What do you tithe from? Why tithe income?

Tithing income is an application of the Old Testament tithe principle - it's giving back 10% of what God has given you. If that is cows, great! If it is money (as it is in modern society), then tithe comes out of that.

The 10% number is not actually mentioned in the New Testament, where the principle is just "give generously!"

Based on the above, I tithe on all my "income". If I receive $500 from someone else for work done, yes I would tithe on it. On the other hand, I don't tithe my tax refund

One other thing - I believe that tithing should be done on gross (before-tax) and not net income. This is an application of the "firstfruits" principle from the OT - our tithe is to be "off the top". Tithing on your net income is letting the government have the first cut and tithing on what is left over.


How would the four major eschatological views differ in their interpretation of Revelation 21:4?

I really like this question because it is reasonable to ask and it phrased in a way that indicates it is a real question. First of all, the categories you listed are not applicable for Rev Chapters 1-3 and Rev 20-22. They are the categories that apply to Rev 4-20.  Secondly, Chapter 20 is split along these categories, which also do not really apply but may create a directional tendency just as the previous categories do:

•   Premillennial (a literal 1000 year binding of Satan after Christ returns before the new heaven and earth of Chapter 21)

•   Postmillennial Approach (a literal or symbolic period of greatness in the church expected just prior to the Lord's return)

•   Amillennial (basically the 1000 years is from the first coming to the second coming of Christ)

Therefore as we approach Chapter 21 we basically face it with these possible 10 positions in very simplified form:

Preterism/Postmillennial
Preterism/Amillennial
Idealism/Postmillennial
Idealism/Amillennial
Historicism/Premillennial
Historicism/Postmillennial
Historicism/Amillennial
Futurism/Premillenial/Pre-tribulation
Futurism/Premillenial/Post-tribulation
Futurism/Premillenial/(no rapture)

Now what are we to think as we come to Chapter 21? Well, all these ten views must be multiplied into new variants as the new heavens and the new earth can be taken literally, or symbolically or combination therefore along any possible view before mentioned.  In virtually all (if not literally all) views this represents heaven after the final judgment where we live forever with Christ, but a more literal view will make that incomprehensible heavenly state a ‘heaven on a renewed physical earth’ and a more literal view might even literally say there is no ocean etc. as literally described. This means we now have these choices:

Preterism/Postmillennial/Literal Earth – Everything in Revelation happened around the siege and destruction of Jerusalem. However a great final revival (see note) in the world will occur before the final judgment. After which we will literally live with Christ on a new planet earth.
Preterism/Amillennial/Literal Earth – Everything in Revelation happened around the siege and destruction of Jerusalem. However Revelation speaks loudly to us now and at 'all times'. After the end of the world we will literally live with Christ on a new planet earth.
Preterism/Postmillennial/Symbolic Earth – Everything in Revelation happened around the siege and destruction of Jerusalem. However a great final revival in world will occur before the final judgment. After which we will literally live with Christ in heaven.
Preterism/Amillennial/Symbolic Earth – Everything in Revelation happened around the siege and destruction of Jerusalem. However Revelation speaks loudly to us now and at all times. After which we will literally live with Christ in heaven.
Idealism/Postmillennial/Literal Earth – All the symbolic scenes speak to us at all times and some indicate a great future revival. After which we will literally live with Christ on a new planet earth.
Idealism/Amillennial/Literal Earth – All the symbolic scenes speak to us at all times and this is during the 1000 years in which we live. After which we will literally live with Christ on a new planet earth.
Idealism/Postmillennial/Symbolic Earth – All the symbolic scenes speak to us at all times and some indicate a great future revival. After which we will literally live with Christ in heaven.
Idealism/Amillennial/Symbolic Earth – All the symbolic scenes speak to us at all times and this is during the 1000 years in which we live. After which we will literally live with Christ in heaven.
Historicism/Premillennial/Literal Earth – Revelations outlines the grand history of the church with some things still left to come (basically we are in the sixth bowl of wrath right now). Soon Christ will come and we will literally reign with him 1000 years before the new heaven and the new earth. After which we will literally live with Christ on a new planet earth.
Historicism/Postmillennial/Literal Earth – Revelations outlines the grand history of the church with some things still left to come (basically we are in the sixth bowl of wrath right now). Soon Christ will come and before that there will be a great revival. After which we will literally live with Christ on a new planet earth.
Historicism/Amillennial/Literal Earth – Revelations outlines the grand history of the church with some things still left to come (basically we are in the sixth bowl of wrath right now). Soon Christ will come but there is no need to expect a great revival before then. After which we will literally live with Christ on a new planet earth.
Historicism/Premillennial/Symbolic Earth – Revelations outlines the grand history of the church with some things still left to come (basically we are in the sixth bowl of wrath right now). Soon Christ will come and we will literally reign with him 1000 years before the new heaven and the new earth. After which we will literally live with Christ in heaven.
Historicism/Postmillennial/Symbolic Earth – Revelations outlines the grand history of the church with some things still left to come (basically we are in the sixth bowl of wrath right now). Soon Christ will come and before that there will be a great revival. After which we will literally live with Christ in heaven.
Historicism/Amillennial/Symbolic Earth – Revelations outlines the grand history of the church with some things still left to come (basically we are in the sixth bowl of wrath right now). Soon Christ will come but there is no need to expect a great revival before then. After which we will literally live with Christ in heaven.
Futurism/Premillenial/Pre-tribulation/Literal Earth – Chapter 4 onwards represents things that have not happened yet. The church will be literally raptured before all these literal horrors will take place. After which we will literally live with Christ on a new planet earth.
Futurism/Premillenial/Post-tribulation/Literal Earth – Chapter 4 onwards represents things that have not happened yet. The church will be literally raptured after some of these literal horrors will take place but before the worst parts. After which we will literally live with Christ on a new planet earth.
Futurism/Premillenial/(no rapture)/Literal Earth – Chapter 4 onwards represents things that have not happened yet. However the church will not be literally raptured before all these literal horrors will take place. They must suffer with the world until the second coming. After which we will literally live with Christ on a new planet earth.

Note 1: Mention of a great revival (above) in the future is usually thought of in connection with a conversion of many Jews and a subsequent falling away of many in the church just prior to the final judgment.

Note 2: Often these above positions can be blended a bit between them creating new variants.

I could spend months retrieving and cataloguing authors who have these views (some way more popular today than others) but this is not really practical simply from the fact that I have a day time job. Naturally I have over simplified each view due to the space I have allotted for the explanation and I have not complicated some of the futurist twists further buy the various roles that some feel Israel plays into the equation. Then again I am not even familiar with those details.


Do the ancient churches built by the Portuguese have a statue of mermaid on the façade?

The short answer is yes , but they are difficult to locate.

For example, the Jerónimos Monastery or Hieronymites Monastery, is a former monastery of the Order of Saint Jerome near the Tagus river in the parish of Belem and it's façade has mermaids on it.

  Engravings of sea mermaids writhe on the façade of the Jerónimos Monastery, a World Heritage site where da Gama’s body now rests. - Road Trip Bliss: Portugal’s Southern Coast

If one looks carefully one can see the mermaids hereand here.

  In the Middle Ages a chapel had been erected on this site in honor of Our Lady, Star of the Sea. This maritime association with the Virgin was important since ships were anchored nearby. Prince Henry the Navigator ordered that additions be built to the small chapel and then renamed it Santa Maria de Belém. - Jerónimos Monastery

I have also been able to locate an image of a mermaid carved in a capital at Travanca Monastery in Portugal.

  Mermaids carved in a capital at Travanca Monastery. - Portuguese Romanesque architecture

In any case I would like to make a few remarks on this subject at hand.

First of all, we are not to associate any European mermaid art in Catholic churches with the imaginary mermaid saint: Muirgen. It is absolutely bizarre how some ancient folklore cam make a mermaid a saint. The Mermaid Saint story or legend is imaginary, yet it stresses the importance of baptism and as such may have been used as a teaching tool. No such  St. Muirgen the Mermaid exists.

Medieval mermaids in European architecture is not as uncommon as one would think and this would certainly include Portugal. This is more of a Western European subject matter than merely just Portugal or Spain.

  A strange part of the story of the medieval mermaid, is that images of mermaids are fairly common in old churches. They were part of the usual depictions of temptations and other vices that men were to resist. - The Medieval Mermaid

Here are some examples:

The Zennor Mermaid

  Zennor church is famous for a carved medieval chair, or bench end, displayed in the south side chapel. The carving is generally dated to between 1400-1500. The carving shows a mermaid carrying a comb and mirror.

  In later images the quince has become a mirror, a symbol of heartlessness and vanity, which rather twists the original meaning. In the medieval period it was a common Cornish custom to perform 'miracle plays', in which the mermaid was used to represent the dual nature of Christ; just as the mermaid was both fish and human, Christ was both God and man. You can still see medieval wall paintings of mermaids in other Cornish churches, such as Altarnun and Breage, but only at Zennor is there a surviving mermaid carving. - Zennor Church and the Mermaid of Zennor

A mermaid upon a roof boss in the presbytery of Exeter Cathedral (former Catholic Cathedral)

The Mermaid and the Symbolism of the Fish in Art , Literature and Legendary Lore has this to add to our subject:

  Of the occurrence of the Mermaid in Ecclesiastical decoration, a few words will suffice. It is one of the most common of subjects on the carved misereres of our cathedrals and churches, and is also found sculptured on brackets, bosses, doorways, and capitals of pillars.

The mermaid lore is symbolic of temptation and losing one's soul forever:

  The popularity of the medieval mermaid continued and in the Middle Ages the church decided to do something about it. They changed the mermaid into a symbol of lust and temptation. The story of Odysseus and the sirens was changed so that the sirens were now mermaids. Odysseus' ship was a symbol of the church, and it's mast the cross of Jesus. The mermaids were the temptations that call men away from the church. - The Medieval Mermaid


What is a good starting point for a study of the early Church?

Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians.

This and others may be found here.


Paintings of the Holy Family with a young St. Joseph?

St. Joseph and St. John numerous portrait depicting and older man is good way for the artist to convey an image of a chaste man. We know that a young man struggles to control the urges of flesh which is associated to concupiscence.Even St. Paul who experienced mystical conversion still had to struggle with the law of the flesh.

  Romans 7:15-24 New International Version (NIV)

  15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[a] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

  21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death?

Artist depicting a young man would convey doubts, if St. Joseph can be able to hold on his Church given title invoking his powerful intercession on the following litanies;

  LITANY OF SAINT JOSEPH

  Illustrious Scion of David,
  Light of Patriarchs,
  Spouse of the Mother of God,
  Chaste guardian of the Virgin,
  Foster-father of the Son of God,
  Watchful defender of Christ,
  Head of the Holy Family,

  Joseph most just,
  Joseph most chaste,
  Joseph most prudent,
  Joseph most valiant,
  Joseph most obedient,
  Joseph most faithful,

  Mirror of patience,
  Lover of poverty,
  Model of workmen,
  Example to parents,
  Guardian of virgins,
  Pillar of families,
  Solace of the afflicted,
  Hope of the sick,
  Patron of the dying,
  Terror of demons,
  Protector of the Church, pray for us.

Prayers and Litany of Saint Joseph

From the Litany of St. Joseph which the Church acknowledged, it depicted a young and strong worker and defender. It is nowhere described St. Joseph as an old man.Let's see how Blessed Catherine Emmerich describe the appearance of St. Joseph before marrying the Blessed Virgin Mary.

  Then I saw that messengers were sent throughout the land and all unmarried men of the line of David summoned to the Temple. When these were assembled in large numbers at the Temple in festal garments, the Blessed Virgin was presented to them. Among them I saw a very devout youth from the region of Bethlehem; he had always prayed with great fervor for the fulfillment of the Promise, and I discerned in his heart an ardent longing to become Mary’s husband. She, however, withdrew again into her cell in tears, unable to bear the thought that she should not remain a virgin.

MARRIAGE OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN TO JOSEPH (Catherine Emmerich)

Based on the sketch drawing of the vision of Blessed Catherine Emmerich, if we based it on the caricature of the face and try to match it with available painting the closest I found of a young image of St. Joseph is this one;

The biblical account of St. Joseph in the "Flight into Egypt" following the angel command for him to accompanied Jesus & Mary to travel by foot from Jerusalem to Egypt, an old man could not make it physically. Not to mentioned they will return to Jerusalem after King Herod death by foot again. Also, carpentry works requires physical strength which St.Joseph teaches for 18 long years Jesus hidden life in Galilee.

In closing, St. Joseph depicted by so many artist as an old does not represent his true physical appearance but more of an artist way of presenting a just man living a chaste life. An old man depicted and acknowledge by the world as already passed or no longer interested in the affairs of the flesh.


What is the justification for relying on faith healing and conventional medicine?

In Like a Broken Vessel, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland is speaking to members of the LDS Church about mental illness, but I think his reasoning is more generally applicable.

  If you had appendicitis, God would expect you to seek a priesthood
  blessing and get the best medical care available. ...
  Our Father in Heaven expects us to use all of the
  marvelous gifts He has provided in this glorious dispensation.

So Elder Holland is making the argument that since God has provided us with both faith (and in the case of latter-day saints, blessings of healing) and with medical care, we should use both.

President Dallin H. Oaks goes into more detail in Healing the Sick

  The use of medical science is not at odds with our prayers of faith
  and our reliance on priesthood blessings. When a person requested a
  priesthood blessing, Brigham Young would ask, “Have you used any
  remedies?” To those who said no because “we wish the Elders to lay
  hands upon us, and we have faith that we shall be healed,” President
  Young replied: “That is very inconsistent according to my faith. If we
  are sick, and ask the Lord to heal us, and to do all for us that is
  necessary to be done, according to my understanding of the Gospel of
  salvation, I might as well ask the Lord to cause my wheat and corn to
  grow, without my plowing the ground and casting in the seed. It
  appears consistent to me to apply every remedy that comes within the
  range of my knowledge, and [then] to ask my Father in Heaven … to
  sanctify that application to the healing of my body.”

  Of course we don’t wait until all other methods are exhausted before
  we pray in faith or give priesthood blessings for healing. In
  emergencies, prayers and blessings come first. Most often we pursue
  all efforts simultaneously. This follows the scriptural teachings that
  we should “pray always” (D&C 90:24) and that all things should be done
  in wisdom and order.

President Oaks is making it clear that seeking medical attention (if possible) is a sign of faith, and therefore a prerequisite for a miracle to occur. This is especially important in our day, where many of us have access to excellent medical care. That being said, even in biblical times they did the best they could. Ancient Israel encouraged a healthy diet. In 1 Corinthians 3:16-17, it states that we are the temple of God, which most not be defiled.

I think that many Christians who rely on faith and conventional medicine would agree for broadly similar reasons.


Does a list of people mentioned in the bible who got saved exist?

The Catholic Church mentions such a list in its’ martyrology.

  Before the amazing 4th century, Christians were parochial and even patriotic in their veneration of saints. Rome celebrated the martyrs who had died at Rome, Constantinople celebrated the martyrs who had died at Constantinople, Antioch celebrated the martyrs who had died at Antioch, and so on. It never occurred to the folks in Rome to celebrate the saints of Antioch, or vice versa: celebrating a saint involved walking out to see his tomb. But in the 4th century a unique group of saints broke this pattern and set us on the path to the celebration of all saints. Who were they?

  The saints of the Bible.

  The saints of the Bible were familiar names throughout the Church. Texts like Hebrews 11 and Sirach 44-50, read everywhere, held up the great men and women of Salvation History as examples to follow and heroes to venerate. For the church in Jerusalem, however, the saints of Scripture were also the local martyrs: just as Rome had a list of days for celebrating the martyrs of Rome, Jerusalem had a cycle of liturgical commemorations of the biblical saints. When 4th-century pilgrims brought Jerusalem’s liturgies back to their home dioceses, they brought with them the practice of liturgically commemorating the biblical saints—and implicitly, they created the practice of commemorating saints that were not local. Unwittingly, they had planted the seed of the universal sanctoral cycle.

  Biblical saints have been a fixture in the liturgical year ever since, but most people don’t know about them. With the exception of a few prominent New Testament figures and one feast day in the Extraordinary Form, they are not mentioned in the Liturgy of the Hours or in the Roman Missal. But it turns out there is another liturgical book entirely dedicated to the commemoration of saints: the Martyrology. You’ve seen one of those liturgical calendars that lists saints’ days? They get their information from the Martyrology—and for any given day they leave out most of what the Martyrology offers.

  Here’s the punchline: the Church celebrates St. Abraham (Oct. 9), St. Moses (Sept. 4), St. Gideon (Sept. 26), and other great saints of the Old and New Testaments liturgically. They are part of the liturgical year. I have a complete list of biblical saints’ days at the end of this post: Saints of the Bible: A Complete List of Their Feasts in the Old and New Calendars


What are the arguments of those who believe that the prerequisite stated here by John is yet not sufficient for being born of God?

We must be always cautious when we remove a sentence from its context, because it can often lead to misunderstanding.  The verse you quoted was in the context of an entire letter.  It was not intended to be separated from that context.  Authorial intent is a critical consideration.

Furthermore, the audience should be considered as well.  The people to whom John wrote the letter believed certain things about Jesus, so He wasn't addressing misconceptions or heresies about who Jesus is.  They didn't have those misconceptions or heresies, while some who read that letter today certainly do.  It is important to note that Scripture can never mean what it was never intended to mean.

If we do divorce this verse from the context and the audience, we would have to conclude that someone who believes that Jesus is the Christ, but who didn't die on the cross, was not the Son of God, wasn't resurrected, wasn't sinless, and that salvation comes through the works of the law, and that adultery and lying and cheating are alright for him, would still be considered born of God.  Is it rational to assume that the Apostle John, if asked for clarification, would have agreed with this?  Of course not.  This is absurd, of course, and is an improper manner in which to treat Scripture.

Those that read this letter from John originally understood his intent.  Had they been believing heresy, like the Galatians, John would certainly have taken a different tone altogether.

So, from the perspective of a Biblical literalist, everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, co-equal and co-eternal with the Father and Spirit, who died on the Cross the make atonement for our sins, and who rose from the dead, and trusts the work of Jesus for salvation and forgiveness, is born of God.


What are Christian arguments against the use of anesthesia?

There was no 'forbidding' from any official Protestant denominations. What opposition there was, centred on its use in Obstetrics and came primarily from within the medical community.  According to the abstract of the article Early Opposition to Obstetric Anaesthesia1:

  Some of the arguments used to oppose the introduction of inhalation anaesthesia - especially in obstetrics - are considered. These arguments were mainly based upon a desire to retain the sensation of pain, either as a factor necessary for survival or as a diagnostic aid: moral arguments were also adduced but religious opposition is no more than a myth of historiography. The opposition to anaesthesia lasted for less than 15 years and is seen as essentially a reflection of contemporary views on the role of pain. [emphasis added]

This assertion is justified within the article itself as follows:

  Religious objections

  In
  addition
  to
  medical
  and
  moral  arguments
  it
  has  often
  been  alleged
  that
  opposition
  to
  anaesthesia
  was
  raised
  upon
  religious
  grounds.
  However, despite widespread references
  by
  20th
  century
  commentators
  to
  religious
  attacks
  upon
  anaesthesia,
  especially
  in
  obstetrics,
  evidence
  of
  any  such
  attack
  in
  contemporary
  writings
  is
  singularly sparse.

  In  December
  1847
  Professor
  James  Young
  Simpson published
  a
  pamphlet entitled
  Answer
  to
  the
  Religious
  Objections
  Advanced
  Against   the
  Employment   of  Anaesthetic
  Agents
  in
  Midwifery
  and
  Surgery33
  and
  it
  is
  this
  which
  appears
  to
  have
  caught
  the
  attention - and
  imagination - of
  subsequent
  commentators.
  In
  this
  pamphlet Simpson
  considered
  the
  assertion
  that  the
  use
  of
  obstetric
  anaesthesia
  was
  a
  breach
  of
  the
  ‘primeval curse’
  enunciated  in  Genesis
  3,
  vl6 - "in
  sorrow
  thou
  shalt bring
  forth
  children" - and
  with
  a
  clever
  use
  of
  logic
  and
  philosophy  sought
  to
  establish
  that
  the
  use
  of
  anaesthesia
  during
  childbirth  did
  not
  actually breach Holy writ.

  In
  fact,
  as  a
  recent  exhaustive  study
  of
  the
  contemporary
  medical, theological
  and
  lay
  literature  has
  revealed,
  up
  until
  that  date
  no  such
  assertions  had
  been
  publicly
  made,
  nor  is  there
  any
  evidence of
  such
  views
  being
  held
  privately
  by
  any
  more than a
  small
  handful
  of
   individuals.34
  It
  has
  also
  become
  clear
  that
  all  subsequent  comments
  about
  the  religious propriety  of
  obstetric
  anaesthesia arose
  as
  a
  result
  of
  the publication
  of
  Simpson’s
  pamphlet,
  and
  generally   referred
  directly
  to
  it.
  Indeed, Simpson
  himself
  wrote only
  7 months later
  that
  "Here,
  in
  Edinburgh,
  I
  never
  now
  meet
  with any objections
  on
  this
  point,  for
  the
  religious,
  like
  the other forms
  of opposition to
  chloroform,
  have
  ceased
  among
  us".35

  It
  may also
  be
  noted
  that
  the
  only two contemporary theologians
  of
  note
  who
  were
  consulted
  on
  the
  issue
  did  not  consider
  there
  was
  any
  ground  for
  religious  objections
  to
  anaesthesia.
  Thomas
  Chalmers
  (1780-1847),
  possibly
  the
  greatest
  of
  19th  century   Scottish  churchmen,
  regarded
  the
  issue
  as
  one
  for
  "small
  theologians"
  who,
  if
  they entertained  such  objections,  would
  thus
  be
  taking
  "an
  improper
  view
  of
  the
  subject".33
  George
  Rapall  Noyes
  (1798-1868),
  Professor
  of
  Hebrew
  and
  Oriental
  languages
  and
  Lecturer
  in
  Bibilical
  literature   and
  theology
  at
  Harvard
  Divinity  School,
  has
  been  described
  in
  the
  Dictionary
  of
  American  Biography
  as
  "one  of
  the
  ablest
  Biblical
  scholars
  of
  his
  day".
  His
  view,
  expressed in
  1848,
  was
  that
  "God
  could
  not
  have
  intended,
  by
  any  thing   in
  the
  Scriptures,
  to
  oppose
  the
  development
  of
  any
  of
  the
  laws  of
  nature;
  which
  are
  his
  own  laws.
  The
  application
  of
  the
  agents
  of
  nature,
  by
  human
  ingenuity,
  to
  the
  relief
  of
  pain,
  is
  also
  the
  use
  of
  God-given
  means
  by
  God-given powers.
  How,
  then, can
  such
  a
  course
  be
  irreconcilable with any
  intimations
  of
  the
  divine
  will
  whatever?".36

  It
  is
  almost  certain
  that
  Simpson’s pamphlet
  Answer
  to
  the Religious Objections.
  .
  .
  was
  written
  to
  forestall objections which, in
  the
  event, did
  not
  arise,
  and that
  its
  publication
  has
  subsequently
  been
  mis-interpreted
  by
  other
  commentators  as
  evidence
  for a
  non-existent
  opposition. Personal
  reservations
  about
  anaesthesia
  upon
  religious
  grounds
  were
  certainly  felt,  but  the
  lack
  of
  evidence - either
  for  theological  opposition
  to
  anaesthesia  from
  the
  institutional
  churches
  or
  of
  any
  widely
  held
  (or expressed)
  opposition
  on
  the
  part
  of
  individuals - is
  too
  significant
  to
  be
  discounted.  It
  must
  be
  concluded
  that
  there
  never
  was
  any
  formal
  ‘conflict’ between
  religion
  and
  science
  at
  this
  point,
  and that
  the
  whole
  episode
  is
  no
  more
  than an
  artifact
  of
  historiography34.

  ...

  33.
  SIMPSON
  JY.
  Answer  to
  the
  Religious  Objections
  Advanced  Against
  the
  Employment  of
  Anaesthetic
  Agents
  in
  Midwifery
  and
  Surgery.
  Edinburgh:
  Sutherland
  &
  Knox,
  1847.

  34.
  FARR
  AD.
  Medical  Developments
  and
  Religious
  Beliefs. with Special Reference
  to
  Europe
  in
  the 18th
  and
  19th
  Centuries.
  Open  University,  Ph.D.thesis,
  1977.

  35.
  SIMPSON
  JY.
  (Letter
  to
  Dr
  Protheroe  Smith
  of
  London, dated 8th July
  1848.)In:
  SmithP.
  Scriptural
  Authority
  for
  the
  Mitigation
  of  the Pains
  of
  Labour
  by
  Chloroform
  and
  Other   Anaesthetic
  Agents.
  London:
  S.
  Highley,
  1848: 43-52.

  36.
  NOYES
  GR.
  Letter to Prof.
  W.
  Channing, dated 3rd
  February
  1848.
  In:
  Channing
  W.
  A
  Treatise
  in
  Etherization
  in
  Childbirth.
  Boston:
  Ticknor,
  1848:
  145.

1. A.D. Farr, Early Opposition to Obstetric Anaesthesia [in Anaesthesia, the Journal of the Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland, Volume 35, Issue 9, pages 896–907, September 1980]


What is the difference between immediate judgment after death and the final judgment, according to Catholicism?

This answer is based on a Catholic Answers website article by Catholic Apologist Tim Staples:  Why Are There Two Judgments.
From an individual's perspective, according to CCC 1022, upon death the immortal soul immediately enter into one of possible 3 states (as particular judgment):

the blessedness of heaven immediately [for the saints]
the blessedness of heaven through a purification [purgatory]
immediate and everlasting damnation

It is important to understand purgatory and hell properly, not principally locations, but states of being, since the soul is not yet joined to its body.

They are pure spirits. So we can’t really speak of hell being a “place” right now, at least, not as we understand “places.” However, after the resurrection, because those in hell will have bodies we could certainly speak of them having a “location” or “place” of sorts.

Hell is, as CCC 1033 says "[the] state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed."  CCC 1472 says:

These two punishments (speaking of purgatory and hell) must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin.

If the soul has been judged, what's the purpose for final judgment?  The article cites 3 reasons what the soul can expect at Final Judgment:

The final judgment will reveal in full the justice and glory of God for all to see. This is not accomplished in each man’s private and particular judgment.  (see CCC 1040)
The full implications of the good and evil that we do in our lifetime will not be fully realized at the time of our particular judgment
Since we sin and perform virtuous acts as a body/soul composite, it is fitting that we be judged as a body/soul composite as well. This too does not occur at our particular judgment, at the final judgment.


Why did God create Adam and Eve so that they would sin?

You are not the first thoughtful person ever to have thought what you think about the
"free will of man" and the sovereignty of God. (I put the free will of man in quotation marks, because I think it more accurate to say "man's ability to decide," or "man's ability to make decisions." The only will which is truly free belongs to God, and He alone is free to do whatever He wills--anything, that is, which is in keeping with His character.)

Years ago I read Arthur W. Pink's book, The Sovereignty of God, and I remember being introduced to the term antinomy. Antinomy is defined as "a contradiction between two statements, both apparently obtained by correct reasoning."

If memory serves, Pink suggested that "free will" and God's sovereignty comprise an antinomy which cannot readily be explained--if ever! His "answer" (again, if memory serves) may seem like a cop-out, but it may be closer to the truth than one might at first think.

Verses such as Isaiah 55:8 and 9 should give us pause in this regard:

  "'For my thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,' declares the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts than your thoughts'"(NASB, Updated Edition).

God is infinite. God inhabits eternity. We are finite. We inhabit time. Not to be flip or irreverent, but "apples and oranges."

God's sovereignty and His foreknowledge do not MAKE things happen. From our Monday-morning-quarterback armchair, we critique God's game and say, "Boy, if I were the quarterback I would have done things differently," and then go on to explain how and why we'd do things differently if we were G--I mean, the quarterback! Doesn't work that way.

God, of course, knows the end from the beginning and the beginning from the end. That is why He is called the Alpha and the Omega (see Revelation 1:8, 21:6, and 22:13). God, unlike us, has no time constraints. Since He knows what is going to happen well in advance of when it actually happens, He can "plan ahead," as it were, to cover all contingencies. (This last sentence is outrageously humanistic and perhaps even hyperbolic, but I include it simply to illustrate a truth.)

God's planning ahead includes His plan of salvation, and we need to thank Him and be in awe of Him for that very reason. As the hymn writer put it:

  O, the love that drew salvation's plan,

  O, the grace that brought it down to man,

  O, the mighty gulf that God did span

  At Calvary

His plan was not a spur-of-the-moment thing; no, it originated in the eternal counsels of God (see Revelation 13:8, Ephesians 1:11, and 1 Peter 1:20). In a sense, Christ's death on behalf of Adam and his fallen race was a fait accompli (my translation: "a done deal") even before Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit in the womb of the virgin Mary!

I suggest the central question you seem to have in mind could be paraphrased as follows:

  Does God's knowing something will happen, make it happen?

I suggest the answer is no; it does not. The only person to whom my answer truly makes sense is God Himself; again, because we are creatures of time. Our perspective is constrained by what happened in the past, not by what might happen in the future. Oh, we can appreciate, intellectually, the concept of "the eternal counsels of God," but in actuality our intellectual appreciation falls far short of the mark of God's perfect understanding of His eternal counsels.

Years ago, my godly father suggested to me that God inhabits the eternal present. That makes sense to me. God does, however, accommodate us finite critters by revealing His truth in terms of past, present, and future. Those constructs are just that: constructs. Believe it or not, there was a "time" when the only person who existed was God, and if it weren't for the love of God which "drew salvation's plan," God would not have created the angels or us, His image bearers.

So we've come full circle. God's thoughts are not our thoughts, and God's ways are not our ways. As far as north is from south, and as far as east is from west, so far are God's thoughts and ways beyond ours. The expression "hindsight is 20/20" may be fairly accurate as touching human affairs, but as touching God's plans and purposes, the expression simply does not work, nor could it ever.


Who wrote the book of Hebrews and is the book complete?

We do not know who wrote the book now known as the Epistle to the Hebrews, although at one stage it was thought that Paul was the author.  Hebrews was never seriously attributed to James, brother of Jesus.

Burton L. Mack says, in Who Wrote the New Testament, page 188, the author of Hebrews was male, because of a masculine gender self-reference (Heb ll:32). He  may not have had as quick and sharp a mind as Paul, or as personal and passionate an approach to public debate and theological argumentation, but he was far superior to Paul in learning, analytical capacity, and systematic thinking.  In Mack's view, he was capable of keeping in mind large quantities of conceptual detail and working with multiple themes as he wove concepts in and out of a vast Platonic world of ideas.

Mack says that as far as scholars have been able to tell, the author and the Christian congregation he had in mind might have been located anywhere in the Eastern Mediterranean area. Paul Barnett believes he can narrow the location of the author down to Alexandria in Egypt, although this still does not give us a name.  He says, in The Birth of Christianity: The First Twenty Years, page 108, that the Letter is written in superior koine Greek, with an elaborate use of allegory consistent with the Hellenistic Judaism of Alexandria.

Hebrews would appear to be incomplete if it had been an epistle, as it was normal practice, followed by Paul and others, to open with a greeting. However, there is nothing - other than the salutations at the end of the book - to suggest that, in its original form, Hebrews was really an epistle.


Are all of the red letter text the words of Jesus?

The 'red letters' are not themselves part of the KJV translation. The red letters appear in many different translation of the Bible.

To answer the question: no, there is not universal agreement about exactly what words in the Bible were spoken by Jesus. The New Testament languages did not include punctuation like quote marks. Most of the time it is pretty clear from the text where Jesus words begin and end. Occasionally however it is hard to tell where a quote of Jesus ends and where an explanation from the Gospel author begins. For example in John 3 there is some uncertainty about whether Jesus quote which begins in verse 10 continues to verse 21 or stops after verse 15, with the remainder being explanation by the author.

If you are asking about actual words, then Jesus probably spoke in Aramaic, and so even the original Greek is not an untranslated quote. English and other modern language renditions are further translations.


Why does the NWT capitalize "YOU" in many verses?

The capitalized YOU is used to disambiguate singular vs. plural usage. While unclear in English, the difference between singular and plural usage is clear in the original Greek sources of these texts.

  It also makes a distinction between the singular and plural in the 2nd person personal pronoun: "you" is singular, and "YOU" is plural. In English, the word "you" is both singular and plural; in Greek, however, there is a clear distinction. The NWT has used this method to try and preserve this distinction. -- THE NEW WORLD TRANSLATION; A Critical Analysis by Al Maxey


Can a human ever be happy in the afterlife while not loving God?

First of all, Christianity doesn't teach that some get to go to heaven because they are "smaller sinners" than everybody else. Likewise those in hell are not their because they are "bigger sinners" than anyone else. In fact as humans we all stand on pretty equal ground as far as that is concerned, and if that were the standard we'd all be in hell.

Secondly, men do not hate God because of the world he created, they hate God because he is good and they are not. However consciously or unconsciously, they hate him because he is altogether different than they are. They do not understand him and if they did they would not like what they found. The Bible teaches that men love darkness because their deeds are dark and that God is light. (John 3:16-20) Men will naturally hate that which brings judgement to their deeds. God created the earth "and it was good", there would have been no reason to hate it except for the evil deeds of men that have polluted it. A truly Christian perspective on "hating the world" would involve hating the pollution of sin in it and therefore hating ourselves which would turn us to loving God.

Another point that comes up in your question is the issue of choice. The Bible does not speak of any opportunity for new choices to be made after death. Even though everything will be laid bare and there will be no longer room for doubt or question, the choices are made here. They will be sealed there. Those who (through God's intervention in giving them a new heart) chose to hate sin and love God on earth will continue to do so and be truly happy in his presence. Those who have not been redeemed and hate him here will continue to do so for all eternity even though his nature is revealed.

And to bring all this round to the core of your question: No, it will not be possible for a human to be happy in the afterlife while not loving God. There is nothing else in heaven to be happy about. The lamb on the throne is the central theme in the description we are given of heaven. Heaven is heaven because God is there. It will be unquestionably happy for those there because they will love him (even more than they do now). For those apart from him there will be no happiness at all, only weeping and gnashing of teeth.


In what order were the Sacraments added?

Marriage was the proto-sacrament. It became a sacrament after Christ came.
Eucharist was the second. It first appeared on Maundy Thursday.
Baptism is ambiguous. The baptism of John was not sacramental. I believe that it became a sacrament after the resurrection.
Ordination can be seen between the resurrection and Thomas's acceptance of that fact. It can also be seen at the beginning of Acts (before confirmation).
Confirmation can be seen at Pentacost/at the Baptism of Cornelius.
"Extreme Unction" or "Anointing of the sick" is seen in James.
Confession is a bit ambiguous. It clearly was a sacrament in the Ante-Nicene period, but it did not gain its current form until several centuries later. Meanwhile the basic form of the other sacraments was codified much earlier.

Response to edit:

There is little evidence to suggest that what are now called "the seven sacraments" were not always called sacraments. That said, I believe this document might be of use.

  In Greek Christianity these various Christian rites were called "mysteries"* [i.e. things to be hidden from unbelievers] and the exact number of them was defined in a variety of ways. Even though Orthodox Christians today will usually agree that there are seven sacraments, but will also want to include such important rituals as funerals and monastic vows as "sacramental".

The first document it links to is a

  profession of faith demanded of this Byzantine Emperor when he converted to Roman Catholicism in 1274. This seems to have been the first important Church document which listed the seven sacraments.

*The word "mystery" is a reference to Ephesians 5:32. In Latin it is rendered, "sacramentum." Generally theologians will agree that they have the same intended meaning


If Jesus ascended to heaven as Michael the angel why is he still called a man?

His role on this earth was as a man, and he may properly be referred to in this way.

1 Corinthians 15:45-47

  So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living person." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However, what is spiritual is not first. What is physical is first, and afterward what is spiritual.  The first man is from the earth and made of dust; the second man is from heaven.

Thus, Jesus is both "a life-giving spirit" and "the second man".


There is no difficulty in identifying godly men during past centuries, men who were called and who taught the gospel without apology or excuse.  Their ministry was blessed by God.  For example:

Martin Luther – 1483 to 1546

John Calvin – 1509 to 1564

John Bunyan – 1628 to 1688

Jonathan Edwards – 1703 to 1758

John Newton – 1725 to 1807

George Whitfield – 1714 to 1770

William Huntington – 1745 to 1813

Charles Spurgeon – 1834 to 1892

During the 1900’s, revival came to Wales, Scotland and England.  We may not know the names or even the identity of those ministers who brought the gospel into those godless corners of the United Kingdom, but we do know that God blessed them and that many came to saving faith.  For example:

  Overflow of the Welsh Revival in the 1920’s - Characteristics of the 1921 Revival.

  Praise. Services were characterized by joyful singing (Edwards p 142.) The men sang on the boats. The sound of hymn singing could be heard as the boats were coming home then those on the shore and those in the boats would sing together.
  Spontaneity. Services consisted of praise, prayer, testimony, preaching and appeal.  Services went on for hours and were spontaneous, not organized.
  Preaching. People would be weeping over their lost condition in the singing before the preaching began. The preaching focused on the message of the cross and the new birth. “Our need and God’s deed” they called it.
  Prayer. The revival was preceded in every place by fervent prayer – sometimes for years.  At the tiny village of Whinnyfold in Aberdeenshire prayer for revival had been going on since 1900.  In Cairnbulg there was a 6.60-9.30am prayer meeting every Sunday. Edwards p 126. At Peterhead there was a 6.30am prayer meeting every Sunday. Prayer caused expectancy to rise.
  Unity. There was a tremendous unity between church leaders and churches. Jock Troup and Douglas Brown would stand together in the pulpit in Lowestoft praying and weeping together.
  Lives Transformed. Whole crews were converted and lives totally transformed. God also came on those already saved and changed them. David Cordiner was a very quiet lad, converted at 13 before this time. He felt God now called him to preach. All his friends and family told him he couldn’t do it but God set him free to preach powerfully night after night.  Source: http://www.oasischurchperth.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Scottish-Revivals-1905-and-1921.pdf

  Revival in the Hebrides on the island of Lewis (December 1949) - The revival in Lewis is the last (most recent) move of God in the British Isles where "God came down" in transforming power.  In November 1949 two old women, one of them 84 years of age and the other 82 - one of them stone blind, were greatly burdened because of the appalling state of their own parish.  It was true that not a single young person attended public worship. Not a single young man or young woman went to the church. Those two women were greatly concerned and they made it a special matter of prayer.  Their prayers were answered in a most powerful way. Source: https://www.christianstogether.net/Articles/94936/Christians_Together_in/Christian_Life/Revival_in_the.aspx

Personally, I can only think of one Trinitarian, Protestant and Evangelical minister who fits the description of a man called by God, to whom Christ revealed himself and whose experience testifies to that calling.  He was the minister at the U.K. Baptist Church where I was led by God’s Spirit, and under whose ministry I became a Christian and, through God’s grace, came to saving faith.  He would not thank me for naming him.  Suffice to say he came out of those Welsh valleys that saw revival in the early 1900’s.  We could do with a few more like him, is all I can say.  Sadly, he has now retired.


Could Jesus have sweated actual blood in the garden of Gethsemane?

Yes. Modern medical knowledge confirms the condition and the cause reported by the physician Luke using the word egeneto to describe how sweat became blood.

Turns out that recently the National Institutes of Health issued this report:

A Curious Case of Sweating Blood  (ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)

Excerpt:

  Hematohidrosis is a very rare condition in which an individual sweats blood. It may occur in an individual who is suffering from extreme levels of stress. Various causative factors have been suggested like component of systemic disease, vicarious menstruation, excessive exertion, psychogenic, and unknown causes. Fear and intense mental contemplation are the most frequent causes.

Taken in context it is clear he was certainly in "intense mental contemplation."

In studying the Interlinear of this section, the answer seems to be that his sweat becomes blood drops:

Luke 22 Interlinear

Written by the physician Luke, "egeneto ho hidros ... hiamotos" - "became the sweat...blood"


How do the Jehovah's witnesses reconcile Isaiah 44:24 with their belief that Jesus is the only direct creation of God?

Jehovah’s Witnesses DON’T believe that Jesus created all other things. Jehovah alone was the creator.  We DO believe that.

Colossians 1:15-16 (NWT) ............ All other things have been created through him and for him.

Notice through him not by him. Take a look at
Insight Vol 2

  If the estimates of modern-day scientists as to the age of the physical universe are anywhere near correct, Jesus’ existence as a spirit creature began thousands of millions of years prior to the creation of the first human. (Compare Mic 5:2.) This firstborn spirit Son was used by his Father in the creation of all other things. (Joh 1:3; Col 1:16, 17) This would include the millions of other spirit sons of Jehovah God’s heavenly family (Da 7:9, 10; Re 5:11), as well as the physical universe and the creatures originally produced within it. Logically, it was to this firstborn Son that Jehovah said: “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness.” (Ge 1:26) All these other created things were not only created “through him” but also “for him,” as God’s Firstborn and the “heir of all things.” —Col 1:16; Heb 1:2.
  Not a co-Creator. The Son’s share in the creative works, however, did not make him a co-Creator with his Father. The power for creation came from God through his holy spirit, or active force. (Ge 1:2; Ps 33:6) And since Jehovah is the Source of all life, all animate creation, visible and invisible, owes its life to him. (Ps 36:9) Rather than a co-Creator, then, the Son was the agent or instrumentality through whom Jehovah, the Creator, worked. Jesus himself credited God with the creation, as do all the Scriptures. —Mt 19:4-6

The fact that Jesus played a role Under the direction of the ultimate creator does not take away from the fact that Jehovah alone is the creator.

The context of Isaiah 44 is not dealing with the subject of how Jehovah accomplished creation. It is establishing him as the Almighty Creator.

So the answer is there is not a textual discrepancy between saying all other things were created through Jesus and Jehovah saying in Isaiah I alone created the heavens. The source of dynamic energy responsible for every creation is Jehovah the eternally existing Almighty God. The methodology and instrumentality used in creation need not be mentioned by Jehovah when he declares he created the heavens.

That’s the basics of JWs answer.

A very detailed answer to this question was written about 7 years ago on Yahoo Answers it was reposted on this site which is easier to  access.


What does Catholic Church teach about the interpretation of the metaphor of "salt of the earth?"

St. Thomas Aquinas's commentary on Matthew 5:13 gives four reasons for why the Apostles can be compared to salt:

The first reason is on account of the production of salt, which comes from both the wind and the sun’s heat: for spiritual generation is from the water of Baptism and the power of the Holy Ghost; “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (Jn. 3, 5). And the production of salt comes from the heat of the sun, meaning from the fervor of love which is from the Holy Ghost; “The charity of God is poured forth in our hearts, by the Holy Ghost who is given to us” (Rom. 5, 5). Secondly, it is on account of the utilities of salt, of which the first is its use, that all things are seasoned with salt: hence, it signifies the wisdom which apostolic men ought to have; “The wisdom of doctrine is according to her name, and she is not manifest unto many, but with them to whom she is known, she continueth even to the sight of God” (Eccli. 6, 23), and, “Walk with wisdom towards them that are without, redeeming the time” (Col. 4, 5). The second use13 was that in every sacrifice salt was added (Lev. 2, 13),14 because apostolic teaching ought to be reflected in our every deed. The third use is that it absorbs excess moisture and by this preserves from putrefaction. In this way the Apostles were restraining carnal concupiscences by their teaching; “The time past is sufficient to have fulfilled the will of the Gentiles, for them who have walked in riotousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings and unlawful worshipping of idols” (I Pet. 4, 3), and, “Let us walk honestly, as in the day: not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and impurities, not in contention and envy” (Rom. 13, 13). The fourth effect of salt is that it makes the ground sterile. Hence, it is said that some conquerors oversowed salt outside a city which they captured so that nothing would grow. In like manner, also the Gospel teaching makes the ground sterile, namely, so that earthly works do not spring up in us; “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness: but rather reprove them” (Eph. 5, 11). Therefore, the Apostles are called salt because they have pungency for withdrawing from sins; “Have salt in you: and have peace among you” (Mk. 9, 49).
But someone could say, ‘It suffices that I have salt.’ But on the contrary, it is necessary that the power of salt keep you from sin, and for this He cites four reasons. The first is taken from its incorrigibility, and hence it is said, But if the salt lose its savor, wherewith shall it be salted? Those things properly lose their savor that lose their strength: just as strong wine sometimes loses its strength, so salt sometimes loses its pungency; “But if the salt become unsavoury, wherewith will you season it?” (Mk. 9, 49). Hence, one then loses his savor when he is guilty of sin; “They became vain in their thoughts. And their foolish heart was darkened” (Rom. 1, 21). If, therefore, on account of tribulations or some other reason you withdraw from virtue, in what shall you be salted, meaning in what other thing will you be salted with salt? For if the people sin they can be corrected, but if a prelate sins, no one can reform him; “How long will they be incapable of being cleansed?” (Os. 8, 5). And it ought to be observed that in Luke 14, 34, it is said: “But if the salt shall become tasteless (infatuatum)”:15 For it is great foolishness (fatuitas) to relinquish eternal things for temporal things.
The second reason is taken from its utility, hence, it is said: It is good for nothing, and He explains this in Luke 14, 35, where it is said: “Neither profitable for the land nor for the dunghill,” because it makes the land sterile and does not fertilize it. So spiritual men, when they sin, are able to do nothing, because they are not able to do secular business as soldiers or men of this kind are able to do; “Son of man, what shall be made of the wood of the vine…? Shall wood be taken of it, to do any work, or shall a pin be made of it for any vessel to hang thereon? Behold it is cast into the fire for fuel… shall it be useful for any work?” (Ez. 15, 2-4), and, “They are all gone aside, they are become unprofitable together” (Ps. 13, 3).
The third reason is taken from the imminent danger, and it has two branches according to two dangers. The first is expulsion, hence: but to be cast out, namely, from the Church; “Without are dogs and sorcerers and unchaste and murderers and servers of idols and every one that loveth and maketh a lie” (Apoc. 22, 15). Likewise, the dignity of priestly teaching is taken away from him; “Because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will reject thee, that thou shalt not do the office of priesthood to me” (Osee 4, 6), and, “Therefore I say to you that the kingdom of God shall be taken from you and shall be given to a nation yielding the fruits thereof” (below 21, 43), and so it is said, but to be cast out. The second danger is being made worthless, because they who firstly live supernaturally and fail, become contemptible, and so it is said: and to be trodden on by men; “This man began to build and was not able to finish” (Lk. 14, 30), and, “You have departed out of the way, and have caused many to stumble at the law: you have made void the covenant of Levi, saith the Lord of hosts. Therefore have I also made you contemptible, and base before all people, as you have not kept my ways” (Mal. 2, 8-9). And it ought to be observed, according to Augustine,16 that if some holy men are made worthless, as it is said above, “And they shall speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake” (5, 11), still they can never be trodden on, because they always have their hearts in heaven, and they are properly trodden on who lie on the earth.


What is the specific meaning of "believe" in John 3:16?

To believe in Jesus is not the same as to believe about Him. To believe in Jesus means to trust Him, to entrust and commit ourselves to Him, to lay hold, to lean, and to rely upon Him. This includes believing that whatever He says is the truth.


What is the Old Testament Biblical basis to the idea that only God can forgive sins?

Under the Jewish theocracy, wilful disregard of the positive, or wilful infraction of the negative, commands of God as proclaimed by Moses and interpreted by the Rabbis; it thus includes crimes against God and crimes against society or an individual member thereof.
…
The earliest Biblical conception of what constituted sin is illustrated by the story of Adam's punishment, which was due to his failure to obey the divine will and his revolt against the divine government.
The catastrophe of the Flood was a punishment for man's demoralization and corruption, his violence and immorality (see Gen. vi. 11, 12).
The builders of the Tower of Babel revolted against divine government, and were dispersed (see Gen. xi. 1-9).
Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for their heinous crimes: "The men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly" (Gen. xiii. 13): they were "wicked" in civil matters, "sinners" in blasphemy "exceedingly," with full appreciation of the enormity of their sins (Sanh. 109a).
The Egyptians were punished for the sin of enslaving the Israelites, and for not heeding the command of God to release them.
The most serious sin of the Israelites was the worship of the golden calf, contrary to God's commandments delivered from Sinai.
Korah rebelled against the authority of Moses, and of the Levites, priests by the choice of God.
The Canaanites practised incest and immorality: "For they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them" (Lev. xx. 23); "But for the wickedness of these nations the Lord thy God doth drive them out from before thee" (Dout. ix. 5).
…
Jewish theology does not admit that there is an unpardonable sin. The Mishnah says that sins are expiated (1) by sacrifice, (2) by repentance at death or on Yom Kippur, (3) in the case of the lighter transgressions of the positive or negative precepts, by repentance at any time.
— SIN - JewishEncyclopedia.com

The dominant theme here is that sin is willful disobedience of God's commandments.
As 1 John 3 explains it in the New Testament:

Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Sin is disrespecting God.
The idea that anyone other than God himself could forgive direct attacks against him just doesn't make sense.
Suppose someone did something awful against you.
Would it make sense for me to forgive them?
Would you ever consider delegating someone else to offer forgiveness every time someone hurts you?
Or consider the reverse analogy.
Would it ever make sense to delegate your ability to love someone to a third person?


When did the pronunciation of "Jesus" change?

It was a mispronunciation of a European (i.e. German/Old English) spelling of Jesus. Before the 1600s "Js" were pronounced "Y" - as in the name Jürgen. In fact, the letter "J" is extant in no alphabet until the 14th Century. The Greek Ίησους (Yeh-sus) was written "Jesus", but pronounced the same (that is, with a "Y") until after the 1630s when the letter J was generally pronounced "dje". This accounts for the change in pronunciation.

This also accounts for why in the 1611 KJV, all the "J - names" (e.g. Jesus, James) were written with an "I" (e.g. Iesus, Iames).

If you're interested, the English/German form is actually taken from the Latin Iesus, hence the "us" ending, rather than a "ous" ending. The name in Hebrew is ישוע (Yeshua, a shortened form of Yehoshua), which is where we get the name Joshua from. :-)


What is the difference between Docetism and Manichaenism concerning the Incarnation?

Docetism can best be thought of as one of the Christological heresies into which Manichaenism falls.

Docetism is very specific Christological heresy.  It is a Gnostic idea that Jesus was never born, nor was he ever matter.  Gnostics believed that all matter was inherently evil, and therefore it was anathema to them that God could become matter.  In order to avoid this distasteful idea, the Gnostics presupposed that Jesus was merely a "phantasm" an apparation of light that looked like a person.  In other words, Jesus only appeared to be a man, which is what docetism means.

Manus, a Persian Philosopher had an entire (if heretical) belief system which included several gnostic ideas.  Like the Gnostics, he too believed that matter was evil and therefore God could not be born or incarnate in material form.  As such, it is most proper to say that the philosophy / religion of Manichaenism includes a docetic Christology.


Do Anglicans use Latin anymore? If so, how much and for what?

Anglicans do not use Latin for any form of normal worship service or for any normal purposes.

The 24th article of the foundational articles of the Anglican church states:

  It is a thing plainly repugnant to the Word of God, and the custom of the Primitive Church, to have public Prayer in the Church, or to minister the Sacraments in a tongue not understanded of the people.

In other words, services should be in a language the people can understand. There are pretty much no communities where Latin is understood by most people. People who disagreed with this mostly left the Anglican church for the Roman church decades if not centuries ago.

The only exceptions I am aware of are when Choral Masses are sung as a service, particularly Requiem Masses, which use the Latin text.This only happens in churches with professional choirs.

Having said that, Latin is not entirely useless in the Anglican church. Many churches are old enough to have Latin inscriptions on the walls and windows, and some traditional prayers and psalms are still known by the first two words of their Latin version, for example "Venite, Exulatamus Domino", and some might still refer to the Lord's Prayer as "Paternoster".


What would be the best version of the bible for me?

The major translations of the Bible are the King James Version (KJV), the New International Version (NIV), the New American Standard (NAS), the New King James Version (NKJV), the English Standard Version (ESV), and the New Living Translation (NLT).

The KJV and NAS attempt to take the underlying Hebrew and Greek words and translate them into the closest corresponding English words as possible (word for word), while the NIV and NLT attempt to take the original thought that was being presented in Greek and Hebrew and then express that thought in English (thought for thought).  There are pros and cons to each type - the article will help to explain.

You may find this article helpful - it gives insights into these different translations. https://www.gotquestions.org/most-accurate-Bible-translation.html

For more detailed information into the history of how the Bible has been translated, and what those translations are, please refer to this article: https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-versions.html

I realise this presents you with more information than you might need, but, if you are to make an informed decision as to which Bible to buy, then this is a good way to go about it.  One thing I would recommend is that you buy a Bible which contains cross-references, maps, a concordance and so much more to make the Bible come alive and to answer questions that will undoubtedly arise as to start to read.


Monasticism was unknown until the end of the third century. Paul expressed that he preferred celibacy, but there was no "command from the Lord" to remain unmarried. (Simon) Peter, according to Catholic tradition the first Pope, was himself married.

  Luke 4:38 And he arose out of the synagogue, and entered into Simon's
  house. And Simon's wife's mother was taken with a great fever; and
  they besought him for her.

  MATTHEW 8:14 And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his
  wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever.

Widows were treated with special respect, but encouraged to remarry and bear children if still within child bearing age. More emphasis was placed on missionary and charity work than meditation or spiritual development.

Over time, the custom developed of going into the desert (or otherwise being alone), when faced with an important life decision, a desire to commune with God, etc. These people were called hermits, a term which means "desert dwellers". The most famous of these early hermits was Anthony of Egypt (251-356). Athanasius' Life of St. Anthony began to make the hermit life popular, both because it portrayed it as a path to eternal life, and because Anthony was portrayed as an athlete for Christ, a heroic figure.

Now there were so many hermits that it was starting to get crowded. A hermit named Pachomius (290-346) instituted some rules; that the monks should live in isolated huts, produce their own food and clothing, and should never speak to one another. Because they were no longer dependent on public charity, their growth was unlimited, and monasteries and monks began to spread rapidly.


According to LCMC Lutheranism, why is human imagination considered evil, when unsaved people do some amazingly good things?

This issue is addressed in the Augsburg Confession, which the LCMC accepts as "normative for our teaching and practice," like many other Lutheran groups.   First we'll briefly look at the "evil human imaginations" part of this, before looking more closely at why unsaved people can accomplish good things, which seems to be the main point of your question.
Evil imaginations
You've actually provided plenty of evidence for "why the human imagination is considered evil" by Lutherans; they cite similar passages as well as the writings of the church fathers to defend the statement found in AC II:

since the fall of Adam all men begotten in the natural way are born with sin, that is, without the fear of God, without trust in God, and with 2] concupiscence; and that this disease, or vice of origin, is truly sin, even now condemning and bringing eternal death upon those not born again through Baptism and the Holy Ghost.

"Concupiscence" is not a word we normally use, but the Defense of the Confession explains that it is that "which seeks carnal things contrary to God's Word" – that is, the natural desires of man tend naturally toward sin.  These things are "abiding defects"; our hearts are "naturally destitute of love, fear, and confidence in God."  The full defense of article II cites 1 Corinthians 2:14, Romans 7:5, and other passages, as well as several church fathers.
Good things done by the unsaved
So how, then, is anything "good" done by unbelievers?  This issue is addressed in Article 18.  It opens by accepting that even sinful man can do "civil righteousness," but not "spiritual righteousness":

Of Free Will [our churches] teach that man's will has some liberty to choose civil righteousness, and to work 2] things subject to reason. But it has no power, without the Holy Ghost, to work the righteousness of God, that is, spiritual righteousness;

This is because the "natural man," or man in his unsaved state, cannot be spiritually righteous without the Spirit of God:

since the natural man 3] receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, 1 Cor. 2:14; but this righteousness is wrought in the heart when the Holy Ghost is received 4] through the Word.

The Confession appeals to Augustine on this point, and quotes him as arguing that it is "reason" that allows men to perform many "good" "works of this life," and that category includes many positive things that are accomplished by the unsaved:

We grant that all men have a free will, free, inasmuch as it has the judgment of reason; not that it is thereby capable, without God, either to begin, or, at least, to complete aught in things pertaining to God, but only in works of this life, whether good 5] or evil. "Good" I call those works which spring from the good in nature, such as, willing to labor in the field, to eat and drink, to have a friend, to clothe oneself, to build a house, to marry a wife, to raise cattle, to learn diverse useful arts, or whatsoever good 6]pertains to this life.

We might ask, what is the source of these "good" things?  Augustine (and Augsburg) continue by saying that it is the providence of God:

For all of these things are not without dependence on the providence of God; yea, of Him and through Him they are and have their being.

This is an expression of the doctrine of common grace, which teaches that God bestows many blessings (like nature and human reason) widely on mankind, not just on those that are saved.  But nature and reason have limits – because the unsaved "are born in sin" (AC II), these blessings can produce the "outward work," but

cannot produce the inward motions, such as the fear of God, trust in God, chastity, patience, etc.


First, as to the gradation of sin:

The Catholic Church recognizes that some sins are "worse" than others.  For instance, it divides sins into mortal sins and venial sins (CCC 1854-1855):

  1855: Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God's law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him.

  Venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it.

As for this division between really bad sins, and less bad sins, The Church cites the distinction already evident in Scripture (1 Jn 16-17):

  If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.

Furthermore, even within the "mortal sins", The Church makes further distinctions in regards to gravity: " The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft" (CCC 1858).
Mortal Sins

What makes a sin mortal?  The general rule stated above is that a mortal sin is one which destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God's law, turning his heart away from God.  The Church has tried to further clarify the characteristics which make a sin mortal (CCC 1857):

  For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."

a) Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments (CCC 1858).

b) Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent (CCC 1859).  The older term "material sin" was used in circumstances where one of these two were lacking.
Has the seriousness of sin changed?

Objectively speaking, the seriousness of sin has not changed.  To kill a man is just as objectively evil as has ever been (for instance).

However, the guilt assigned to the sinner for his sins may indeed change from time to time, or be different from culture to culture; this has to do with "full knowledge" and "complete consent".

Imagine a society where watching pornography is fairly common.  Those born into this society, and who are not taught otherwise, might come to believe that watching pornography is not a sin --- or if a sin, a very minor one, like being impolite to your parents.  Such a person would clearly get the facts wrong.  But it may really be possible for such a person to come to be ignorant about the gravity of this offense.  The Church teaches that in such cases the guilt may be diminished (CCC 1860):

  Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.

But supposing that, on the contrary, there were civil laws that made it rather difficult to obtain access to pornographic materials.  Then a person couldn't claim ignorance (or at least couldn't claim full ignorance): for in trying to violate the norm he would most likely inquire as to the reason for the ban in law of the prohibited action, or at least be nebulously aware that the act in question is seen as wrong in some way, and that would awaken his conscience into action (if this person be morally mature at least to some extent).  And in any case, it could not be said that such a person acted without "deliberate intent".  But if there was free intent, then there was consent.

On the other hand, in a society which doesn't prohibit access to pornography and/or makes it readily available as an acceptable choice, the conscience of him who wishes to access pornography and who has never been taught that access to pornography is wrong might not be awakened nor disturbed to the sin he is attempting.  Nor might his conscience/reason/mind give him the opportunity to deliberate as to what he is attempting is wrong, or whether he consents to it: for instance, he might access pornography to an extent because his friends are doing it and not based on a careful analysis of his actions.

Thus, given the circumstances of time, place, culture, education, upbringing, cultural influences, our own psychological make-up, and sometimes our own passions, etc. the guilt imputed to the sinner for a particular sin may indeed be diminished.  Notice, however, that THIS IS NOT A GOOD RESULT.  The objective evil of the sin remains just as bad!  The fact that people and societies do not perceive the full nature of their actions is not a sign of health, but of decay.  It is the action of The Evil One leading people astray.  And the fact that God doesn't punish these sins as badly as they deserve has nothing to do with the how holy (or how sanctified) the particular person who commits them is --- on the contrary, it has everything to do with His Mercy and how spiritually sick the sinner is.
"A World Without Sin" (Assuming one believes all the foregoing).

One particular (evil) route towards people being free of the guilt of sin might go as follows: Corrupt society and its education so much that all individuals lose any inkling as to good and evil; then any and all of their actions will be entirely devoid of any considerations or knowledge about the divine law; and thus, the argument goes, they will be entirely free of any guilt due to sin.

This will not work, because:

a) As The Church teaches (CCC 1860), the moral law is written deeply into the hearts of men, and as such it is not easily eradicated.  The promptings of our conscience in regards to the moral law will always be there, even if severely muffled by the culture around us.  Certainly men can be taught to ignore these promptings, much like they can be taught to ignore (certain amount of) pain, but it is not a given that all men will ignore their consciences forever, and those who don't will inevitably speak up (if given an opportunity).  Yes, these men can be silenced as good men are always silenced in despotic regimes, but this silencing will have to be continuous throughout the existence of this culture.

b) Even if such cultural programme can be carried out, I don't think that the society which puts it into effect will survive in the long term.  After all, disobedience to the entirety of the moral law cannot lead to a flourishing society, but rather to unmitigated chaos.  In a society where anyone can lie in open court about the action of his neighbor, where anyone can feel free to hunt his neighbor (before kidnapping his neighbor's wife for himself), or where no authority higher than oneself is recognized --- such a society cannot last for very long.

c) As The Church teaches (CCC 1860), the "full knowledge" clause applies to unintentional ignorance.  If one intentionally makes oneself ignorant of the implications of the moral law, or if one intentionally forgoes educating oneself in these implications in order to avoid the responsibilities therefrom (as the proposal suggests), one doesn't avoid the guilt and/or penalties of sin.

c) Finally, let's look at the original assumption behind the suggestion.  The assumption behind the proposal is to avoid guilt/punishment for the sins committed and not necessarily to come closer to God and grow in holiness.  Clearly this is not a very mature motivation for a Christian!  To forgo flourishing in order to gain the pity of God in regards to our sins is analogous to the idiot who intentionally makes himself blind in order to obtain the societal benefits that are given the blind because they are at a disadvantage.
Conclusion

There is nothing I know that says that sins "lose their potency" as times goes by, or as societies become more "evolved" or "enlightened".  A sin remains as evil as ever objectively speaking.

Now, there can certainly be an appearance that some sins are less wrong today than they used to be --- and this is nothing but an optical illusion --- because (I think):

a) They are more common in our society today than they used to be --- The Evil One has certainly been making advances of late in some areas ---, and

b) People have an intuitive notion that their sin is less grave because it is now more common.  People who think so are intuitively picking up on the fact that under the new circumstances they can have less knowledge about the nature of their actions and they can have less deliberate intent to commit them.  But they are wrong in thinking that their now common sin is less grave.  It remains as grave as ever --- it remains as evil as ever.  What they are intuitively trying to grasp is that they are imputed less guilt now for their evil deed than they had been in the past because now they have some mitigating circumstances.  In other words, people confuse the gravity of the sin with the amount of responsibility they have for it.  Their responsibility for the sin may be diminished, and therefore they conclude that the gravity of the sin has diminished --- But this is incorrect.  The evil of an action and the harshness of the punishment for it are different things.


According to the Catholic Church, is it a sin to marry your cousin?

"Consanguinity is a diriment impediment of marriage as far as
the fourth degree of kinship inclusive."
See the table at the end of this article for how 4° kinship is
determined, or this table:
The Council of Trent's session on marriage defined the dogma that the Church has the authority to make impediments:Canon IV.—If any one saith, that the Church could not establish impediments dissolving marriage; or, that she has erred in establishing them: let him be anathema.


What are the theological implications of "filioque"?

The filioque is meant as a theological explanation of the relationship between the Spirit and the Son. The Bible tells us that the Son is begotten from the Father, and that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, but any curious Trinitarian is going to wonder what the Spirit-Son relationship is. And the West, as a rule, is much more interested in nailing down theological specifics than the East.

As far as theology following from it, the filioque has led some western theologians to suggest that the Holy Spirit is the love between the Father and the Son, a love so strong that it is an actual person, which is an interesting thought.

The Orthodox have some doctrinal objections to it, largely that it makes the Holy Spirit a subordinate or less important member of the Trinity:

  The filioque distorts Orthodox Triadology by making the Spirit a
  subordinate member of the Trinity. Traditional Triadology consists in
  the notion that for any given trait, it must be either common to all
  Persons of the Trinity or unique to one of them. Thus, Fatherhood is
  unique to the Father, while begottenness is unique to the Son, and
  procession unique to the Spirit. Godhood, however, is common to all,
  as is eternality, uncreatedness, and so forth. Positing that something
  can be shared by two Persons (i.e., being the source of the Spirit's
  procession) but not the other is to elevate those two Persons at the
  expense of the other. Thus, the balance of unity and diversity is
  destroyed.

Historically, though, the contention has been at least as much about church authority as it has been about theology. The original creed (from the ecumenical councils at Nicea and Constantinople) did not include the filioque, and when the bishop of Rome unilaterally sanctioned its use, Eastern bishops saw that as something totally outside his authority to do.


What is the difference between the grave and Hades?

You did not ask, "What is the meaning of 'the grave'?" or "What is Hades?", so I won't answer those questions.

Simple answer: the difference between "the grave" and "Hades" depends on what translation of the Bible you are reading. In the NIV, there is usually no difference between "the grave" and "Hades". It seems that the NIV mostly uses "the grave" in the Old Testament, and mostly Hades in the New Testament; in both testaments, it often uses "the realm of the dead", but these three refer to the same thing.

The NIV regularly translates the Hebrew word sheol as "the grave".
Here's a page that lists all NIV translations of the Hebrew sheol: http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H7585&t=NIV (click the links for "Continued Search Results" for more results). In contrast, the NIV normally transliterates the Greek word hades as "Hades", though it sometimes renders it as "the realm of the dead": http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G86&t=NIV. However, these two words are the same, as is seen in the fact that the Septuagint translates sheol as hades. (The Septuagint is the Greek translation of the Old Testament that the New Testament normally quotes from.) As I mentioned, in both testaments it often renders either word as "the realm of the dead".

For the verses that you quoted, please note that in the NIV, "the grave" is different from just "grave" or "graves". In particular, "the grave" as a translation of Sheol/Hades seems to occur only in the Old Testament; in the New Testament, the NIV mostly uses Hades. "Graves" in John 5:28-29 is from a completely different Greek word (mnēmeion), which is often translated as "tomb": http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3419&t=NIV. It should be understood as grave or tomb in the literal, physical sense.

A side note: if you want to do word studies like this, I recommend that you not use the NIV. Although it is quite readable, it is very inconsistent and often inaccurate. Rather, I recommend more literal yet highly readable translations like the Recovery Version and the New King James Version. I say this from my personal experience. My first five years as a Christian I used the NIV almost exclusively, but the more I got into word studies with interlinear Bibles and Greek and Hebrew, the more I realized how inaccurate and inconsistent the NIV was. I eventually dropped it completely. (And the TNIV which came later is in fact much worse than the original NIV.)


What does Catholic Church say about the post-resurrection wound marks of Jesus?

St. Thomas Aquinas addresses the question of "Whether Christ's body ought to have risen with its scars?" in Summa Theologica III q. 54 a. 4. He gives five reasons (c.):

  It was fitting for Christ's soul at His Resurrection to resume the body with its scars.

  for Christ's own glory. For Bede says on Lk. 24:40 that He kept His scars not from inability to heal them, "but to wear them as an everlasting trophy of His victory." Hence Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xxii):Perhaps in that kingdom we shall see on the bodies of the Martyrs the traces of the wounds which they bore for Christ's name: because it will not be a deformity, but a dignity in them; and a certain kind of beauty will shine in them, in the body, though not of the body.
  to confirm the hearts of the disciples as to "the faith in His Resurrection" (Bede, on Lk. 24:40).
  "that when He pleads for us with the Father, He may always show the manner of death He endured for us" (Bede, on Lk. 24:40).
  "that He may convince those redeemed in His blood, how mercifully they have been helped, as He exposes before them the traces of the same death" (Bede, on Lk. 24:40).
  "that in the Judgment-day He may upbraid them with their just condemnation" (Bede, on Lk. 24:40). Hence, as Augustine says (De Symb. ii):Christ knew why He kept the scars in His body. For, as He showed them to Thomas who would not believe except he handled and saw them, so will He show His wounds to His enemies, so that He who is the Truth may convict them, saying:Behold the man whom you crucified; see the wounds you inflicted; recognize the side you pierced, since it was opened by you and for you, yet you would not enter.


Do the theological virtues apply to mundane situations?

Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., explains the difference between the moral virtues and the theological virtues in part 1, ch. 3, art. 2 of his Three Ages of the Interior Life:

  The theological virtues are infused virtues which have for their object God Himself, our supernatural last end. This is why they are called theological. By contrast, the moral virtues have for their object the supernatural means proportioned to our last end. Thus prudence directs our acts to this end; religion makes us render to God the worship that is due Him; justice makes us give to everyone what we owe him; fortitude and temperance regulate the sensible part of our soul to prevent it from going astray and to make it cooperate, according to its manner, in our progress toward God.

Thus, although the natural and supernatural orders are absolutely distinct and independent of each other (i.e., grace, which raises us to the supernatural level, is entirely freely given by God; it doesn't spring out of human nature), moral virtues do help us achieve our supernatural end.

Human faith would more likely fall under the moral virtue of prudence; it is reasonable to trust trustworthy people.

Regarding agape: Love of humans must be for God's sake, not solely "for humanity"'s sake (else it would be idolatry, i.e., loving a creature for its own sake); this proper order of charity is seen in Matthew 22:37-39:

  Thou shalt love [αγαπήσεις] the Lord thy God with thy whole heart and with thy whole soul and with thy whole mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love [αγαπήσεις] thy neighbour as thyself.


What are indulgences and when and why were they used?

A good introduction to indulgences can be found here. A more thorough explanation can be found in the Catholic Encyclopedia. I will try to extract a few basic points.

  To facilitate explanation, it may be well to state what an indulgence is not. It is not a permission to commit sin, nor a pardon of future sin; neither could be granted by any power. It is not the forgiveness of the guilt of sin; it supposes that the sin has already been forgiven. It is not an exemption from any law or duty, and much less from the obligation consequent on certain kinds of sin, e.g., restitution; on the contrary, it means a more complete payment of the debt which the sinner owes to God. It does not confer immunity from temptation or remove the possibility of subsequent lapses into sin. Least of all is an indulgence the purchase of a pardon which secures the buyer's salvation or releases the soul of another from Purgatory. The absurdity of such notions must be obvious to any one who forms a correct idea of what the Catholic Church really teaches on this subject.

In Catholic theology there are two kinds of punishment for sins The first is eternal punishment in which the sinner is separated from God forever. The price of this punishment has been paid for all Christians by Christ. There is however a 'temporal punishment' for sins committed by Christians, as a "repayment of debt" for the sin. This punishment is served in Purgatory for a certain amount of time, after death. Indulgences (which comes from the Latin for a debt repayment) are a way for the person to pay that debt in their earthly life. The punishment of the first kind is a part of almost all Christian theology. The punishment of the second kind is largely specific to Catholicism.

  In the Sacrament of Baptism not only is the guilt of sin remitted, but also all the penalties attached to sin. In the Sacrament of Penance the guilt of sin is removed, and with it the eternal punishment due to mortal sin; but there still remains the temporal punishment required by Divine justice, and this requirement must be fulfilled either in the present life or in the world to come, i.e., in Purgatory. An indulgence offers the penitent sinner the means of discharging this debt during his life on earth.

Most non-Catholics have encountered the concept only as an object against which the Reformers protested. However even then the protest was largely against the sale of indulgences, a matter which the church does and did consider an abuse.

  These measures show plainly that the Church long before the Reformation, not only recognized the existence of abuses, but also used her authority to correct them.
  In spite of all this, disorders continued and furnished the pretext for attacks directed against the doctrine itself, no less than against the practice of indulgences. Here, as in so many other matters, the love of money was the chief root of the evil: indulgences were employed by mercenary ecclesiastics as a means of pecuniary gain.

Indulgences are very old, going back to at least the third century of the church. Indulgences are still granted today, though not in any form that would be familiar from a popular account of the Reformation. They are typically proclaimed for specific religious acts. For example in the Jubilee years 1983 and 2000 indulgences were proclaimed for those visiting certain shrines in Rome and other places.

cf. X. INDULGENCES | Catechism of the Catholic Church.


I believe your question is focused enough that few of the many sects represented on this site would fundmentally disagree with my answer, so I'll provide it.

Suicide, as you point out, means you take your own life.  It is an active choice (even when mental issues such as depression are involved1).  But where do we draw the line?  If someone sits on train tracks knowing a train will come because they no longer wish to live, it's suicide.  If someone throws themselves on a grenade to protect others, it's not.

In other words, suicide is defined more by the reason for dying than it is the act of dying.

Jesus had no desire to die.  His prayer in Gethsemene proves that.  "Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done." (Luke 22:42)

Of the many things that made Jesus the Son of God, one is that He had the choice to live.  All other people who have and will live on earth only have the choice to die.  We can, if we so choose, decide the moment of our deaths.  But none of us, facing that moment, can choose to avoid it.  We can choose not to die in that we choose not to raise a gun to our heads today.  But we cannot choose to live once the trigger has been pulled.

But Jesus could choose to live.

At any moment, while hanging on the cross, He could have commanded the angels to lift him down.  He could have commanded his wounds healed.  He could have chosen to live (and was even once tempted by Lucifer to abuse this power, Matt 4:6).  But the atonment required a willing sacrifice — a person willing to throw themselvs upon the proverbial grenade to protect others — and that choice had to be absolute in every possible way.  With his last breath He could have chosen to live, but the rest of us were more important to Him than His own life.  He allowed Himself to die that we may live.  That is the essence of love.

A willing sacrifice is an act of love and respect for others.  Suicide is inherently selfish, an effort to remove oneself from burden or responsibility.2

Why a person chooses to die determines whether or not the act was one of suicide or sacrifice.

Therefore, no, Jesus did not commit suicide.  He remains guilty of no sin.  And having lived a perfect life, He has the privilege of judging all sin.  And while I do not understand all things, I believe I understand this well enough to be content with my faith.

1 As we, today, work to better understand suicide and the influences in a person's life that might lead to it we risk two extremes of opinion.  One extreme is to blame the victim, the person committing suicide, suggesting no influence could have culpability.  The other extreme is to blame the circumstances, suggesting the victim is in no way culpable.  For the sake of simplicity in this answer, since the person had to (e.g.) pick up the gun and no influence could, the victim always has some culpability.  But in my opinion, the greater judgement will be upon those who participate in the influences.  The victim may have stopped loving his or herself — but no scripture says we must do that straight out.  On the other hand, the infuencers stopped loving their neighbor, and there is a scripture that specifically commands that.

2 This is a bold, callous statement that is in many ways lacking in compassion.  I offer my apologies to anyone who has been touched by the tragedy of suicide.  My intent was not to reopen any wound, but only to be clear about the difference between sacrifice and suicide.  In my opinion, only Christ can judge if any person has truly committed suicide.  Only He can know what influences were in any individual's life.


Who are the 144,000 according to the Roman Catholic Church?

From the Catholic Editions of the Bible, the multitude means the Church, the spiritual Israel, the assembly belonging to Christ and to the Father, marked as and are the children of God, the people of God on earth praising God.

The Footnote to Revelation 7:4 Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE) has:

  hundred and forty-four thousand: A symbolic number, i.e., twelve (the sacred number) squared and multiplied by 1,000 to denote a
  multitude. It is the church, the spiritual Israel, that is meant.

And the Navarre Bible New Testament Compact Edition note on Rev 14:1-5 has in part:

  [...] The assembly includes all those who belong to Christ and to the
  Father and who therefore bear the mark which shows them to be children
  of God. They are so numerous that it is impossible to count them, but
  their number is defined and God has it in mind - the people of God
  represented by a number which is the result of multiplying 12 (tribes)
  by 12 (apostles) by 1000 (standing for a number on a huge scale); cf.
  7:3-8. They are not yet in heaven; they are on earth, where they
  praise God, uniting their voices to the praise of the heavenly
  liturgy.

The footnote to Rev 7:4 in The Jerusalem Bible Popular Edition has:

  Twelve (the sacred number) squared and multiplied by a thousand,
  representing the totality of the faithful.


Is the Book of Mormon considered to be another Gospel? (LDS perspective)

No, according to the subtitle to The Book of Mormon, it is "Another Testament of Jesus Christ", not another gospel.

Quoting from the title page of The Book of Mormon (emphasis mine):

  Which is to show unto the remnant of the house of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever—And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations

From the Introduction:

  It is a record of God’s dealings with ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains the fulness of the everlasting gospel.

It contains the fulness of the everlasting gospel, not a new gospel. Continued (emphasis mine):

  The record is now published in many languages as a new and additional witness that Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God and that all who will come unto Him and obey the laws and ordinances of His gospel may be saved.

One of the commenters asked what "Testament" means. From this, we see it means a witness, like a testimony.

When the record describes Christ visiting the Americas, He teaches basically the same Sermon on the Mount that He taught by the Sea of Galilee. And Jesus speaks of the people back in Jerusalem and why He came here to teach them the same gospel in the Americas, too.

It very much is the same gospel. Missionaries of the LDS Church preach by the Bible and Book of Mormon because the Book of Mormon does not replace the Bible; rather, they testify of each other and of the same Lord Jesus Christ.