often in pairs or small groups.  Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approaches_to_evangelism

Back in the 1960’s Jehovah’s Witnesses expected their ‘Special Pioneers’ to spend 150 hours every month (1,800 hours a year) going from door to door, and ‘Regular Pioneers’ did 100 hours every month (1,200 hours a year).  A Jehovah’s Witness relative remembers engaging in street preaching back in the 1950’s, using placards and engaging in conversation with people in the High Street.
These days outdoor preaching, such as addressing crowds of people in parks or in other public places, seems to have ground to a halt because of the Covid pandemic.  However, the U.K. Baptist church I attend held “drive-in” services in the town centre public car park.  Anybody could turn up, sit in their vehicles with the windows down and hear the sermon and sing along to the hymns courtesy of a P.A. system.  Several visitors to the town and people who did not belong to our church stayed to listen.  There is no way to know whether anybody was converted to Christianity as a direct result, but historically many people have turned to Christ in faith after hearing the Gospel preached in some open-air or public venue.
What is the scientific effectiveness of street preaching as a method of evangelism?  Pew Research is my "go-to" source of information for statistics on Christianity, but I drew a blank on this one.  Back in the days of Bunyan, Wesley and Spurgeon, I doubt anybody stood with a note-book and pen to take names and addresses of people listening to an open-air preacher and then followed up six months later to enquire if said person was now a Christian.  Fast-forward to the 21st century and our age of digital data overload, legislation now exists to prevent proselytisers from recording personal details of people they contact.  Data protection legislation prohibits keeping such information on personal computers.
Some denominations keep detailed statistics on how much time they spend on speaking to members of the public outdoors, or speaking to them on their doorsteps, or how many pieces of literature they hand out.  They also keep statistics on how many people are baptised by them each year - although I have never seen any breakdown on how many baptisms were genuinely new converts as opposed to how many were brought up in that faith and were then baptised later in life.
I suppose an organisation such as Pew Research could poll Christians to ask if their conversion was a direct response to hearing a street preacher.  Whether that would be "scientific" or not I couldn't say.


How do Lutherans interpret Matthew 15:11?

In Matthew 15:11, Jesus was responding to the Pharisees who said:

  "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat." - Matthew 15:2 ESV

Jesus replied:

  He answered them, "And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? - Matthew 15:3 ESV

Jesus was telling the Pharisees that they were treating their tradition as equal to or greater than God's law.  Thus:

  10 And he called the people to him and said to them, "Hear and understand:
  11 it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person." - Matthew 15:10-11 ESV

He later elaborates that:

  17 Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth passes into the stomach and is expelled?
  18 But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person.
  19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander.
  20 These are what defile a person. But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile anyone." - Matthew 15:17-20 ESV

Put another way, your evil actions toward God and toward others are the source of your sin, not the failure to practice church rituals.


What were people called who believed in the "Christ" before Jesus was born?

The Messiah is a well-known type within Judaism.  Prior to the incarnation of Jesus Christ (when Jesus, who was God, became man), there was no Christianity.

The word "Messiah" in Greek is "Christos" from which we get the term "Christianity."

The word "Messiah" simply means "appointed," and within Jewish thought, the Messiah was appointed by God to make radical changes. For more on this, see the question: What is God's good news before Jesus's death and resurrection?

Theologically, Christians claim to be the heirs of the promise given to the Jews, through Abraham. The distinction between modern Judaism and Christianity is whether or not we believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, aka, "the Christ." That we are have the same understanding of what is good and bad morals is the link.

What separates us is whether or not Jesus was God. If Jesus is God, then he can save us. If Jesus is not God, we can only be saved by being part of the covenant given through Abraham.

Indeed, even for the first Century, the only distinction between "Jews" and "Christians," was that Christians were this sect of Judaism that believed Jesus was the Messiah predicted in the Jewish Scriptures. Unlike what mainstream Judaism would have taught, however, this Messiah was not a Jewish-only savior.

As this group of Jews grew, (they were known as "The Way" at that time), non-Jews (Gentiles) were seen to be part of the group as well.  Initially, the question was how Jews should accommodate these Gentiles (see Acts 15), but by the end of the first Century, the situation was reversed.

All of this is to say, people who followed the Messiah prior to Jesus' would have simply been called "Jews"

(Side note, Hebrew is an ethnic identity, Judaism is a religion that originated amongst the Hebrews)


Are there official guidelines for mortifying the flesh in the various Christian denominations?

From the Code of Canon Law:

  Can. 1249 All Christ's faithful are obliged by divine law, each in his
  or her own way, to do penance. However, so that all may be joined
  together in a certain common practice of penance, days of penance are
  prescribed. On these days the faithful are in a special manner to
  devote themselves to prayer, to engage in works of piety and charity,
  and to deny themselves, by fulfilling their obligations more
  faithfully and especially by observing the fast and abstinence which
  the following canons prescribe.

  Can. 1250 The days and times of penance for the universal Church are
  each Friday of the whole year and the season of Lent.

  Can. 1251 Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined
  by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless
  a solemnity should fall on a Friday. Abstinence and fasting are to be
  observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.

  Can. 1252 The law of abstinence binds those who have completed their
  fourteenth year. The law of fasting binds those who have attained
  their majority, until the beginning of their sixtieth year. Pastors of
  souls and parents are to ensure that even those who by reason of their
  age are not bound by the law of fasting and abstinence, are taught the
  true meaning of penance.

  Can. 1253 The Episcopal Conference can determine more particular ways
  in which fasting and abstinence are to be observed. In place of
  abstinence or fasting it can substitute, in whole or in part, other
  forms of penance, especially works of charity and exercises of piety.

One's confessor should be aware of any fasting or mortification beyond this, as one can be too ascetic, which might be a sign of pride.

(source; cf. this)


Does Christianity as described in the Bible support dualism of the mind and body?

Of course, in philosophy, all of these terms are contested. That is what philosophers do. Philosophically, there is a problem about what exactly is meant by "physical" or "material". If the intention is to exclude the soul, God, etc., then it is certainly incompatible with Christianity, however the definition is made. Still, it's a tricky business to actually write the definition.

Also, "dualism" is a loaded term because it has often been used to refer to a very strict separation between mind and body. This detachment is not an essential feature of the Christian view. For example, life after death could be explained by saying that the body dies but the soul survives, or else by divine reconstruction of the consciousness in a new form. The latter version is not dualistic, but it is a decent match to, say, Paul's account of the raising of the spiritual body.

Materialism or physicalism has been held to be inherently atheistic, because God is understood to be a spiritual being, and therefore beyond the realm of material or physical inquiry. Moreover, Christianity asserts that God reveals truths to humans which were otherwise inaccessible1, whereas the whole point of physicalism is that every truth is deducible (in principle) from physical observation and reason, or else it is unknowable. (Here, I mean something less formal than "doing science" - I'm not saying that materialism is tied to any methodology, but that it's a metaphysical position about how we come to know things. Hence it is basically the same thing as asserting the materiality of the mind: our consciousness being purely physical means that everything about the mind can be explained by the material conditions of the world.) As an axiom of metaphysics, this does not find Biblical support.

As your examples show, the Bible does support the idea that knowledge can be obtained as a result of observation and reason. God is forever saying "look at this!". But that doesn't mean that's all there is to it. Even if we can explain certain things by physics - the way that light enters the eye, and nerve signals reach the brain - the divine hand is not necessarily absent. We learn from Scripture all about the continuous divine command over the natural world. (Let's not worry about determinism, though! We have enough problems already.) So we may be able to form a world-view where the production of material knowledge is still due to God; the physical account ("it's all because of quantum") does not destroy the spiritual version ("God did it"). Natural law theories are a good example.

1. Actually, I suppose this might be a contested point. Certainly there are things we don't know (1 Cor 13:12 is as good a proof-text as any) and things which have been revealed (the Bible, passim). Perhaps John 6:44-46, quoting Isaiah 54:13, is enough to show that certain things taught by God could not have been known to us without the action of God. Longer example passages include Hebrews 11 (faith in things not seen) and 1 Corinthians 2 (God reveals things we have not imagined) quoting Isaiah 64:4 (nobody has heard or seen).


What you referring to is Complementarianism.

  Complementarianism is a theological view in Christianity [...] that men and women have different but complementary roles and responsibilities in marriage, family life, and religious leadership. [...] These separate roles preclude women from specific functions of ministry within the community. Though women may be precluded from certain roles and ministries, they are held to be equal in moral value and of equal status. The phrase used to describe this is 'Ontologically equal, Functionally different'.

This includes the concept of male headship, but does not mean that women are less "important" than men. It only means that they have different roles. You can take a role that falls under the responsibility of men, and then use that to say "women are less important". But that would ignore the whole picture, where both women, and men, have important roles.

  I feel like I'm only an object that men has in order to not feel lonely .

This is certainly not in agreement with complementarian views, which, correctly understood, neither objectifies men or women. Furthermore, your roles and responsibilities extend far beyond making someone "not feel lonely."

From the article: "God has created men and women equal in their essential dignity and human personhood."


It seems to have been a mark of warning, not of protection, to those who may think to harm him. The mark was a sign of God's mercy for this murderer. Unfortunately, others warped the meaning of the sign and applied it to themselves later in the same chapter:

Genesis 4:23-24

  Lamech said to his wives: “Adah and Zillah, hear my voice; you wives
  of Lamech, listen to what I say: I have killed a man for wounding me,
  a young man for striking me.   If Cain’s revenge is sevenfold, then
  Lamech’s is seventy-sevenfold.”

Mankind misconstrued God's mark of mercy to be a mark of license, and had no problem killing others who bothered them. To them it was a mark of "revenge" not mercy. Thus, mankind grew worse and worse, since there was no fear of God in them. So the Flood was necessary, and after the Flood, came God's clear command so we would not make the same mistake:

Genesis 9:6

  “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for
  God made man in his own image.

They did not seem to see the mark as a physical mark; it appears that they just applied it to themselves as a matter of principle: "I killed a man, so I am marked by God, too."


What is the biblical basis for requiring that a pastor/preacher/teacher/etc be paid for their ministry?

In 1 Cor. 9:14, the apostle Paul wrote,

  Likewise, the Lord ordered that those who preach the Gospel should make their living from the Gospel.

  οὕτως καὶ ὁ κύριος διέταξεν τοῖς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον καταγγέλλουσιν ἐκ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ζῆν (TR, 1550)

In his commentary on 1 Cor. 9:4, John Gill wrote,

  "Even so hath the Lord ordained"

  That is, the Lord Jesus Christ (in Matt. 10:10; Luke 10:7-8), it is an order and appointment of his that his ministering servants, who labour in preaching his Gospel, should be sufficiently taken care of, as to a comfortable livelihood; he has not indeed fixed it in the same way as the priests and Levites had theirs under the law; but as the one was just and right, that they should be maintained out of the things belonging to the temple and altar, and live on them, so it is his will and pleasure,

  "that they which preach the Gospel;"

  that continue to do so, that labour, and not loiter in the word and doctrine, who do the work of the ministry fully and faithfully, and not bear the name only of Gospel preachers: should live of the Gospel; not the Gospel itself, which is spiritual, and not corporeal food; but the sense is, that in consideration and because of their preaching the Gospel, they should be supplied with the proper necessaries of life:

I bolded what is of utmost importance. I preach the Gospel, but I do not do so "fully." It is not my sole occupation. I am not fully committed to doing so. But those who are, whose sole purpose is to preach the Gospel, they should be fully supported. Else, how shall they devote themselves to fully laboring in the word?

The apostle even confessed that he had the authority to forbear working (1 Cor. 9:6). Would Christianity have grown and thrived the way it did without the apostle Paul devoting his entire self to preaching the Gospel?


Has the Bible ever been translated into Egyptian Hieroglyphics?

Here is a link to a hieroglyphic "bible": https://archive.org/details/hieroglyphicbibl00mill

I don't believe you can translate the entire Bible to hieroglyphs, as there are not enough hieroglyphs to correctly translate the Bible. You would have to create many additional hieroglyphs!


What feast does Paul refer to in 1 Corinthians 5:8?

The preceding verses answers your question:

6 Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?
7Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
8Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

Verses 6 and 7 are referring to the Passover Feast. During Passover, Jews at the time (and today) would eat unleavened bread, as a symbol of moral purity.  Here Paul is explaining this symbolism.  In the analogy, leaven (yeast) represents sin, and he says that just as even a little yeast is sufficient to leaven a large loaf of bread, just a little sin (or sexual impurity in this specific example) is enough to contaminate an entire body of believers.


Is there a recognised soteriology that combines selective election for some and general election for everyone else?

Although I honestly do not know too much about Roman Catholicism, it would seem they believe in "selective election" or predestined salvation.

This is an excerpt from Wikipedia: Predestination

  Roman Catholicism

  Roman Catholicism teaches the doctrine of predestination, while
  rejecting the classical Calvinist view known as "double
  predestination." This means that while it is held that those whom
  God has elected to eternal life will infallibly attain it, and are
  therefore said to be predestined to salvation by God, those who
  perish are not predestined to damnation. But Catholicism has been
  generally discouraging to human attempts to guess or predict the
  Divine Will.

  The Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Predestination says:

  God, owing to His infallible prescience of the future, has appointed
  and ordained from eternity all events occurring in time, especially
  those that directly proceed from, or at least are influenced by, man's
  free will.

I hope this helps!


What have prominent theologians said about Halloween?

I submit this for your review as I studied this about 30 yrs ago. I have searched  for links so you can  research the answer in depth at your leisure as there is many many studies and opinions out there. The following are just a few I am sighting for you from my studies. I hope it helps....and if you desire more information let me know.

Bob Larson, argumentatively, one of the churches leading authority on the occult says...

  “Fear hath torment,” says 1 John 4:18 (KJV). Whatever the psychological reasons for paying to be scared out of one’s wits, the real force behind such Halloween attractions is Satan. In fact, 2 timothy 1:7 clearly says that fear is a “spirit,” a demon. If patrons of fear franchises really want to be tormented by terror, all they have to do is reject God’s offer of salvation through Christ, and the devil will give them a free ticket to eternal terror. https://boblarson.org/blog/2012/10/halloween-franchising-fear/

  Today, Halloween, people are looking for imaginative ways to stoke the fear factor. TV networks are featuring non-stop fright flicks. Theatrical haunted houses are trying to scare the living daylights out of paying customers with ever more gruesome and realistic horror. But trying to up the hormone rush of fear for any reason isn’t smart. God gave us our fright-and-flight response for self-preservation, not manipulation. Demons do that, and one of the most powerful evil spirits is that of Fear. I’ve often said, “If you have the spirit of fear [exposed in 2 Timothy 1:7] you don’t need any other demons.” Fear is a gatekeeper letting other demons in. this Halloween, focus on “power, love, and a sound mind,” not terror. And stay away from haunted houses, real or fake, and snake therapy. You don’t need a dose of fear to feel good. You need faith in Christ to be free from slithering spirits.  https://boblarson.org/blog/

Steve Harmon, Th.G., B.S., Th.M., Th.D.  says...

  Samhain (holloween)is considered the most important because the veil between the world's of the living and the dead is at its thinnest point in the year, making communication easier. The souls of the dead are reported to come to the land of the living. Much more detail here http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/holloween.html

Anton LeVey head of the Church of Satan,

  said "he was glad the Christian parents let their children worship the devil at least one night out of the year. "

Don and Phyl Tobias

  It is interesting that the ceremonies for honoring the dead in the Fall of the year, Oct. or Nov., were known to all ancient cultures. The Assyrians, Hindus, Persians, Chinese, American Indians, natives of the islands of the South Seas, as well as the British, Irish, Scots, etc., all believed that this was "the time of ghosts" as the dwellers in what is now Britain called it. In Genesis, chapters 6 through 8, we read the story of Noah's ark and how God saved just 8 people, Noah, his wife, his three sons and their wives, out of the entire world because Noah was righteous before Him and how the rest of the population was wicked and was destroyed. This occurrence was undoubtedly perverted and survived throughout the rest of the peoples of the world as stories of ghosts, the dead returning, etc. Traditions of such similarity all over the world could not be merely coincidental. Genesis 7:11 tells us that the storm started on the "17th day of the second month." The Jewish new year begins some place near the middle of September. Thus the deluge would have occurred at the end of October or the beginning of November. More information  http://www.blessedquietness.com/journal/housechu/hallween.htm

D. James Kennedy. A.B., M.Div.

  www.truthinaction.org/.../HALLOWEEN%20AND%20CHRIST_100294.p

Dr. Adrian Rogers  three time president of the Southern Baptist Convention

  As a matter of fact, I believe that Halloween is one of the masterstrokes of Satan, to make us believe that all of this is just so much of a fairy tale. http://www.sermonsearch.com/sermon-outlines/14393/devices-of-the-devil/

Just for the record I want to point out I did not comment on my thoughts as the question did not want to know my opinion but the opinion of noted experts. So I remained without comment in respect to the question.


How similar are the KJV and the Reina Valera bibles?

I did some digging on the subject - there is quite a lot of information to be had, but no direct comparisons between KJV and RVR.

For example,

https://www.apbrown2.net/web/TranslationComparisonChart.htm

offers translation comparison statistics, and compares Biblical passages across different Bible versions. As these already have slightly different interpetations in English, I imagine that it is unlikely that any cross-language translation will have much significant impact.

Here is a whole magazine dedicated to the subject of Bible translation:

http://www.ubs-translations.org/bt/

And this site contains the text for the most popular translations:

https://www.biblestudytools.com/bible-versions/

with the KJV and RVR.


Was the darkness that came during Jesus's death a solar eclipse?

We know that the darkness could not have been natural phenomena, but rather from God.

WHAT IT WASN'T

Christ died on Passover in the afternoon of the 14th of Nisan (about our late March).  This was about the time of a full moon (the 15th of Nisan).

  Lev. 23:5 In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the LORD'S passover.

A solar eclipse may only occur when the moon is between the earth and sun.  This occurs only at the new moon (aka dark moon).  Thus, it is impossible for the darkness at Christ's death to be caused by a solar eclipse.

A lunar eclipse is when the sun, earth, and moon are aligned.  This may occur at full moon.  But it's not the earth that darkens, rather its the moon.

It is near impossible that the darkness was caused by some natural phenomenon like volcanic ash; the time frame is too detailed to coincide with blowing ash.  Could it have been natural storm clouds that blew in at noon and blew out at 3?  Again the time frame is far too specific.  What caused the darkness over the land when Christ was crucified?  It would be something attributed directly to God.

WHAT IT WAS

We know from scripture that when God led the Israelites out of captivity in Egypt that He led them by night in a pillar of fire and by day in a pillar of cloud (Ex. 13:21).  Good for them, but bad for the Egyptians.  For the Egyptians at the Red Sea crossing, the cloud was darkness.

  Ex. 14:20 And it [angel of God] came between the camp of the Egyptians and the camp of Israel; and it was a cloud and darkness to them, ...

We would not think that the cloud was some eclipse or ash, but rather the presence of God.  That is the pattern.  So too at the crucifixion.

Moreover, we know that darkness was prophesied.

  Amos 8:9 And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord GOD, that I will cause the sun to go down at noon, and I will darken the earth in the clear day:

Christ is "A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel. (Luke 2:32), yet here He was on the cross cursed of God, apparently snuffed out.  It was literally darkness that was God sent as He promised.


Is the Book of Mormon in English as authentic as in the original, or is Joseph Smith's translation imperfect?

Does the English text Book of Mormon have just as much authority as, say, the Greek text of Matthew's Gospel ?

The New Testament part of the Holy Bible, that is to say the collection of volumes contained in, for example, the Authorised Version, from Matthew to Revelation, is compiled from thousands of manuscripts, either partial, fragmented or (rarely) complete ; also from many tens of thousands of Patristic Citations (Dean John Burgon collated over 96,000) ; also  from Lectionary references, similar to the more modern 'Book of Common Prayer' ; and from the 'Versions' that is to say the translations of the apostles' words into Syriac, Coptic, Latin and other languages.
On the other hand, the Book of Mormon is from a single anecdotal source. I say 'anecdotal' as there is only verbal testimony of its existence and that restricted to less than a handful of witnesses.
Also, its method of translation is obscure, to say the least, and cannot be verified by any means.
I cannot see how there could be any comparison of 'authority' (as the OP puts it) between these two sources of information, that is to say the Greek Text of the books of the New Testament as attributed to eight authors (nine if one does not attribute Hebrews) in comparison to the English presentation of the Book of Mormon.
Purely on the consideration of the matter regarded solely on the basis of the science of textual criticism, the comparison of the Book of Mormon to the Holy Bible is, in my view, impossible, as there is insufficient evidence of the existence of the original of the former to form any substantial view of the validity of its English presentation.
The Book of Mormon can only be assessed on another basis than that of Textual Criticism. But that is the fundamental basis of the Greek Text from which we get the English Bible.
If the two documents are produced on totally incompatible methods of compilation I do not understand how their 'authority' can be 'compared'.


Did John Calvin say "The worst of plagues is human reason"?

Did John Calvin say “the worst of plagues is human reason”?
Although I drew a blank on John Calvin, I pursued the matter by searching through quotes attributed to Martin Luther.  There were 950 of them, but many were repeated or were variations with only slight differences.  https://www.azquotes.com/author/9142-Martin_Luther
Allow me to share with you two relevant quotes that I found.  Taken from ‘The Table Talk of Martin Luther’, he had this to say about human reason:

Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.

The partial quote I presented by Walter Kaufmann in ‘The Faith of a Heretic’ said this in full:

There is on earth among all dangers, no more dangerous thing than a richly endowed and adroit reason, especially if she enters into spiritual matters which concern the soul and God.  For it is more possible to teach an ass to read than to blind such a reason and lead it right; for reason must be deluded, blinded and destroyed.

By way of explaining what Martin Luther meant, here is a short extract from the book ‘Here I Stand – Martin Luther’ by Roland Bainton (Lion, 1978):

Martin Luther said some things about human reason that have been wrested out of context to make it seem as if he was an enemy of reason because of his stress on faith. That is a misrepresentation, because he only railed against a particular kind of human reasoning.

Luther said that, “Common sense and natural reason are highly offended that God by his mere will deserts, hardens, and condemns…  Natural reason, however much it is offended, must admit the consequences of the omniscience and omnipotence of God...  Since God is true and one, he is utterly incomprehensible and inaccessible to human reason.  Therefore his justice must also be incomprehensible.”

Many people misunderstand Luther at this point – he knew that the reason why faith is so hard, and reason is so inadequate, is a problem far deeper than logic...  At Worms and often elsewhere he asked to be instructed from Scripture and reason.  In this sense reason meant logical deduction from known premises; and when Luther railed against ‘the harlot reason’... he had in mind the way in which man ordinarily behaves, feels, and thinks.  It is not what God says that is a foreign tongue, but what God does that is utterly incomprehensible.

“Luther knew that philosophy was unequal to the task of comprehending the mysteries of God. Only faith can grasp the foolishness of the cross, which is hid from the wise and prudent.  Reason must retire.  She cannot understand that “God hides his power in weakness, his wisdom in folly, his goodness in severity, his justice in sins, his mercy in anger.

I think it is safe to say that Calvin believed that man is corrupted by sin and that sin has affected body and soul, mind and will.  Martin Luther (whose theology Calvin admired and respected) also held to a similar view.  Human reasoning is therefore fatally flawed.  The mind of the created can in no way comprehend or understand the mind of the Creator.
Did John Calvin say “the worst of plagues is human reason”?  He may have said that, or something similar.  If so, then it was in harmony with the views of Martin Luther.  I don’t suppose it really matters whether that quote can be attributed to Calvin, but I shall leave this question open just in case someone can shed further light on the matter.