Why did Christianity not follow Philo of Alexandria's definition of logos?

From the works of Philo we can see how he saw the logos, or word/wisdom directly and try to compare a bit with Plato and with Christ.

  But the divine word which is above these does not come into any visible appearance, inasmuch as it is not like to any of the things that come under the external senses, but is itself an image of God, the most ancient of all the objects of intellect in the whole world, and that which is placed in the closest proximity to the only truly existing God, without any partition or distance being interposed between them: for it is said, “I will speak unto thee from above the mercyseat, in the midst, between the two cherubim.”25 So that the word is, as it were, the charioteer of the powers, and he who utters it is the rider, who directs the charioteer how to proceed with a view to the proper guidance of the universe. (The works of Philo, p330)

The logos is the 'divine word' and 'most ancient of all the objects of intellect' (see quote from Philo above). This does seem similar to some degree to the archetype idea of Plato which are the 'true objects' of life. Basically those philosophers back then tried to identify with words the intelligence of nature that one saw beyond the physical object. This essence, idea or thought, or whatever was 'something' and here we find Philo associating it with 'God's image' or shadow of his person.  But it does not seem exactly to be a person necessarily.

Here is another quote from Philo about the logos:

  And even if there be not as yet any one who is worthy to be called a son of God, nevertheless let him labour earnestly to be adorned according to his first-born word, the eldest of his angels, as the great archangel of many names; for he is called, the authority, and the name of God, and the Word, and man according to God’s image, and he who sees Israel. (147) For which reason I was induced a little while ago to praise the principles of those who said, “We are all one man’s sons.”43 For even if we are not yet suitable to be called the sons of God, still we may deserve to be called the children of his eternal image, of his most sacred word; for the image of God is his most ancient word. (The works of Philo,

From Philo's words above it does start to seem that the logos is possibly a person, if we take his reference to 'the great archangel' literally. Then again its not really clear as he reverts back to the 'image' theme as the thing really meant.  Maybe that 'image' is just personalized a bit to be a sort of prime archangel symbolically. Philo does not make it clear that he sees the logos as an actual person.

So what is the big difference between this view and the Apostle's?  This is kind of obvious.  If we look at Philo's logos, it is a force or being available to all who live in accordance with it, and in that sense is a 'mediatory' between man and God. This, one could say, is in some sense a confused, shadowy admission that God has a mediator he sends to the world, who is very ancient. However Jesus was much more then this.  Jesus was an intermediator, and the word sent from God but also a 'sacrifice'.  The logos of Philo does not intend to sacrifice himself (or itself) in order to reconcile the world to God.

On the other hand, the divinity of Christ, is not a concept derived from Philo's logos, or a leap from it. Philo's logos is principally incomplete and rejected as as being a biblical truth by Christians due to its low perception of a mediator without a sacrifice.  The trinity, or with respect to the Christian 'logos', the divine eternal nature of the Son, co-equal with the Father and Spirit, is something stemming from other progressive revelation in scripture, not an offshoot of logos or philosophy directly. That this Jesus, who was a sacrificial-mediator in history, claimed 'to be God' and 'one with the Father' is probably a better foundation to query the origin of the logos-divinity concept, rather then Philo's, Socrates, or Plato's thoughts. The doctrine of the Divine Son is not really related to Philo or philosophy. The whole word may have had a weak concept of a God and his presence in the world, but only scripture reveals the trinity under any meaningful light.


Wilhelm Gesenius' vowel pointing of the tetragrammaton YHWH

He discusses the tetragrammaton at several places in the grammar.1 In §102m he includes the vowel pointing patach-šĕwă-sĕgōl that leads to our English “Yahweh”. That is: יַהְוֶה. Elsewhere throughout the grammar he either uses the unpointed יהוה or the Masoretic יְהוָֹה (šĕwă'-ḥōlem-qāmeṣ; that is, the vowels of אֲדֹנָי ʾădōnāy 2). The relationship between these forms and the nature of qere perpetuum is explained in §17c.

As noted in a comment, Gesenius’ lexicon3  also includes an entry for the tetragrammaton with discussion of the historical vocalization. He lists several possilibilities including pataḥ-ḥaṭef pataḥ-ḥōlem (something like yahăwōh) by analogy with  יַעֲקֹב (yaʿăqōb, Jacob), consistent with some ancient Greek writings indicating that the Hebrew God was ΙΑΩ (something like iaō). He also discusses some support for the vowels having been šĕwă'-ḥōlem-qāmeṣ (the Masoretic kĕtîb by way of which comes the Western “Jehovah”) and finally discusses the patach-šĕwă-sĕgōl (יַהְוֶה - yahweh), which is supported by the pointing of certain abbreviations for the divine name.

1. Gesenius-Kautzsch-Cowley, Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar (2nd edn; Clarendon Press, 1910).

2. Almost. Just in case anyone is looking too carefully, though ... the first vowel looks different (simple šĕwă in י׳ rather than ḥăṭep̄  páṯaḥ in ădōnāy), but these are related and the change is virtually required by the consonants.

3. Gesenius’s Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures. Translated by Samuel Prideaux Tregelles. (Bagster and Sons, 1857).


How could Stephen be stoned without a trial and conviction in front of the Roman Governor?

The Bible does not reveal the the legalities or illegalities of all the killings it records.  From the scanty histories available, most scholars seem to think that at the time of Pontius Pilate, only the Roman governor had the authority to order capital punishment .  We must remember, however, people back then did not enjoy the equal protection of the law we enjoy today in a democratic nation.
Politically, Rome would not have had any interest in this case, so the murderous mob may have had little to fear.  On the other hand, many people knew and admired Jesus, so there may have been some political motivation for Rome to take notice of this case and assume the duty of legal arbitration.  From Pilate's perspective, however, he may have thought that in this matter, being forgiven for an error in judgment was better than obtaining permission to make a judgment. Then, too, the crowd in its demonic hate gave Pilate a not-so-veiled threat,

"'If you release this Man, you are no friend of Caesar; everyone who makes himself out to be king opposes Caesar'" (John 19:12).

By referring to comments by Josephus, some of the better commentaries try to work out a scenario in which the lack of interest by Rome was only natural in this instance. From the Baker New Testament Commentary, p280, we read,

The question of the legality of Stephen’s death is a difficult one. By all appearances, his death is the result of mob action that the Romans did not prevent. Nevertheless, the Roman governor could conduct an inquiry, because the Jews might not administer capital punishment (John 18:31) . . .. That power belonged to the Roman governor. To illustrate: Josephus states that the Roman procurator (governor) Coponius, sent to Judea by the emperor, was “entrusted by Augustus with full powers, including the infliction of capital punishment.”
If we assume that Stephen died in A.D. 35, Pontius Pilate was still the governor of Judea. At that time Pilate’s troubles, resulting from his slaughter of numerous Samaritans at Mount Gerizim, were sufficient evidence to demand his recall (A.D. 36) at the request of Syria’s governor. . . . In this political climate, the Jews would not fear repercussions for killing Stephen. To be sure, in his last year in office Pilate had lost influence and authority in Judea.


If you are asking how is morality defined, or "who decides what is moral and immoral?" then Christians believe that God decides that, and that He makes His will known to us through various means, like the Bible, tradition, revelation, prophets, etc. Various Christian religions dissent on the exact details here.

If you are asking how people become moral, then a big, big part of morality comes from education, from family, society, etc. Morality is certainly taught and Christ is described as a teacher very clearly in the Gospels.

Its also quite evident if you look at different Faiths. Muslims truly consider immoral to eat pigs, whereas Christians wouldn't flinch. If morals were innate we would all share the same morality, which we clearly don't.


Is there a good alternative word to “performance” to describe an evangelical worship team's actions?

Set is an acceptable musical term and doesn't carry as many negative or "performance" overtones as other words may.  It can be used of a final production in front of people, a studio session (session is another good possibility), or rehearsal.  Much more important than the labels we attach, (is it congregation or audience?), is what we are doing and why we are doing it.

Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit? - Luke 6:39

As worship leader for a decade I found it was a near constant battle to keep myself in an attitude of personal worship while also striving for the highest level of "performance" of which we were capable.  At the end of the day I am firmly convinced that leading God's people in worship through any means (music in context here) is a spiritual endeavor and therefore if I am not actually worshiping the Living God I cannot hope to lead others.
Therefore, work hard in practice and rehearsal and then, on the day of the "performance", disappear into worship of the lover of your soul.


Do these videos represent JW meetings or do they have other secret/sacred meetings that are not available to public?

The YouTube link you referred to is not the official channel of Jehovah’s Witnesses.  It is a private account posted by an individual who was obviously present or received a recording of some meetings or convention programs. (I did not watch the entire videos, but At a glance it looks just like one)

ALL OF OUR MEETINGS ARE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, they are not secret, but our meetings are generally not posted online.  This link from the official website gives a thourough overview of what to expect when attending one of our meetings anywhere around the globe...

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/videos/#en/mediaitems/MeetingsConventions/pub-whkh_x_VIDEO

Besides the regular weekly meetings held at local Kingdom Halls, there are special conventions & assemblies, missionary graduations (Gilead School), Annual Meeting, etc., held at various locations around the globe.  All of these meetings are open to the public with a few exceptions due to seating limitations (such as Gilead School graduating class and the Annual Meeting) However, thanks to modern technology, those events are now either streamed live to the congregations or posted online at JW BROADCASTING (link follows)

https://tv.jw.org/#en/categories/VODProgramsEvents

There are no secret ceremonies.

What happens at a Kingdom Hall


Overall, orthodoxy is pretty loosely defined.  You may well find protestants (again, a very wide group) to come to different conclusions.  But I think in general orthodoxy is understood as teaching which falls within the bounds of what has always been considered the Christian faith.  So then what falls in that range? It is really the content of some of the great definitional statements of the church:

The Apostle's Creed
The Nicene Creed
The Formula of Chalcedon
The Athanasian Creed

Within these statements there is much defined, but also much left undefined.  For example, you will search those statements in vain trying to answer questions of:

which eschatological system is correct
should baptism be administered to infants or those who can give a credible expression of their faith?
what is the proper church government
what is the relationship between God's sovereignty and man's free will
what is the current status of Israel

Many other questions could be added to that list.  The idea is that you could have, say, a Calvinist who believes in infant baptism and covenant theology who has strong disagreements with a dispensational Arminian who only baptizes believers, but they could both acknowledge one another as brother/sister in Christ within the bounds of orthodoxy.

I hope that helps.


What scriptural evidence exists in support of our spirit's pre-mortal existence?

There is no Scriptural evidence that I find to support that claim. However, I believe that the following scripture does support the idea that not only life, but the Soul begins at conception.

  Genesis 2:7 KJV And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Many who do espouse the idea of pre-mortal existence base their assumption on:

  Jeremiah 1:5 KJV Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

That Scripture however would appear to validate God's omniscience and not mans pre-mortal existence.


How can Luke 9:49–50 be reconciled with the idea that Christ is the only way?

In verse 49, as you have quoted it, this fellow is casting out demons in Jesus' name. As such, Jesus is still the one and only Way.

Jesus' point here is not that there is another name under heaven by which men can be saved, but rather that just because someone is 'not part of the group' doesn't mean they can't be a follower of Christ. In other words, it could be a support for the notion that Jesus is more important than the Institution that proclaims him.

Put another way, it is much like Paul's admonition in Phillippians, where he says he doesn't care whether Christ is preached out of selfish ambitions or good ones, as long as Christ is preached


I learned this technique on Protestant Bibles but you could easily adapt it for any Bible. It works best if you have everyone use their own Bible so that they can see how the technique applies to the Bible they use most.

Psalms is usually at the center of most Bibles. If you're looking for Psalms you try to open to the middle of the book.
The New Testament tends to start around the last quarter of the Bible.
So let's say you're looking for John 3:16.

It's in the New Testament so it's in the last quarter of the Bible.
It's a Gospel so it's at the front of that last quarter.
Flip to about the last quarter of the book. If you land on John great.
If you landed somewhere else is it before or after John?

This also goes hand in hand with memorizing the order of the books which the best I can do is a song that I think I might still have somewhere on VHS but you can just hit up YouTube and find something your kids will like.

Even more helpful is understanding the sections of the Bible.

Law
History
Poetry & Wisdom
Major Prophets
Minor Prophets
Gospels
Pauline Epistles
General Epistles
Prophecy

So from the example above, if the open the Bible to somewhere other than John it goes:

What book are you on?
Is it before or after John?

Is it Old Testament or New? If it's old you move back. New could be either way.
What section is it in? If it's a Gospel, which one? (in this case any one means move back slowly)
If it's not at least one of the minor prophets then you're probably way too far ahead.
Likewise if you landed in Revelation then you're too far back. (This actually happens because of maps and other stuff they cram into Bibles these days.)

It plays out like a game of 20 questions. Every time you move you repeat the steps. I don't remember it taking long for us to pick this up but, the more time they spend using an actual Bible with no search aids, the faster they'll get it.


What is the purpose of attending the mass and going to Confession?

As far as why individual Catholics participate in the various liturgies and sacraments, there can be all sorts of reasons, from the highly religious to the merely social or cultural. The Church does have teachings on the subject, though; let's look at those.

As far as going to Mass on Sundays (and some other days): This is a requirement for Catholics. In its discussion of the third commandment ("Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy"), the Catechism says:

  The celebration of Sunday observes the moral commandment inscribed by nature in the human heart to render to God an outward, visible, public, and regular worship "as a sign of his universal beneficence to all." Sunday worship fulfills the moral command of the Old Covenant, taking up its rhythm and spirit in the weekly celebration of the Creator and Redeemer of his people.

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 2176)

  Sunday, on which by apostolic tradition the paschal mystery is celebrated, must be observed in the universal Church as the primordial holy day of obligation. The following days must also be observed: the Nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Epiphany, the Ascension, the Body and Blood of Christ, Holy Mary the Mother of God, her Immaculate Conception, her Assumption, Saint Joseph, Saint Peter and Saint Paul the Apostles, and All Saints.

(Code of Canon Law, Canon 1246, Section 1)

These additional days are often casually called "holy days of obligation". The Code of Canon Law goes on to lay out certain circumstances in which these days need not be observed, or may be observed on the closest Sunday.

One goes to Mass to worship God, but also to receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist, around which the Mass is centered. Catholics must receive the Eucharist at least once a year (preferably during the Easter season, see canon 920), and it's recommended to receive every time you go to Mass:

  It is in keeping with the very meaning of the Eucharist that the faithful, if they have the required dispositions, receive communion when they participate in the Mass.

(Catechism, paragraph 1388)

"If they have the required dispositions" refers to the fact that Catholics are required to fast for an hour before receiving the Eucharist, and that it is considered a mortal sin to receive if one is already in a state of mortal sin.

Thus, the Church requires people to go to Mass at least on every Sunday, and to receive the Eucharist there if possible, as a way to keep fresh in their heart the need to regularly and visibly worship God. For a Catholic to deliberately fail to go to Mass on a holy day of obligation (including Sundays) is, in the view of the Church, to break the third commandment—a mortal sin. Like all mortal sins, if not confessed, this omission does indeed have the potential to prevent the Catholic from entering Heaven:

  If [a mortal sin] is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back.

(Catechism, paragraph 1861)

Similarly, going to Confession is necessary insofar as one has committed a mortal sin, for just this reason: if mortal sins are not confessed, they will exclude a person from Heaven.

The Church considers Confession very important for this reason, and requires the faithful (after reaching the "age of discretion"; that is, the age at which they're considered old enough to understand the consequences of their actions) to confess their sins at least once a year:

  After having reached the age of discretion, each member of the faithful is obliged to confess faithfully his or her grave sins at least once a year.

(Code of Canon Law, canon 989)

This is a purely ecclesiastical law, not a divine law; still, to deliberately flout this rule is not a good thing.

One of the other sacraments you don't mention is baptism. This is certainly required by the Catholic Church; indeed, it's the way that Catholics become Catholics, and it's necessary for reception of any of the other sacraments. Baptism (by water; the Church teaches that there are other sorts of baptism) is the usual and customary way by which people are justified before God; it is necessary for salvation:

  The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. ... Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit."

(Catechism, paragraph 1257)

The other sacraments (Confirmation, Holy Orders, Matrimony, Anointing of the Sick) are not required for salvation; although Confirmation in particular is recommended for adult Catholics, and is required for participation in some of the other sacraments.


Who Wrote the 1981 Introduction to The Book of Mormon?

This blog says that Bruce R McConkie wrote it, but there is no source to back that up

This Oct 1981 Ensign article published about the new edition to the Book of Mormon says:

  As always, inspired direction came from the Scriptures Publication Committee of the Quorum of the Twelve: Elder Thomas S. Monson, chairman, Elder Boyd K. Packer, and Elder Bruce R. McConkie, with Brother W. James Mortimer serving as executive secretary.

So it is possible that Bruce R McConkie wrote it but it could've been someone else or a collaborative effort.

I believe the best you'll find is that it was written 'by The Church'


So your really important question is this:
"Why did Jesus cause and allow the early Christians to be mistaken about the timeframe of His return?" Let's figure that out, before we attempt to answer this headline question: "Why did the early Christians think Jesus would return soon?"

I've often wondered about what Jesus was saying in Matthew 24:36 & Mark 13:32 during Jesus' 2nd coming.

Matthew 24:36 (NKJV): “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only.”

Mark 13:32 (NKJV): “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”

The Bible informs us that God knows everything, thus making Him omniscient.

1 John 3:20 (NKJV): "For if our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and knows all things."

The Bible also tells us that Jesus is God.

John 1:1 (NKJV) "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

John 20:31 (NKJV) "but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name."

Now that we've found where the Bible states that God knows all things & that Jesus is God, then how does Jesus (who is God)... not know the day, nor the hour?

I came up with these ideas:

Jesus who is God is also a human on Earth, before He died & rose again. That's how He identifies with us. So when He was born & growing up, He wouldn't have known when He'd return the 2nd time (or 3rd time, if you count His resurrection as the 2nd time). He may have had to wait until after He ascended into Heaven to learn that information from God the Father.
God the Father may not yet have chosen which day nor hour, that the return will happen. If He hasn't yet decided, then nobody knows. Thus Jesus' quotes in Matthew 24:36 & Mark 13:32 would still be 100% accurate. (Don't quote me on that idea, but at least it satisfied my initial curiosity in the past about those 2 verses. It freed me from worrying about them & allowed me to move on towards learning new things.)
From reading the Bible, I've discovered some more details... like God is patient & He is still waiting for Israel to do something. (This sounds like the most accurate of these 3 ideas. Let me explain why....)

2 Peter 3:9 (NKJV) "The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance."

Part of the problem appears to be that the Jewish Pharisees & Scribes of the law didn't want to honor Jesus as God. They should have known when Jesus was coming the 1st time:

Luke 19:41-42 (NKJV): "Now as He drew near, He saw the city and wept over it, saying, “If you had known, even you, especially in this your day, the things that make for your peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes."

The people did acknowledge & honor Jesus as God in Matthew 21:9 (on the 1st Palm Sunday), but the religious leaders did not. (But the people wanted a king who would free them from the Roman occupation. They weren't looking for a new religious leader... God. They wanted a military king, like David.)

Matthew 21:9 (NKJV): "Then the multitudes who went before and those who followed cried out, saying:

“Hosanna to the Son of David!
‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!’
Hosanna in the highest!”"

Then Jesus says,

Matthew 23:39 (NKJV): "for I say to you, you shall see Me no more till you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!’"

Now before this in verse 29, Jesus starts off with: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!...”

Apparently, God is still waiting for Israel (especially, the religious elite in Jerusalem... today known as rabbis) to acknowledge & honor Him as God. The end of the world won't happen, before that point.

The Hebrew leaders who left Egypt during the Exodus, saw God with their own eyes... before having a feast in front of Him:

Exodus 24:9-11 (NKJV): "Then Moses went up, also Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, and they saw the God of Israel. And there was under His feet as it were a paved work of sapphire stone, and it was like the very heavens in its clarity. But on the nobles of the children of Israel He did not lay His hand. So they saw God, and they ate and drank."

So initially, God was happy with His people. :-)

The early Christians could have been mistaken about the timeframe of Jesus' 2nd coming, as they didn't have access to personalized copies (nor online versions) of the Bible, where they could study for themselves. They had scrolls, auditory knowledge from preaching & shared letters. Today, we have the ability to do our own Bible study homework, both in print form & online.

Now, Zechariah 14 & Amos 5:16-27 both talk about the Day of the Lord, which hasn't come yet. You can read those if you'd like to do that.

So what about this question? "Why did the early Christians think Jesus would return soon?"

During Jesus' day, there was a temple in Jerusalem. It was the 2nd temple. At the end of the world, there will be another temple, the 3rd temple. Here are some links about that 3rd temple, which contain additional Bible verses in these articles:

The Third Temple
End-Time Prophecy: Why is the Third Temple so Important?

In Jesus day, they had a temple. So it would have been easy for them to assume, that Jesus could return at any time.

After reading Amos 5, it seems clearer that God doesn't want the 3rd temple's sacrifice system:

Amos 5:22 (NKJV): "Though you offer Me burnt offerings and your grain offerings, I will not accept them, Nor will I regard your fattened peace offerings."

After the temple was destroyed in AD 70, there hasn't been a temple in Israel. Most of the people were older or dead at that point. So they would have realized the need to write everything down.

Revelation appears to have been written after the temple was destroyed & before AD 96. See:

When Was the Book of Revelation Written?
Wikipedia: Revelation

I would assume that some people wanted Jesus' return to happen early - in their lifetimes - for the same reason that people today want the "Rapture" to happen early in our lifetimes. People are terrified of death. The problem isn't death itself, but what lies beyond death. For the believers, it's an eternal happiness in Heaven. For the unbelievers, it's a firey torturous experience in hell. People are afraid of going into hell, so they tend to want Jesus to return early to avoid death & hell.

John talks about Heaven, starting with Revelation 4. Revelation, gives us hope that a brighter future is coming! Here is some encouragement to brighten your day:

Acts 16:31 (NKJV): "So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.”"

Romans 10:9 (NKJV): "that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."

So don't worry too much about when Jesus will return, but focus more on the quality of your relationship with God. Keep reading your Bible. The more times, the better! You'll find out in Heaven, that you'll gain eternal rewards from continually reading it. If you'd like to see a bit of that before then, check out these links, about which crowns that believers can receive in Heaven:

https://www.gotquestions.org/heavenly-crowns.html
http://so4j.com/five-crowns-rewards-in-heaven

Hopefully, that answers some of your questions! :-)


Did the authors of the Westminster Standards accept Roman Catholic baptisms as valid?

There is nothing absolutely specific in the Westminster Confession about Roman Catholic baptism. What there is supports its validity. However there was a long-established acceptance of baptism by Roman Catholic priests, even more than by laymen or even  women, and the Westminster Confession says nothing against it.

Perhaps more significantly, actions speak louder than words, or, in this case, inactions speak louder than words. From the earliest days of the Reformation there was never any tradition or practice of re-baptising those baptised by Roman priests. Luther, Calvin, Cranmer and Knox never doubted the validity of their baptisms. Only the Anabaptists practiced re-baptism (so-called, though they did not see it as such) and that was due to the objection to infant baptism and/or non-immersion.

The Westminster Confession (28 vii) states:

  The Sacrament of baptism is but once to be administered to any person.

One could argue that if the first "baptism" was not valid, then a "re-baptism" would be the only baptism, which is what the Anabaptists did argue. Given the Westminster Divines opposition to anabaptism however,   this is best interpreted as referrring to repetition of any form of baptism. Given that earlier genertions acceptd Roman Catholic baptism we would need something very specific to infer that the Westminster divines did not.

But doesn't the mere fact of being agents of the Antichrist disqualify them as lawful ministers of the Church?  The Westminster Confession 25 vi, quoted by OP says:

  There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.

Here we see that the Pope, though exaltng himself against Christ, is neverthless in His Church.  The Antichrist is within, not outwith, the Church.

Samuel Rutherford, a Scottish representative to the Westminster Assembly, argued that Roman Catholic priests were valid ministers, in part from the premise that they had valid Baptism. The Church of Scotland was concerned at the rise of  Independents and Separatists and Rutherford's wider strategy was to oppose the idea that anyone could be a minister without official endorsement. He did not accept baptism by laymen and argued from the general acceptance of Roman baptism the validity of Roman ministry. For the purposes of this question the point is that the validity of Roman Catholic baptism was so generaly accepted that it could be the basis of an argument. The Separatists claim was if they can do it so can we.

Two distinct views can be identified. One is that the Roman Catholic priests were de facto lawful  shepherds of Christ's flock, however misguided or corrupt, and that their  baptism was correct in the Trinitaran formula and the use of water,  and so valid. Parallels were drawn with Caiphas, or with the scribes and pharisees who, sitting in Moses seat (Matthew 23 v2) should be heard. Also in the days of Hezekiah, nobody was re-circumcised.

The other view was the postman argument. Just as a letter, signed, sealed and posted, might be delivered by an official messnger, or dropped in the street and delivered by anybody, so it did not matter who perfomed the baptism, it came from Jesus Christ, with His seal.

Either way, whether because RC priests were valid ministers, or because it did not matter, Roman Catholic baptism was certainly valid; and the Antichrist was within the visible Church.

The validity of Roman Catholc baptism, from a Reformed perspectve,  was an issue in Peru in 2004, and this anthology shows how the Reformed tradition has almost always acceped it. It includes etracts from the French Confession, Calvin, Knox, Beza, Perkins, Rutherford, Westminster, and others.


What scriptural arguments for the Trinity were used in the First Council of Nicea?

We do not have any minutes or transcripts from the Council of Nicea. Bishop Theodoret of Cyrrhus, wrote his Ecclesiastical History  about 450 AD, though based on earlier sources.

In Chapter 6 of Book 1 we may read that the Emperor Constantine, in his opening speech to the  Nicene Conference, urged the bishops to seek a solution (to their differences) in the divinely-inspired scriptures.

  ‘For the gospels’ (continued he), ‘the  writings, and the oracles of the ancient prophets, clearly teach us what we ought to believe concerning the divine nature. Let, then, all contentious disputation be discarded; and let us seek in the divinely-inspired word the solution of the questions at issue.’

Chapter 7 quotes Athanasius, who was there, as saying the bishops collected together passages from the Scriptures relating to Christ.

So it seems that the bishops looked to Scripture to ascertain the truth, or at least to argue their positions.   Still, the communique, to use a modern term, did not include  arguments  or scriptural references  justifying  the conclusion.

Athanasius did however describe  some of the  discussions at the Council as follows:

  (some bishops made) the following declarations, which are in accordance with the holy Scriptures; namely, that the Son is by nature only-begotten of God, Word, Power, and sole Wisdom of the Father; that He is, as John said, 'the true God ,' and, as Paul has written, 'the brightness of the glory, and the express image of the person of the Father ,'

and later

  collected from Scripture those passages which say of Christ that He is the glory, the fountain, the stream, and the express image of the person; and they quoted the following words: ' In your light we shall see light ;' and likewise, ' I and the Father are one. '

In Chapter 11 he quotes a letter from Eusebius who was also there

  'We believe in the being and continual existence of each of these; that the Father is in truth the Father; the Son in truth the Son; the Holy Ghost in truth the Holy Ghost; as our Lord, when sending out His disciples to preach the Gospel, said, ' Go forth and teach all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. '

The following appear to be some of the Scriptures referenced: (The phrases mentioned above are also listed below, but with the scriptures also listed.)

"The Son is by nature only begotten of God"  John 1 18  and John 3 16

    And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

    For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

"Word, Power and sole Wisdom of the Father" John 1 1 Col 1 19 Col 2 9 and 1 Cor 1 24

    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God

    But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

"the true God"  1 John 5 20

    And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

the brightness of the glory and the express image of the person of
the Father  Hebrews 1 3

    Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

"the glory"   John 1 14

    And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

"the fountain, in your light shall we see light" - links Psalm 36 9 with John 4 14 John 8 12

    For with thee is the fountain of life: in thy light shall we see light.

    But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

    Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.

"I and the Father are One"  John 10 30

    I and my Father are one.

"baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost;  Matthew 28 19Matthew 28 19

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


How do Trinitarians respond to syllogistic arguments against the divinity of Jesus?

These are easy to answer, specifically because they depend on logical or linguistic fallacies.
Argument 1
"The Father is the only true God"
"The only true" simply modifies "God," and as such, "God" and "the only true" are interchangable; "You are the only true God" and "Only you are the true God" are not synonymous.
To say the Father is God, or the Son is God, or the Holy Spirit is God does not contradict, but is rather predicted and required by the doctrine on the Trinity.
Argument 2
"There is no God besides the Father"
Isaiah does not say that only the Father is God, or that there is no God besides the Father, but that Yahweh is a father to Israel. Because Yahweh = God, this is consonant with the doctrine of the Trinity, according to which, obviously, the Father is God.
Argument 3
"Man is not God"
Even though I couldn't find the passage you were referring to, the doctrine of the Trinity does not teach that man is God, but that God became man (took a human nature for His Temple), and thus this can't be an objection to the doctrine — that which a doctrine would predict can't contradict the doctrine.
Argument 4
"God is spirit"
Yes, by definition, the uncreated God is spirit, not matter, but this doesn't mean that if God becomes incarnate, that He loses His spiritual nature, because He assumes a physical nature: the Incarnation is not a doctrine about God converting into flesh, but taking flesh for His Temple.
Argument 5-9
"God doesn't do things humans do"
If Jesus is the Son become flesh, then He can become weary, be ignorant, sleep etc. by definition. He can't be truly man, and not weary at once.
Jesus tells John, "I am the First and the Last, who died, and behold I live forever and I have the keys of death and hell." (Revelation 1:17-18). If God can be born of woman, then God can die. Both things pertain to the human nature He took, not the divine nature He has always had.
Argument 9
"God would not acknowledge another as God"
If the Trinity is true, the Father can acknowledge that the Son or Spirit is God. As it is written: "But to the Son [God the Father says]: Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of justice is the sceptre of thy kingdom. ... And [who also said to the Son]: Thou in the beginning, O Lord, didst found the earth: and the works of thy hands are the heavens. " (Hebrews 1:8).
After all, if the Son is God, the Father can call Him such. If He is not, then we aren't speaking about the Trinity.
Argument 10
"That which is given is not inherent"
Because the Son has everything He has because of and from the Father (John 6:57; 16:15; 17:5), He can say, "I have recieved," or "I have heard," or "I have been given." Because the Trinity predicts that everything the Son has He has fromt he Father who begat Him (to use the Scriptural anthropomorphism).
Argument 11
"God is naturally holy"
Not only can holy be meant in two ways (worthy of honor because of being holy, set apart, or simply the fact or quality of being set apart itself), but this objection is answered by the above answer.
Argument 12
"God is naturally lord"
This is true. But the Messiah, a human leader, is also a man, and also has an inherited human authority from His father David.
(The following arguments are just different ways of saying the same thing.)
Argument 16
"God is over all; Jesus is under God"
Even the trinitarian creeds say that Jesus is under God because He is man, and equal to God because He is God. These two are basic facts about the Trinity. Anyone who is man is inferior to God, and anyone who is God made man is both equal to God and inferior to God by definition.
Athanasian Creed (the Trinitarian Creed par excellence):

... Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood. ...

This would seem to be the most fundamental part of grasping the doctrine in the first place, and not an objection.


According to Jehovah’s Witnesses who are the two messengers at Malachi 3:1?

Well you have asked two different questions here.

Who are the two messengers?

Is the True Lord and the messenger of the covenant the same entity?

The verse in Malachi 3:1 mentions 3 different beings.
There is the 1st messenger who clears up the way which in the first century. This was John the Baptizer who prepared the Jewish people for the coming of the Christ.
Then we have two more entities,namely, the  True Lord and the Messenger of the covenant.
These two are not the same individual according to our understanding.
“The true Lord” is Jehovah God, while the “messenger of the covenant” is Jesus Christ.
As you no doubt well  know the word angel means messenger. As you are also aware we teach that in his prehuman existence and post resurrection heavenly existence God’s Son is known by the name Michael.  More info
The term Archangel means chief angel or messenger. Thus it is fitting that the messenger of the covenant would be none other than God’s Son.
The temple belongs to Jehovah as the verse makes clear:

suddenly there will come to His temple the [true] Lord,

That is person (1)in the sentence.
Then the verse goes on:

and the messenger of the covenant in whom you are delighting.

This is person 2 in the sentence.
The messenger is the one sent forth to cleanse the temple and as John 13:16 says:

I tell you the truth, slaves are not greater than their master. Nor is the messenger more important than the one who sends the message.

And who sends the message?
Malachi 3:1 concludes:

Jehovah of armies has said.

The initial fulfillment of the prophecy took place when Jesus cleansed the temple. (Mark 11:15-17)
Here is where our doctrine conflicts with the premise of your question.
In the view of those who believe that Jesus is God Almighty the verse is held out as proof that Jesus as the messenger of the covenant and the true Lord who comes to his temple are the same entity since it was Jesus who cleansed the temple, driving out the money changers etc...
However the true Lord (YHWH) himself said that no one could see him and yet live.
Jesus was seen by many as he cleansed the temple of the riffraff.
These people did not die.
Still it was the will of the true Lord YHWH that was carried out on that day.
Jehovah came to His temple  representatively or by proxy. Jesus (the messenger) came on YHWH’s behalf.
So question 1) the two messengers are John the Baptist and Jesus Christ.
Question 2) the Messenger of the covenant and The True Lord are not the same being.
An official source provides further details.


According to Catholicism, is it ever permissible to produce physical evil so that good may result?

is it ever permissible to produce physical evil so that good may result?

Yes, it is permissible to destroy ("produce physical evil") in order to effect good. The human manner of creating things always involves destruction because we create with preexisting matter; only God can create something "out of nothing" (creatio ex nihilo). Creation in itself is morally neutral.

Think about Michelangelo sculpting a statue. He first has to destroy ("corrupt") the lump of marble in order to bring about a new form in it (with a lot of scrap marble he chiseled leftover!). God's mode of creation is much more perfect; He could simply bring the Statue of David into existence from nothing, with no preexisting marble (and no leftover debris!).

Also, it seems you're really asking about the principle of double-effect, which allows for doing harm in order that a greater evil not result (e.g., amputating a gangrene leg so that a person doesn't die). See Summa Theologica II-II q. 64 a. 7 or §2.5 "Moral Norms Especially Relevant to Health Care" of Health Care Ethics: A Theological Analysis.


Why is Ruth's child in the line of Boaz and not Mahlon?

tl;dr>
Why was it recorded like that?

because the story is making a theological point, not a legal one

Is this the norm or the exception?

the exact particulars of Boaz are exception, but it is based on a normal practice

Is there any other recorded incident in the Scriptures where this was done and the lineage was accorded to the deceased person?

Yes, Judah and Tamar, the lineage was based on the person who acted as the dad, not the specific rules of Deuteronomy.

My points:
1. Levirate Marriage appears elsewhere in Scripture, with similar result
The concept you are referring to is levirate marriage and appears in other interesting stories in scripture. In the situation of Tamar, we have the same genealogical "problem." Here we have a woman who was destitute and desperate after the death of not one but two husbands, and the withholding of a third. The child that was the offspring of ultimately Judah and Tamar should have also been ascribed to Er - although the fact that Judah, the father, was fulfilling the job that either Er or Shelah, the brothers, should have done may be a complicating factor. Nonetheless, when Jesus' genealogy is recorded, both the women and the men are called out.
2. Levirate Marriage was about property moreso than a "name"
As moderns, our first look is probably at the "honor" being preserved in the idea "that his name be not put out of Israel," but in ancient times, there was a more practical reason as well - money.
Note that levirate marriage had a property purpose that may be obscured by the phrase "that his name be not put out of Israel."  Women in Ancient Israel had no property rights, and absent a child, were destined for a life of destitution. Anna, for example outlived her husband by as much as 80 years, and was basically a homeless woman living in the Temple as a result.
That this was a property thing is attested to in the Lexham Bible Dictionary. Under Levirate Marriage, it says:

Levirate marriage was a cultural expectation designed to preserve some aspect of a deceased’s man’s life. Such marriages could preserve familial inheritance and patrilineal descent, as well as provide support for a widow. The impetus for such marriages could range from moral obligation to legislated responsibility.
Many ancient Near Eastern societies practiced levirate marriage, including Babylon, Assyria, the Hittites, Nuzi, and Ugarit. The custom was also present in parts of modern Africa and Asia (Falusi, “African Levirate,” 300–08). In much of the ancient Near East, the goal of such a practice was to preserve a family’s inheritance. While provisions existed allowing women to inherit property, and though polygamy and adoption offered increased chances of progeny, varying circumstances created problems to which levirate marriage offered a solution (Davies, “Rights,” 138–41).

It should also be understood that levirate marriage was as much a "tradition" as it was a law. As such, the concept will necessarily lean on the "spirit of the law," moreso than the letter. The Word Biblical Commentary states:

Campbell observes that we must not be misled by such terms as “law-code” and “legislation” into thinking that collections of ancient case law functioned as codes of law do in modern Western countries. We must not regard the OT codes of law as comprehensive and all inclusive, intended to regulate the legal needs of life by a system of courts, lawyers, judges, and police. On the contrary, legal decisions were made by the town elders on the basis of local legal precedents, preserved primarily orally.

With oral preservation and a focus on the story rather than the "law" the fact that Boaz is simply way more important than Mahlon, the practical answer becomes obvious.
3. There is a theological point being made, not a legal one
The question then becomes, why would the biblical record gloss over the property implications?  Here, I posit a theological answer, because the theology behind the genealogy is the more "important" lesson for posterity.
In Jesus' "line" four women are noted. None of them have a great reputation:

Tamar - well, we;ve already mentioned the incest and deception
Rahab was a prostitute. Period. Says so.
Ruth was at very least, quite forward, as https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/1391/did-ruth-uncover-boaz-feet-or-something-else points out
Mary was an unwed teenage mother.  Yes, she was given a child by the Holy Spirit, and I belive in the Virgin Birth, but the only people who actually knew that were Mary and Joseph.

In each of these instances, a story is being told about the moms and dads - and they belong more in the "adult" section than as children stories. But therein lies the point. Jews and Christians don't whitewash their history. Doing the official "so that the name isn't blotted out" is a little bit of a whitewash.  By recording the "true" stories of the true fathers, the genealogical story retains its significance and the property support that levirate marriage was supposed to attain is also fulfilled.
Furthermore, by "adopting" different fathers into the line, a point about the doctrine of adoption is made for later Christian readers subscribing to a Pauline interpretation.
4. At least some commentators don't think Boaz was actually doing a levirate marriage, but if he was, his role is correctly reported.
Excursis. The Word Biblical COmmentary has some additional insights:

(1) Ruth 4:5, 10 show that Boaz’s marriage to Ruth was a levirate type of marriage, similar at least to that prescribed in Deut 25:5–10. Even though Boaz was not a levir (Heb. יבם), a “brother-in-law,” this was a levirate marriage because 4:5, 10 specify that the purpose of the marriage to Ruth was “to raise up the name of the deceased on his inheritance so that the name of the deceased shall not be cut off from his brethren” (4:10), which is similar to the purpose given for levirate marriage (cf. Deut 25:6). (2) In 3:9 Ruth bases her request that Boaz accept the levirate marriage responsibility on the fact that he is a גאל, “redeemer.” Therefore, one of the legal responsibilities of the “redeemer” was to perform the levirate marriage, even though the passages in the OT legal corpora dealing with redemption never touch upon the levirate obligation; nor do the passages dealing with the levirate ever call the one responsible for this obligation a “redeemer.” (3) In chap. 4 land that belonged to Elimelech suddenly surfaces in the story, and Boaz calls upon the redeemer more closely related than he to act upon his rights and duties as redeemer and buy back (or preempt the sale of) this land. Further, the standard interpretation argues, Boaz uses the implications of the redeemer’s double responsibilities of “levirate” marriage to Ruth and of redemption of the land of Elimelech to induce the unnamed גאל, who has prior rights, to cede those rights and responsibilities to him. Boaz then redeems the land and marries Ruth. For representative treatments, see the discussion of Campbell, 132–37; Thompson and Thompson, VT 18 (1968) 79–99, and for a full treatment, see Leggett, The Levirate.
Recently a number of studies have sought to solve the many difficulties that arise in applying the postulates outlined above to the exegesis and interpretation of chaps. 3 and 4 of Ruth by denying that the marriage between Ruth and Boaz is connected in any way with levirate marriage. See in particular Beattie, VT 21 (1971) 490–94; VT 24 (1974) 251–67; JSOT 5 (1978) 39–48; JSOT 5 (1978) 65–68; Gordis, “Love, Marriage, and Business,” 241–64; Sasson, JSOT 5 (1978) 49–64;Ruth, 125–29, 143–46.

And this is an interesting problem, mentioned in

PROBLEM: Deuteronomy 25:5–10 delineates what is known as the law of the levirate marriage. If a man dies and leaves his wife childless, the man’s brother was morally obligated to take his brother’s wife and raise up children in the name of his deceased brother. This practice insured that the brother’s name would not die out. However, Boaz was not the brother of Ruth’s dead husband. Wasn’t this marriage arrangement contrary to the law of the levirate marriage?
SOLUTION: Although it was a more complicated incident, the arrangement between Boaz, Naomi, and Ruth was certainly not contrary to the law of the levirate marriage. The primary concern of the levirate marriage was to perpetuate the family line of the deceased. Certain factors indicate that by the time of Boaz and Ruth, some additional provisions had become customary. First, if there was no surviving brother in the immediate family, then the obligation of the levirate marriage became the responsibility of the nearest surviving male relative. In this case, there was one individual who was nearer to Naomi’s family than Boaz. However, when he declined the invitation, Boaz became the nearest male relative and the next in line to legally fulfill this moral obligation.
Second, along with the responsibility to raise up children in the name of the deceased, there came the responsibility to redeem any property that belonged to the deceased and that had been sold or forfeited (Lev. 25:25). Because the nearest kinsman was not financially able to assume this responsibility (Ruth 4:6), he relinquished his right and responsibility to redeem Naomi and marry Ruth and passed that obligation on to Boaz. There is nothing in the account of the redemption of Naomi and the marriage of Boaz and Ruth that is contrary to the law of levirate marriage.


According to Catholic Church, to what extent is faith a gift of God in terms of Romans 12: 3?

3 For I say, by the grace that is given me, to all that are among you, not to be more wise than it behoveth to be wise, but to be wise unto sobriety, and according as God hath divided to every one the measure of faith.

Faith is one of the three theological virtues that is infused in the believer, by which the intellect is perfected by a supernatural light.

The theological virtues are three: faith, hope, and charity.
Faith
Faith is an infused virtue, by which the intellect is perfected by a supernatural light, in virtue of which, under a supernatural movement of the will, it assents firmly to the supernatural truths of Revelation, not on the motive of intrinsic evidence, but on the sole ground of the infallible authority of God revealing. For as man is guided in the attainment of natural happiness by principles of knowledge known by the natural light of reason, so also in the attainment of his supernatural destiny his intellect must be illumined by certain supernatural principles, namely, Divinely revealed truths.
Hope
But not only man's intellect must be perfected with regard to his supernatural end, his will also must tend to that end, as a good possible of attainment. Now the virtue, by which the will is so perfected, is the theological virtue of hope. It is commonly defined as a Divinely infused virtue, by which we trust, with an unshaken confidence grounded on the Divine assistance, to attain life everlasting.
Charity
But the will must not only tend to God, its ultimate end, it must also be united to Him by a certain conformity. This spiritual union or conformity, by which the soul is united to God, the sovereign Good, is effected by charity. Charity, then, is that theological virtue, by which God, our ultimate end, known by supernatural light, is loved by reason of His own intrinsic goodness or amiability, and our neighbour loved on account of God. It differs from faith, as it regards God not under the aspect of truth but of good. It differs from hope inasmuch as it regards God not as our good precisely (nobis bonum), but as good in Himself (in se bonum). But this love of God as good in Himself does not, as the Quietists maintained, exclude the love of God as He is our good. With regard to the love of our neighbor, it falls within the theological virtue of charity in so far as its motive is the supernatural love of God, and it is thus distinguished from mere natural affection. Of the three theological virtues, charity is the most excellent. Faith and hope, involving as they do a certain imperfection, namely, obscurity of light and absence of possession, will cease with this life, but charity involving no essential defect will last forever. Moreover, while charity excludes all mortal sin, faith and hope are compatible with grievous sin; but as such they are only imperfect virtues; it is only when informed and vivified by charity that their acts are meritorious of eternal life.
Virtue (Catholic Encyclopedia)

Faith is the theological virtue by which we believe in God and believe all that he has said and revealed to us.

Faith
1814 Faith is the theological virtue by which we believe in God and believe all that he has said and revealed to us, and that Holy Church proposes for our belief, because he is truth itself. By faith "man freely commits his entire self to God." For this reason the believer seeks to know and do God's will. "The righteous shall live by faith." Living faith "work[s] through charity."
1815 The gift of faith remains in one who has not sinned against it. But "faith apart from works is dead":81 when it is deprived of hope and love, faith does not fully unite the believer to Christ and does not make him a living member of his Body.
1816 The disciple of Christ must not only keep the faith and live on it, but also profess it, confidently bear witness to it, and spread it: "All however must be prepared to confess Christ before men and to follow him along the way of the Cross, amidst the persecutions which the Church never lacks." Service of and witness to the faith are necessary for salvation: "So every one who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven; but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven." Catechism of the Catholic Church


What is the meaning of the word Devils in the King James version of the Bible?

The King James Version (and perhaps others) confounds the English translation in this respect.

Using Blue Letter Bible, I performed a word search for "devil" in the King James Version, and it "occurs 61 times in 57 verses in the KJV." According to its lexicon search, three nouns are translated as "devil" in the King James Version:

G1140 δαιμόνιον (daimonion)

5 occurrences

devil(s): 5/5

G1228 διάβολος (diabolos)

38 occurrences

devil(s): 35/38
false accuser(s): 2/38
slanderer(s): 1/38

G1142 δαίμων (daimōn)

60 occurrences

devil(s): 59/60
god(s): 1/60

Regarding the verses you cited, you simply need to use a site like Blue Letter Bible and identify the underlying Greek word. Then, read my analysis below.

The English Word "Devil"

The English word "devil" is basically a loose transliteration of the Greek word διάβολος. But, an actual translation (thereby capturing the meaning of the Greek word) would be "slanderer" or "accuser," since διάβολος is a noun derived from the verb διαβάλλω, meaning "to slander, accuse, defame." In any case, as long as one understands the meaning of διάβολος' etymological origin (i.e., the verb διαβάλλω), it's okay to translate it into English as "devil," just like we write "Messiah" and understand by it, "anointed one," although the word "Messiah" is also a loose transliteration, not a translation. In conclusion, the English noun "devil" is a loose transliteration of the Greek noun διάβολος, which may be translated into English as "slanderer, accuser."

In the Greek New Testament, the Greek word διάβολος is most often used in reference to one particular heavenly being who led a rebellion against God and was cast out of heaven along with his fellow apostate angels (cp. Rev. 12:9). However, it may also be used in reference to humans who slander (cp. 1 Tim. 3:11).

The English Word "Demon"

You may have already guessed that the English word "demon" is also a loose transliteration of the Greek words δαίμων and δαιμόνιον. But, very few know what a demon is. This confusion is compounded by the fact that the King James Version almost always translates both δαίμων and δαιμόνιον as "devil" and not "demon." So, if someone did not bother to examine the Greek, they would never know a distinction exists. In fact, I did a word search on "demon" in the King James Version, and it never occurs. This is rather unfortunate.

There are various theories on what a demon is, and unfortunately, I don't have the time to critique them all.

Luke 4:33 seems to place πνεῦμα ("spirit") in apposition to δαιμονίου ἀκαθάρτου ("unclean demon"), thereby suggesting that a demon is a spirit. Heinrich Meyer notes, "The genitive is a genitive of apposition or of nearer definition...and δαιμόνιον, which, according to Greek usage, is in itself applicable to either good or evil spirits, being used by Luke for the first time in this passage, is qualified by ἀκαθάρτου."1 Elsewhere, in the Book of Tobit, we find Asmodeus referred to as an "evil demon" (τὸ πονηρὸν δαιμόνιον).2 The same author also mentions a "demon or evil spirit" (δαιμόνιον ἢ πνεῦμα πονηρόν),3 again suggesting that "demon" is equated to "evil spirit."

However, the word "spirit" can refer to a few things, including the immaterial and incorporal essence within man, sometimes referred to as his rational soul (cp. Heb. 4:12; 1 Thes. 5:23).2 Or, it can refer to angels (Heb. 1:7 cp. Psa. 104:4). So, is a demon, being identified as a "spirit," the former or the latter?

Josephus also mentioned demons.5 But he apparently believed they were the disembodied spirits of wicked humans who died. He wrote,6

  ἔστι δὲ μετὰ τοσούτων κινδύνων διὰ μίαν ἰσχὺν περισπούδαστος: τὰ γὰρ καλούμενα δαιμόνια, ταῦτα δὲ πονηρῶν ἐστιν ἀνθρώπων πνεύματα τοῖς ζῶσιν εἰσδυόμενα καὶ κτείνοντα τοὺς βοηθείας μὴ τυγχάνοντας, αὕτη ταχέως ἐξελαύνει, κἂν προσενεχθῇ μόνον τοῖς νοσοῦσι.

  Yet, after so many dangers, it is greatly desired because of one power: for, it quickly expels those called "demons" (now, these are spirits of wicked men which enter those who are alive and kill those who do not obtain help), and only if it is brought to the sick people.

It is up to the reader to further investigate this matter in order to determine the exact nature of demons, but one thing is certain, there is a difference between (1) διάβολος and (2) δαίμων/ δαιμόνιον.

Footnotes

1 Commentary on Luke 4:33

2 Tobit 3:8, 3:17

3 Tobit 6:8

4 Compare Philo, Who is the Heir of Divine Things, §132: «τὴν μὲν ψυχὴν εἰς λογικὸν καὶ ἄλογον»

5 Jewish Antiquities, 6.8.2, 6.11.2, 8.2.5

6 Wars of the Jews, 7.6.3

References

Meyer, Heinrich. Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament.


First question:

Mormons can be Masons, and in fact many early leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints were Masons. In the early days of restoration, political control of the local Masonic lodge was part of the contention between Mormons in Nauvoo, Illinois and their neighbors. The political role that Masonry played at that time contributed to the assassination of church leaders Joseph and Hyrum Smith. When the next church president Brigham Young led the Saints to settle the Mountain West of the United States, they did not immediately establish a Masonic lodge. Rather, the lodge was established by the first groups of non-Mormon settlers, and played a part in the political establishment of Salt Lake City as a counter-point to the Mormon majority. That Masonic lodge excluded Mormons from joining until the mid-twentieth century. In this environment, some Church leaders saw the Masonic groups as being anti-Mormon and discouraged members from joining. As far as I know, this was never official Church policy.

Second question:

As stated earlier, many early leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints were Freemasons. When Joseph Smith introduced the temple endowment in Nauvoo, one leader referred to the practice by letter as a restoration of "True Masonry". Though early Mormons used Masonry as a template for restored temple worship, there are significant differences between the two sets of ordinances.

As a teenager active in the Mormon faith, I was interested in joining the local Masonic lodge. My father encouraged me to wait until after I had attended the Mormon Temple to see if I still felt like I needed anything more. I still have an interest in Masonry, but don't have much time for additional fraternal organizations outside of my service in the LDS Church, professional groups, kids sports teams, etc. However, I know faithful Mormons who are Masons. They find that both ceremonies share some common metaphors, but play very different roles in their lives.

There are two really good articles on this topic in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, available here:

Freemasonry in Nauvoo
Freemasonry and the Temple


The Catholic Perspective concerning the Four Horsemen

Fr. Herman Kramer's 1956 The Book of Destiny is the most recent Catholic commentary on the Book of the Apocalypse. He covers the White, Red, Black, and Green Horses in part III, §A, chapters 1-4.

Apocalypse 6:2:

  The White Horse coming first on the scene is an allegorical figure of Conquest and of apparent victory over the Church. … the white horse was a symbol of victory won by the help of the gods … Some interpreters hold that the rider on the white horse is Christ Himself, (Iren. IV. 21/3; Victorinus and Andreas followed his opinion) and they remind us of chapter XIX. 12, where Christ appears riding on a white horse. Others hold that the white horse symbolizes the victorious Gospel, and the rider represents the preachers of the Gospel throughout the world.

3-4:

  A Red Horse, the symbol of war, appears.

5-6:

  A Black Horse appears. The description fits the personification of famine. Famine with exorbitant prices for food follows in the wake of war.

7-8:

  A horse of so strange a color appears, that the Seer calls it a "Green [or 'pale'] Horse". The color suggests to the mind a body decaying with pestilence. Death rides the horse. This personification of death presages utter depopulation or DEATH for this "FOURTH PART" of the earth.

See Fr. E. Sylvester Berry's 1921 The Apocalypse of St. John pp. 69-70 for a much briefer account than Fr. Kramer's.


According to the Catholic Church, did Jesus fulfil the prophesy of Isaiah by being buried in a tomb hewn in rock?

The Catholic Church has very few dogmatic interpretations of Scripture. This means that as in the case of most texts, there is the possibility for various explanations within the realm of acceptable Catholic exegesis in this situation.

There is not an official dogmatic interpretation of Isaiah 53:9 in the Catholic Church that explicitly makes the connection between the type of grave Jesus was laid in and the wording of the prophecy. There is a general consensus among Catholic exegetes that since Joseph of Aramathea was comparatively rich, the point that Jesus made his grave with the 'rich' is fulfilled in the manner you mention (but it does not necessarily require or refuse the fact that the particular grave was hewn in rock).

However, the Hebrew word for "rich" in Isaiah 53:9 can also be read as "evil doers" or the "wickedly rich," and in some contexts the words "rich" and "evil doer" were somewhat synonymous in ancient Hebrew culture. The Church recognizes that the text can also be read that Jesus was sent to death among the "wicked and the evil doers," with the expression "evil doers" a reference to morally corrupt persons, not merely wealthy. In this sense Jesus still fulfills the prophecy as he was crucified among two criminals.

Both interpretations and translations are acceptable, but neither demands that the Messiah necessarily be buried in a tomb hewn in stone.


What is the name of the Eternal Father worshipped by Latter Day Saints?

whether Latter Day Saints worship a god that was once a man

Yes

God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man....He was once a man like us;1

Heavenly Father who begat spirit children, including Jehovah who came to earth as Jesus and Michael who came to earth as Adam or whether the Eternal Father is different to Heavenly Father.
“Man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal [physical] body”2
We are all literally children of God, spiritually begotten in the premortal life.3

What is the name of the Eternal Father worshiped by Latter Day Saints?

His name is Elohim4 though he is usually referred to as Heavenly Father3.

Answering the Edited Question

Is the God worshipped by Latter Day Saints the Creator of ALL life or was he himself begotten of some heavenly father and some heavenly mother? Surely the Eternal, the Uncreated and Supreme God of all Creation had no need to be born of a woman that he himself had created in order to become “a god”? Is Elohim just the god over this planet, or is he the uncreated God over all Creation?

God may have been begotten by some Heavenly Father as he was once man, however there is no doctrine on His creation as it doesn't matter to one's salvation. [The LDS] acknowledge the Father as the ultimate object of their worship.5 To members of the Church of Jesus Christ there is no one else higher then Heavenly Father (Elohim).

God the Father is the Supreme Being in whom we believe and whom we worship. He is the ultimate Creator, Ruler, and Preserver of all things.3

Is Elohim, whom they worship, the uncreated God over ALL creation?

There isn't any real scriptural basis or doctrine on how God was created or uncreated (OP word), but he is the God over All creation as we know it.
Hebrews 1:2

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

Moses 2:1

1 And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto Moses, saying: Behold, I reveal unto you concerning this heaven, and this earth; write the words which I speak. I am the Beginning and the End, the Almighty God; by mine Only Begotten I created these things; yea, in the beginning I created the heaven, and the earth upon which thou standest.

Alma 30:44

44 But Alma said unto him: Thou hast had signs enough; will ye tempt your God? Will ye say, Show unto me a sign, when ye have the testimony of all these thy brethren, and also all the holy prophets? The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator.

See also
Genesis 1
1 King Follett Discourse, by Joseph Smith
2 Spirit Children of Heavenly Father
3 God the Father, see also Acts 17:29
4 Bible Dictionary: God the Father, Elohim, see also Encyclopedia of Mormonism and BYU Religious Studies Center
5 Godhead


If Jesus was weak, how could he be a carpenter?

The section of Ireaneus quoted here is part of a parenthetical phrase (note the hyphens).

  Some of them, moreover — [when they predicted that] as a weak and inglorious man, and as one who knew what it was to bear infirmity, Isaiah 53:3 and sitting upon the foal of an ass, Zechariah 9:9 He should come to Jerusalem; and that He should give His back to stripes, Isaiah 50:6 and His cheeks to palms [which struck Him]; and that He should be led as a sheep to the slaughter; Isaiah 53:7 and that He should have vinegar and gall given Him to drink; and that He should be forsaken by His friends and those nearest to Him; and that He should stretch forth His hands the whole day long; Isaiah 65:2 and that He should be mocked and maligned by those who looked upon Him; and that His garments should be parted, and lots cast upon His raiment; and that He should be brought down to the dust of death with all [the other] things of a like nature - prophesied

The reference is not to Jesus' weakness as a man, as though he was physically inferior to other men, but to his humility as regarding his having released his grasp upon the equality with the Father that He eternally enjoyed and His assuming the physical form and role of a human servant of the Father.

  Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.  And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. - Philippians 2:5-8

Therefore the comparison is not between Jesus strength and the strength of other men but between the power of God and the physical limitations that the Son of God took upon Himself.


How can incorrect information on a Catholic baptismal record be corrected?

Start by going to the parish priest of the church in which the baptism actually occurred and explain it to the pastor in charge. This should be done in person and not over any sort of social media. Please phone in advance to make an appointment and to make sure the pastor not on holidays or way on business or studies. If you are know to the priest(s) of this parish church, there should not be too much difficulty in getting the records set straight. Make sure that you have all the pertinent information needed when you see him, such as official government issued IDs, the original baptismal certificate (if possible) and the appropriate birth certificates and or marriage certificates (if required because of a name change).

If this fails, then approach your local chancery office on how to proceed. If the baptism occurred at the cathedral (as in my case) you will need to start directly at the chancery office of the diocese. In this case the Rector of the Cathedral would be able to assist you in making any corrections necessary on the baptismal records.


What is the Biblical basis that individual gifts can be revoked by God?

Yes, that is a wrestling of scripture. The gifts in question here have more to do with God's plan for Israel, and more generally irrevocable covenants and irrevocable gifts such as Marriage and Baptism. See also Numbers 23:19 ("I was summoned to bless; I will bless; I cannot revoke it!").

The Bible is pretty clear, though: God will not revoke gifts and callings. You may have problems taking an approach that contradicts this... in addition to the problems you already face in explaining that passage to those who do not want to hear.

Consider the following, though:

Adam and Eve lost, among other things, the gift of eternal life
Samson lost his gift of strength, granted due to having been "a nazirite for God from my mother’s womb" (Judges 16:17)
Even Judas seems to have been chosen by Jesus in Luke 6:13, but should one follow Judas?
You might also mention figures like the Egyptian magicians and their staffs-turned-snakes, who could perform magic tricks, but who were not of God

The most appropriate way to address this might be to point out that, though God does not revoke His gifts, people may reject them through their own sin.


For Catholics who have expressed concern about Pope Francis and are wary of his pontificate, what are the key issues?

Catholics generally fall into three (not-necessarily-exclusive) camps regarding their questioning of Francis's orthodoxy and Catholicity:

There are those who recognize Francis as a promoter of

the errors and heresies of Vatican II.

Very few faithful have enough time to study and read to understand
this (Abp. Lefebvre's short Open Letter to Confused Catholics is an
excellent aid, though.), but the errors they identify are chiefly
relativism of truth (i.e., Modernism, the "synthesis of all heresies"), from which follows

ecumenism (religious indifferentism),
collegiality (that the body of bishops is a head of the Church alongside but not subjected to the Pope; viz., that the Church is governed by a two-headed monster…), and
religious liberty (the Masonic idea that man has a fundamental right to spread error and publicly practice false religions).

Most sedevacantists and SSPX adherents recognize this.

error and heresy against faith.

Many traditionalist Catholics recognize this.
e.g., Francis's Evangelii Gaudium §247 gives the heresy that the Old Covenant is still valid and that Jews don't need "to turn from idols and to serve the true God."
Francis

saying "there is no Catholic God"
supporting tritheism and atheism, saying "God does not exist!…There is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit!"

moral errors.

Even neocon Novus Ordo Catholics and some Protestants (e.g., conservative Evangelicals) see this.
e.g., the mid-term report of the Synod on the Family, which said there are goods in homosexuality. [Cf. this RORATE CÆLI article: Cardinal Baldisseri: the Pope was personally aware and personally approved the relatio post disceptationem].
Francis dismissing the gravity of homosexuality by flippantly saying: "Who am I to judge?" (interview full-text)
Francis demoting, without explanation, Cardinal Burke, a strong defender of traditional marriage and the right to life of unborn people. (This was the first time in over 50 years that a cardinal had been demoted.)
"Dubia cardinals" accusing Francis of heresy against even moral norms

#1 leads to #2 which, in turn, leads to #3. Most people, even Protestants, are now recognizing #3. Soon, it seems, more people will recognize #1 and #2 cause #3.

  Note:
  A correspondent in Argentina [...] writes that only three
  views of this pope exist:
  1) he is a modernist, but covers himself by occasionally talking of the devil,
  2) he seeks attention and power by attracting everything to himself, and
  3) he is a confused thinker but basically orthodox.
  The man adds that this last view is no longer tenable.
  Source: On Heretical Popes, by James V. Schall S.J. | The Catholic Thing.


Why Does Matthew not give Jesus Christ's genealogy from Adam?

This question spawns from a misunderstanding of why the genealogy is there in the first place.

The genealogy is not a benign collection of facts, much like our own western approach to the topic would have it listed. Instead, Matthew provides Jesus' genealogy to legitimize him for any Jewish readers.

First, consider that everyone is from Adam. It means nothing for any purpose to start a genealogy from Adam. We all came from Adam. If Matthew was simply stating the facts of Jesus' family line, then starting at Adam would have been acceptable. But Jesus needed to be legitimized for a Jewish audience.

Abraham is the father of all Judaism. That's not just a colloquialism. Abraham literally is the ancestor of all Jews, by both blood and marriage. The genealogy starts at Abraham to tell the audience that Jesus was indeed a Jew.

Judah, the son of Jacob, stands out as the forefather one of the twelve tribes. This tells the reader that Matthew is claiming Jesus is from the tribe of Judah.

David stands out, and is probably the most important, because of specific messianic prophecies that the Messiah must be from the line of David. Matthew claims Jesus is the Messiah, so this one name in Jesus' genealogy is vitally important.

In contrast to modern, western thinking, Matthew used Jesus' genealogy like an address, proving that he is the Messiah. There is a very obvious appeal to Jewish readers. A number of other things stand out, such as the fact that it is listed in three sets of fourteen, indicating a kind of poetry, and the heavy annotations in the first set, but missing from the other two.

Compared to Luke's genealogy, which is more utilitarian and fact centered, tracing from Jesus to Adam, it is clear that Matthew's genealogy serves a very specific purpose.

The sources on this are abundant across the internet. The Wikipedia article Genealogy of Jesus is a good start.


Do all Christians believe in predestination?  No.

Do all Christians
   believe in free-will?  No.

Does the Bible teach predestination? Yes

Does the Bible teach Free-Will?  Yes

Romans informs us that salvation is about God's choice.  Romans 10 informs of of man's responsibility to believe or man's choice.  Is Jesus God?  Yes.  Is Jesus Man?  Yes.  Coincidence that God operates in this way?


There is no time limit laid down. So far, every conclave in the last hundred years has lasted less than a week, but a pope can only be elected with a two-thirds majority of the College of Cardinals.
The procedure for a conclave was set out in Pope John Paul II's Apostolic Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis, promulgated on 22 February 1996, amended by the Motu Proprio Normas nonnullas of Benedict XVI, issued 22 February 2013.

No. 62 [amended by Normas nonnullas]. "Since the forms of election known as per acclamationem seu inspirationem and per compromissum are abolished, the form of electing the Roman Pontiff shall henceforth be per scrutinium alone.
I therefore decree that for the valid election of the Roman Pontiff at least two thirds of the votes are required, calculated on the basis of the total number of electors present and voting."

However, there are norms in Universi Dominici Gregis to help with an impasse.

No. 74. In the event that the Cardinal electors find it difficult to agree on the person to be elected, after balloting has been carried out for three days in the form described above (in Nos. 62ff) without result, voting is to be suspended for a maximum of one day in order to allow a pause for prayer, informal discussion among the voters, and a brief spiritual exhortation given by the senior Cardinal in the Order of Deacons. Voting is then resumed in the usual manner, and after seven ballots, if the election has not taken place, there is another pause for prayer, discussion and an exhortation given by the senior Cardinal in the Order of Priests. Another series of seven ballots is then held and, if there has still been no election, this is followed by a further pause for prayer, discussion and an exhortation given by the senior Cardinal in the Order of Bishops. Voting is then resumed in the usual manner and, unless the election occurs, it is to continue for seven ballots.
No. 75 [as amended by Normas nonnullas] If the balloting mentioned in Nos. 72, 73 and 74 ... does not result in an election, one day shall be dedicated to prayer, reflection and dialogue; in the successive balloting, observing the order established in No. 74, only the two names which received the greatest number of votes in the previous scrutiny, will have passive voice. There can be no waiving of the requirement that, in these ballots too, for a valid election to take place there must be a clear majority of at least two thirds of the votes of the Cardinals present and voting. In these ballots the two names having passive voice do not have active voice.

There are two ballots per day, so the provisions of Norm 75 come into play after fifteen days. The cardinals are given the opportunity to bring deliberations to a swift conclusion by choosing between only the two highest-polling candidates in the last ballot, after which time the process starts again.


Why are the bread and wine mixed together in the Holy Eucharist during an Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgy?

The origins of this tradition can be found as early as 120AD in the practice of fermentum, whereby a piece of consecrated bread was broken off and sent to another community in another place for a separate - yet now connected - Eucharistic celebration, thereby expressing the unity of the Church through communion. (The Roots of the Catholic Tradition)

When this practice of traveling leaven was no longer taken up, a piece of the locally consecrated bread was dropped into the chalice and the tradition was explained through various allegory and metaphor, one of which being: this commixture symbolizes the reunion (resurrection) of Christ’s body and soul which were separated at the cross. (The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia)

The actual word commixture and this notion that Christ essentially puts his power “on hold” before the resurrection, we find in The Life Hidden or Veiled by the Sacramental Species from Cardinal Cienfuegos (1657-1739):

  This life Christ the Lord Himself as High Priest alone sacrifices and
  offers inasmuch as by the sway of His human will he suspends or
  removes the vital actions miraculously produced, and determines not to
  elicit any further action or to use the instrumental power of
  producing them according to His will, until by a kind of resurrection
  in the commemoration of the resurrection in the commixture of the body
  and the blood He resumes the actual life and free use of instrumental
  power.

In his book A History of The Doctrine of The Holy Eucharist, Vol. 2, Darwell Stone writes this of Cardnial Cienfuegos proposal:

  Upon this opinion he built up a theory that in the Eucharistic
  sacrifices our Lord offers this life of the senses and suspends these
  vital actions until the mystical representation of the resurrection in
  the commixture of consecrated elements at the placing of a fragment of
  the host in the chalice; and that this suspension constitutes the
  sacrifice.

As you may have gathered, this tradition is not exclusive to the Orthodox tradition. It is practiced in the Catholic tradition (at least it was when I was an altar boy 45 years ago) and in the Episcopal tradition as well. (4)


Why is Mary Magdalene the patron saint of hairdressers?

To answer the "when" question, the exact date is unknown (patron saint assignments were not decided by official decree, but rather were adopted by people over time), but the association dates back to at least the Middle Ages.
As alluded to by previous answers, there are two theories on "why" question.
Theory 1: anointing Jesus' feet
The first is that the association derives from the Gospel of Luke.  Pope Gregory (reigned 590-604) popularized the idea that three women described in the Gospels - Mary Magdalene (Matthew 27:56, 61; 28:1; Mark 15:40, 47; 16:1-19; Luke 8:2; 24:10; John 19:25; 20:1-18), Mary, the sister of Martha and Lazarus (Luke 10:38-42), and the unnamed woman who anointed Jesus' feet (Luke 7:36-50) - were all the same person.   (Later the story of the adulteress saved from stoning by Jesus [John 7:53-8:11] also came to be associated with Mary Magdalene.)
Because of this association, Mary was usually depicted as having long hair in medieval art.  Naturally, a woman always depicted with long, flowing hair is a good choice for hairdressers to adopt as a patron saint.

A 14th century depiction of Mary Magdalene at the cross of Jesus
A medieval legend reinforces the idea that her hair had become to be seen as her key trait.  In the legend, Mary, Martha, and Lazarus bring the Gospel to France.  After spreading the Gospel, Mary retires to a cave to pursue a contemplative, solitary life.  Over time, her clothes wear out but miraculous her hair grows to cover her entire body, preserving her modesty.

Mary, covered in hair, being lifted up by angels
Theory 2: actual hairdresser
An alternate theory is that Mary Magdelene's actual profession was that of a hairdresser, or at least that she was associated with the profession from a very early date.  There are two references in the Talmud to a Miriam megaddelah nashaia (Mary, the plaiter of women’s hair).  While it is debated whether this Miriam (Mary) is actually the same person as Mary Magdelene, it does raise the interesting possibility that "Magdelena" does not refer to a place name, Magdala, as traditionally thought, but rather a profession, megaddelah.  Since surnames weren't in use yet in the first century, people were often given nicknames to distinguish them from others with the same name.   Such nicknames could refer to a place of origin, but could also refer to a profession (among other things), so the theory is at least plausible.
Certainly it would a funny coincidence if Mary's nickname just happened to resemble a word she later came associated with for completely unrelated reasons.


Do Baptists believe someone with multiple personalities has multiple souls?

The first thing that has to be said is that the movie 'Jonathan' is fiction. There is no indication that the story is intended to be based on anything resembling real life. Christian theology does not deal with fictional situations, and so it is not really useful to ask what the Christian theological approach to an unreal situation is.

Multiple Personality Disorder does exist in real life, but looks very little like the movie. Where it occurs it is not seen as 'multiple people inhabiting a single body' by anyone, either medical professionals or Christian theologians. Instead it is seen as a single person exhibiting differing personality traits, and it is a disorder of the (one) mind that inhabits a body, and can be treated. There is no question of them having 'two souls'.

What is possible in Christian theology is that of a second spirit entering and sometimes taking over the body of a person - called 'possession'. Note that I carefully say 'possible' because most Christians would consider it a largely theoretical possibility, occurring only extremely rarely if at all, and that ancient (or modern) descriptions of possession were almost invariably instances of multiple personality disorder.

If we accept possession we must note that again there is no question of multiple souls for a single person. The possessing spirit is a separate entity from the person whose body it is, and can be cast out. The person has a single soul


What is "the spirit of this world." referred to by John-Paul II

The "spirit of this world" refers to the unrepentant sinfulness of people, especially those inclinations that lead people to rally against and undermine the Church. The "acting body" of the spirit of this world seems to be primarily human (human impiety, malice, and so on), though it is certainly stoked and sustained by the forces of darkness and the devil in particular. This "spirit of the world" does not specifically refer to the devil, who would be first among the forces of darkness.

A bit of history is now in order (at least for those interested in the details).

Blessed John Paul II is speaking about the prayer to St Michael the Archangel. This prayer was composed by Pope Leo XIII, and it is fairly reasonable to assume that Bl John Paul understands the background well enough to know what his predecessor was getting at. The prayer is a plea for aid in defending the Catholic Church from her enemies (a prayer similar to, for example, Lamentations 3). It was added at the end of the Mass in 1886. Here is a relevant excerpt from the longer version of this prayer:

  [...] That cruel, ancient serpent, who is called the devil or Satan who seduces the whole world, was cast into the abyss with his angels. Behold, this primeval enemy and slayer of men has taken courage. Transformed into an angel of light, he wanders about with all the multitude of wicked spirits, invading the earth in order to blot out the name of God and of His Christ, to seize upon, slay and cast into eternal perdition souls destined for the crown of eternal glory. This wicked dragon pours out, as a most impure flood, the venom of his malice on men of depraved mind and corrupt heart, the spirit of lying, of impiety, of blasphemy, and the pestilent breath of impurity, and of every vice and iniquity.
  Be favorable to Thy Church, the Bride of the Lamb without spot, whose enemies have filled to overflowing with gall and inebriated with wormwood.  [...]

Pope Leo XIII issued 85 Encyclicals. If you look at that list, you'll see that a fair number of them are vocal against various secular evils, which took root as Communism, Freemasonry, Nihilism, Socialism, and so on. The first of these encyclicals was Inscrutabili Dei Consilio, On the Evils of Society, which closely mirrors the above prayer:

  [...] For, from the very beginning of Our pontificate, the sad sight has presented itself to Us of the evils by which the human race is oppressed on every side: the widespread subversion of the primary truths on which, as on its foundations, human society is based; the obstinacy of mind that will not brook any authority however lawful; the endless sources of disagreement, whence arrive civil strife, and ruthless war and bloodshed; the contempt of law which molds characters and is the shield of righteousness; the insatiable craving for things perishable, with complete forgetfulness of things eternal, leading up to the desperate madness whereby so many wretched beings, in all directions, scruple not to lay violent hands upon themselves; the reckless mismanagement, waste, and misappropriation of the public funds; the shamelessness of those who, full of treachery, make semblance of being champions of country, of freedom, and every kind of right; in fine, the deadly kind of plague which infects in its inmost recesses, allowing it no respite and foreboding ever fresh disturbances and final disaster.  3. Now, the source of these evils lies chiefly, We are convinced, in this, that the holy and venerable authority of the Church, which in God's name rules mankind, upholding and defending all lawful authority, has been despised and set aside. The enemies of public order, being fully aware of this, have thought nothing better suited to destroy the foundations of society than to make an unflagging attack upon the Church of God, to bring her into discredit and odium by spreading infamous calumnies and accusing her of being opposed to genuine progress. [...]

Sound familiar? Well, it does to Catholics, and of course to all who would rightly call themselves Christians, as we will soon see. Note that this was written in 1878. This was before the first World War, before anti-religious Communism as we tend to remember it. Now, later in this same encyclical, Pope Leo XIII directly references Col 2:8, and we find ourselves going further back in history, to Paul:

  See to it that no one captivate you with an empty, seductive philosophy according to human tradition, according to the elemental powers of the world and not according to Christ.

And here is 1 Corinthians 2:

  6 Yet we do speak a wisdom to those who are mature, but not a wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age who are passing away. [...] 12 We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit that is from God, so that we may understand the things freely given us by God.

Of course, "world" has a number of meanings throughout the Bible (creation, fallen humanity as in John 3:17). Here, it refers to the ideas expressed vividly by Jesus in John 15:18--:

  The World’s Hatred: “If the world hates you, realize that it hated me first.
  If you belonged to the world, the world would love its own; but because you do not belong to the world, and I have chosen you out of the world, the world hates you.
  Remember the word I spoke to you, ‘No slave is greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours.
  And they will do all these things to you on account of my name, because [...]

This is what the prayer by Pope Leo XIII refers to, and what Bl John Paul II is speaking of when he says "the spirit of this world".

When we say the Prayer to St Michael the Archangel (defend us in battle, be our protection against...), many of us may have in mind the more-personal evils that we are worried are arrayed against us (which is good and right, since it serves to keep us on the narrow way, as God intends). When the Pope says the prayer, he has evils more vast in mind; he says it as a plea to God for the protection of the entire Church and world.