Does the Bible suggest that the earth is round?

In addition to Isaiah 40:22, which Ashansky pointed out, there's also Job 26: 7, which states that the earth is hung "upon nothing".  This is quite a difference from, for example, the Greek idea of Earth supported upon Atlas's shoulders, or the Hindu notion of Earth resting upon the back of an elephant which stands on the back of a turtle which swims in a vast ocean.

Also, Luke 17:31-36 speaks of people being taken away into heaven at (or before, but that's a matter for a different question) the time of the Second Coming, and states that some will be taken at night, and some in the daytime, even though it's supposed to happen all at once.  That's not possible on a flat earth model.

The idea of a flat earth is not found in the Bible or in ancient Christian thought.  The notion that people thought it was was invented almost simultaneously, but apparently independently, by two 19th-century authors. One came up with the idea for dramatic purposes; the other did so quite maliciously for the specific purpose of slandering and discrediting Christianity:

  No one before the 1830s believed that medieval people thought that the earth was flat.

  The idea was established, almost contemporaneously, by a Frenchman and an American, between whom I have not been able to establish a connection, though they were both in Paris at the same time. One was Antoine-Jean Letronne (1787-1848), an academic of strong antireligious prejudices who had studied both geography and patristics and who cleverly drew upon both to misrepresent the church fathers and their medieval successors as believing in a flat earth, in his On the Cosmographical Ideas of the Church Fathers (1834). The American was no other than our beloved storyteller Washington Irving (1783-1859), who loved to write historical fiction under the guise of history. His misrepresentations of the history of early New York City and of the life of Washington were topped by his history of Christopher Columbus (1828). It was he who invented the indelible picture of the young Columbus, a "simple mariner," appearing before a dark crowd of benighted inquisitors and hooded theologians at a council of Salamanca, all of whom believed, according to Irving, that the earth was flat like a plate. Well, yes, there was a meeting at Salamanca in 1491, but Irving's version of it, to quote a distinguished modern historian of Columbus, was "pure moonshine. Washington Irving, scenting his opportunity for a picturesque and moving scene," created a fictitious account of this "nonexistent university council" and "let his imagination go completely...the whole story is misleading and mischievous nonsense."

  -- Jeffrey Burton Russell, The Myth of the Flat Earth

Also, from an extrabliblical source, it seems that Clement, bishop of Rome from the early Christian period, had correct knowledge of the earth.  He spoke of antichthones (Greek, literally "people on the other side of the world") and stated that:

  The ocean is impassable to men; and those are worlds which are on the other side of it, which are governed by these same arrangements of the ruling God.

  -- cited here with the rather indecipherable "Clemens Rom., Ep. i., ad Cor., c. 20."


Did any other philosophical systems have as much influence on the early Church as Platonism and Stoicism?

Neo-Platonism. Augustine was influenced by Neo-Platonism, as well as other Christian writers. I think you will find Neo-Platonism to be more more influential than Platonism.

I am not expert in Philosophy enough to provide my own explanation. All I can do is provide some references. From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Augustine is described as a Christian Neoplatonist. Augustine is highly influential in later times as well and, as stated in the below, also being a main figure in the merging of Greek philosophical tradition and the Judeo-Christian religious and scriptural traditions. So, this would show influence of Neoplatonism on the early Church.

From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (bolding mine):

  Aurelius Augustinus [more commonly “St. Augustine of Hippo,” often simply “Augustine”] (354–430 C.E.): rhetor, Christian Neoplatonist, North African Bishop, Doctor of the Roman Catholic Church. One of the decisive developments in the western philosophical tradition was the eventually widespread merging of the Greek philosophical tradition and the Judeo-Christian religious and scriptural traditions. Augustine is one of the main figures through and by whom this merging was accomplished. He is, as well, one of the towering figures of medieval philosophy whose authority and thought came to exert a pervasive and enduring influence well into the modern period (e.g. Descartes and especially Malebranche), and even up to the present day, especially among those sympathetic to the religious tradition which he helped to shape (e.g. Plantinga 1992; Adams 1999).

Plotinus is generally regarded as the founder of Neoplatonism. His article says

  The term ‘Neoplatonism’ is an invention of early 19th century European scholarship and indicates the penchant of historians for dividing ‘periods’ in history. In this case, the term was intended to indicate that Plotinus initiated a new phase in the development of the Platonic tradition. What this ‘newness’ amounted to, if anything, is controversial, largely because one’s assessment of it depends upon one's assessment of what Platonism is. In fact, Plotinus (like all his successors) regarded himself simply as a Platonist, that is, as an expositor and defender of the philosophical position whose greatest exponent was Plato himself. Originality was thus not held as a premium by Plotinus. Nevertheless, Plotinus realized that Plato needed to be interpreted. In addition, between Plato and himself, Plotinus found roughly 600 years of philosophical writing, much of it reflecting engagement with Plato and the tradition of philosophy he initiated. Consequently, there were at least two avenues for originality open to Plotinus, even if it was not his intention to say fundamentally new things.

  ...

  The three basic principles of Plotinus' metaphysics are called by him ‘the One’ (or, equivalently, ‘the Good’), Intellect, and Soul (see V 1; V 9.). These principles are both ultimate ontological realities and explanatory principles. Plotinus believed that they were recognized by Plato as such, as well as by the entire subsequent Platonic tradition."

The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy say Plotinus was a synthesizer of various philosophical schools:

  In the last analysis, what stands as the most important and impressive accomplishment of Plotinus is the manner in which he synthesized the pure, ‘semi-mythical’ expression of Plato with the logical rigors of the Peripatetic and Stoic schools, yet without losing sight of philosophy’s most important task: of rendering the human experience in intelligible and analyzable terms. That Plotinus’ thought had to take the ‘detour’ through such wildly mystical and speculative paths as Gnosticism and Christian salvation theology is only proof of his clear-sightedness, thoroughness, and admirable humanism. For all of his dialectical difficulties and perambulations, Plotinus’ sole concern is with the well-being (eudaimonia) of the human soul. This is, of course, to be understood as an intellectual, as opposed to a merely physical or even emotional well-being, for Plotinus was not concerned with the temporary or the temporal. The striving of the human mind for a mode of existence more suited to its intuited potential than the ephemeral possibilities of this material realm, while admittedly a striving born of temporality, is nonetheless directed toward atemporal and divine perfection.

New Advent's article on Neoplatonism describes it as:

  A system of idealistic, spiritualistic philosophy, tending towards mysticism, which flourished in the pagan world of Greece and Rome during the first centuries of the Christian era. It is of interest and importance, not merely because it is the last attempt of Greek thought to rehabilitate itself and restore its exhausted vitality by recourse to Oriental religious ideas, but also because it definitely entered the service of pagan polytheism and was used as a weapon against Christianity. It derives its name from the fact that its first representatives drew their inspiration from Plato's doctrines, although it is well known that many of the treatises on which they relied are not genuine works of Plato. It originated in Egypt, a circumstance which would, of itself, indicate that while the system was a characteristic product of the Hellenistic spirit, it was largely influenced by the religious ideals and mystic tendencies of Oriental thought.

Hopefully, the above will provide and idea that Neo-Platonism is not Platonism and that it had influence on early Christian writers most notably Augustine.


How does the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America handle heresies?

The guideline for discipline of clergy can be found here:
http://download.elca.org/ELCA%20Resource%20Repository/Discipline_Process.pdf

The above disciplinary process is intended for rostered leaders, including associates in ministry, ordained clergy, diaconal ministers, deaconesses, etc.  Considering the complexity of the twofold rule of God theology, it is unlikely that error on this matter alone would be treated harshly.  Disciplinary action is more likely to occur should the theological error becomes manifest in some form of behavior or activity that is in contradiction with accepted witness of the Gospel and the ELCA Visions and Expectations for rostered leaders.  The guidelines known as Visions and Expectations are slightly different depending on the type of rostered leader.  These guidelines can be found here:
http://www.elca.org/en/About/Churchwide/Office-of-the-Secretary/Rostered-Leaders

Because American culture is currently undergoing massive social change in the wake of the advent of global interconnectedness through technology and business, and because the ELCA is in the midst of the development of ecumenical and interreligious relationships, the theological error wherein the unmerited grace of God is put forth as the governing principle of human society is more likely to occur and less likely to raise alarm among the leadership of the ELCA. This error supplants the rule of law with the gospel resulting in a theology of "cheap grace" wherein there is neither need nor demand for discipleship. Amidst the important and worthy need and effort to become radically inclusive and courageously cooperative, we are tempted to preach God's rule of law weakly, particularly on matters where we find ourselves in disagreement with those with who we seek to be in close partnership, whether religious, political or social allies.  American Lutherans seem to try really hard to be nice and avoid public controversy and conflict.
Errors that are more likely to initiate disciplinary action are those that indicate that adherence to a particular legal or moral code are redemptive and necessary for one's salvation and/or participation in the community of faith.  This is error that supplants God's rule of grace in the community of Christ and negates the redemptive action of Christ (a heresy colloquially known as "works righteousness" or "salvation by works").  While Lutherans are no less likely to engage in this kind of heresy, we are very sensitive about it because our theological and reformation heritage is rooted in the doctrine of salvation "by grace alone through faith alone."

It is unlikely that theological error on this matter would result in discipline for heresy for a layperson (unless perhaps, that layperson served their congregation in the ministry of Word and was deliberately teaching in contradiction to the ELCA teaching).  Because of the complexity and semi-paradoxical nature of twofold rule theology, error on the part of a layperson could be resolved with education rather than discipline.


According to Mormons, Jesus is Jehovah in OT. Therefore do they view all the occurrences of the Tetragrammaton as referring to Jesus?

This is correct, and easily supported by the Bible, particularly the writings of John.

John chapter 1 states that "all things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." So we see that Jehovah, the creator of the world, is Jesus.
In John 14:6, Jesus says that "no man cometh unto the Father but by me," and 1 John 2: 1 calls Jesus our "advocate with the Father", showing that interactions between man and God -- such as those experienced by Old Testament prophets -- are with Jesus, rather than with the Father.
In Isaiah 44:6, the LORD (tegragrammaton) states "I am the first and I am the last"; Jesus similarly identifies himself as "the First and the Last" in Revelation 22:13.  (See verse 16 to clear up any ambiguity as to the identity of the speaker here.)
In the end of John chapter 8, Jesus angered the local Jews by equating himself with "I AM," the name by which Jehovah identified himself to Moses in Exodus chapter 3.  In verse 14 the being in the burning bush calls himself I AM, and in verse 15 he calls himself the tegragrammaton.

So we see that Jehovah is identified quite clearly with Jesus, rather than with the Father, and that interaction between mankind and deity occurs exclusively through the mediation of the Son.  LDS doctrine holds that this is a consequence of the Fall, separating mankind from the Father.

Interestingly enough, the first chapters of Genesis use a rather unique term for deity: Jehovah Elohim, translated to English as "The LORD God", created the world and interacted with Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden, and then ended up casting them out after they partook of the forbidden fruit.  From that point on, starting in the next chapter, the God they interact with is simply Jehovah.  LDS doctrine holds that Elohim ("God" in Hebrew) refers to the Father when used as a personal name, (the term is also used as a generic word for any god, including the false gods of other peoples,) and that these early chapters, before the Fall, spoke of the Father and the Son together creating the world and interacting with Adam and Eve, but after being driven out of Eden, the privilege of direct communion with the Father was lost.


How does Oneness Pentecostalism interpret Matthew 3:17?

Interestingly, Oneness Pentecostals do not fail to see a distinction between Father and Son as many suppose.  The United Pentecostals explain the distinction of Father, Son and Holy Spirit as follows: "God is Father in creation, Son in redemption, and Holy Spirit in sanctification."  Note however, that the distinction is in what God is doing and how he is doing it, not in person-hood.

The doctrine of Oneness denotes that there is only one God who manifests/reveals/expresses Himself at various times in various ways. This is in contrast to Trinitarian doctrine which sees God as always having existed as three separate and distinct persons, though one God.

One United Pentecostal theologian, David Bernard, in his book, the Oneness of God, points out that Scripture uses the term Son when referring to Jesus' humanity, never His divinity.  Thus, they see a distinction between Father and Son in terms of humanity.  Jesus the Son says He is one with the Father, in the Father and the Father is in Him.  They therefore see one God existing simultaneously on Earth in the Son and in heaven as the Father.

Having established that background, in Matthew 3:16-17, God is in the Son, who is getting baptized.  God speaks from heaven as Father, addressing His Son.  God also alights upon  the Son, in the likeness of a dove.  But He is only one God simultaneously in three places, doing three things, in three different ways.

Bernard writes:

  With the
  omnipresence of God in mind we can understand the baptism of Christ
  very easily. It was not at all difficult for the Spirit of Jesus to
  speak from heaven and to send a manifestation of His Spirit in the
  form of a dove even while His human body was in the Jordan River.  The
  voice and the dove do not represent separate persons any  more than the
  voice of God from Sinai indicates that the  mountain was a separate
  intelligent person in the Godhead.

The rest of what he writes in regard to Jesus baptism is found on page 172-175 of his book, The Oneness of God.

There are various Oneness adherents, and even various Pentecostal Oneness groups.  I have answered based on the doctrines of the United Pentecostal Church.

See also my answer to a related question:
How do United Pentecostals and other Oneness groups interpret Hebrews 2:9?


Are there any major Protestant denominations that meet every day and are together all the time like the early church was?

The two passages you cite from Acts involve may involve very different models of Christian life. The former describes how some Christians lived, the latter describes what some Christians did.

The citation from Acts 2 involves people who lived together, if not in the same structure, then at least in very close proximity. Religious life [Note: the use of the word "religious" here is to describe communities of Men and Women who live together in a consecrated life in communities such as monasteries and convents] commonly found among Catholics, Orthodox, and less common, but not unknown among Anglicans and Lutherans, and rare, but not unknown among other Christian denominations, fit this example. So, too, at least to some degree, do the Seminaries of most denominations, and universities operated by, or with close working relationships to various denominations, where students live together in dormitory housing.

The citation, to Acts 5, describes the principal Christian mission, evangelism. That is to say it describes what Christians did, and does not really speak to how they lived.  I like to think that I follow this model in my own life, not so much in the explicit form of proclamation described in Acts 5, but rather in the somewhat more subtle form of Matthew 5 (v. 16): "Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works and glorify your Father, who is in heaven." (RSV). I know others whose behavior tells me that they are practicing Evangelism in the same manner.

For what it's worth, most major cities in the US have at least one Episcopal Parish at which at least morning and evening prayer are celebrated at least six (Sunday through Friday), if not seven, days a week. This is consistent with Biblical practice, where making sacrifices in the Temple was the work of the priests, who being obligated to keep the Sabbath the same as every other Jew, would not have offered Sacrifices n the Sabbath.


Where does this definition of humility come from, if not the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

It comes from the Glossary, a derived work of the Catechism, which states:

  HUMILITY: The virtue by which a Christian acknowledges that God is the author of all good. Humility avoids inordinate ambition or pride, and provides the foundation for turning to God in prayer (2559). Voluntary humility can be described as "poverty of spirit" (2546).

You can see a copy of the Glossary online here.. Read the top for details about how it was generated and it’s status.


It may be that Satan has always defied God, or (and) that he believes his own lies.  The Bible doesn't touch the subject directly.


Why was Ham cursed for seeing his father naked?

In the Old Testament, "uncovering the nakedness of your father" was a euphemism that was used for having relations with his wife.

The likely explanation for this passage, based on my own study and consulting numerous commentaries of Bible scholars, is that, while Noah was drunk and unaware of what was going on around him, Ham entered his father's tent and had relations with his mother. Canaan was likely the result of that union, which explains why he was the target of the curse.

This explanation is not definitive, but it is the one that makes the most sense based on my study of the passage and the cultural underpinnings of the Old Testament.


What does John Calvin mean to imply by the "suffrage" of the church?

Answer for question 1: Suffrage

Suffragio also means intercession.So Suffragio can mean suffrage , vote, intercession or a combination.

With this understanding of suffrage, vote and intercession.
Lets take your posting and compare within a context that Calvin may be referring to.

"Thus, while the church receives and gives its seal of approval to the Scriptures,
 it does not thereby render authentic what is otherwise doubtful or controversial.
 But because the church recognizes Scripture to be the truth of its own God,
 as a pious duty it unhesitatingly venerates Scripture."

According to the above statement, let's look at a perfect example. One of the first ancient councils where "Suffragio", intercession and vote was needed.

Example:

The First Council of Nicea, was a case where The Church was under attack from
 heresies, Arians denying the divinity of Christ.
 Similar to the statement above declares.
 "it does not thereby render authentic what is otherwise doubtful or controversial"

Likewise the Council of Nicea did not render authentication of what was doubtful or controversial. It was the opposite, that is to say
 The Church was defending Apostolic teaching, defending what had been passed down and always understood and believed. Defending what they already knew.
 No new theology came from this council.  Suffragio (intercession and vote) was needed because of outside heretical forces to defend the scripture.
 Thus the Nicene creed came into existence. Not creating anything new, but again defending what was already known, understood, believed and passed down
 form the Apostles. Everything being defending through suffrage,intercession and vote.

This example would also answer your question about a "communal expression of faith". The ancient Church believed that as long as the entire Church was united,
 and voted united, that the Holy Spirit was guiding them. This is very evident throughout the first seven ecumenical councils where "Suffragio" was required.
 In contrast, if any one part were to leave, there could no longer be ecumenical intercession or votes. A foot note that ever since the Great Schism, Rome being separated from
 the main body of the other four (Alexandria,Jerusalem,Antioch,Constantinople), there has never been another ecumenical council in the East, that included all.
 Rome continued with their own councils only effecting the West, for which eventually brought about Luther's and Calvin's writings..

You next inquiry is:
 "I'm asking to what extent "the Church" is present here as a single entity."
 This is a great question and a little complex depending on context. Most of Calvin's writings are against the Roman Church in some way or another.
 He may very well be making his statement in context of all other historical occurrences and examples before the Great Schism, in rebuttal to the Roman Church's changes
 in the West after the Schism. If he is writing in the context of Sola Scriptora, this would be a difficult position to defend, as other Protestant churches
 had already come into existence and there is no logical way he could pick from one of the many diverse entities who did not agree, claiming a single entity.
 The concept of an all encompassing invisible Church does not exist anywhere in Christian history before this. The Church is very visible and united for over a 1,000 years until the Great Schism.

Let's explore all possibilities he could be thinking.
 So "the Church" is present here as a single entity" would depend on context.

The original ancient Church that stood united for over 1,000 years is considered The Church.
After the Great Schism of 1054 AD, Rome claimed to be The Church.
Likewise The Church of the East, the Orthodox (Alexandria,Jerusalem,Antioch,Constantinople and Rome) claimed to be The Church and still claims this.
According to translation Calvin is using a present tense. "recognizes" which alludes to a more present understanding or what Calvin's understanding of "The Church".

If the case is option 4, this would allude to an understanding only by Calvin. Basically his own understanding.

Note: If the translation was in a past tense. "recognized",
ex:'But because the church recognized Scripture to be the truth of its own God'
I would say he would have been referring to past occurrences, when The Church was united. Maybe again as a rebuttal, to say Romes intercession's , votes were not in defense,
but rather they were changing things. He still could be meaning this in one form or another.

Answer for question 2:Is there a meaningful concept of voting?
   In accordance to Church history, Yes! However, only when The Church (ALL) is fully united. Thus the reason there were never more than
   the seven ecumenical councils. Rome being separated in 1054AD, to this day, no other ecumenical council has ever taken place. Not because Rome was more important,
   Each bishop whether from Rome or Jerusalem was allowed only a vote a piece, it's more along the lines of The Church has been separated.
   I would suggest looking at the Ante-Nicene collection and the councils specifically to help you understand the need for the councils and voting in ancient times.

I would not think at all that Calvin purposely intends "aggregating everyone's opinions and picking the most popular". That would not match anything in Christian history.
   However he is in a little bit of a dilemma, writing against the Roman Church, but not being united with the Church from the East.
   All Churches will say the are being lead by the Holy Spirit, but don't agree.I personally think Calvin has a deeper understanding, however the position that he is in, the era, his surroundings, no contact with the East, is indeed a difficult one.

Answer for question 3: Is the parallel with Calvin's sacrament language just a coincidence, or are the same concepts being invoked in both instances?
  The sacramental language is not a coincidence. Again, based on history, the seven ecumenical councils of the East are considered Holy occurrences of Suffragio and defense within The Church.  I'm very confident in my answer to say that Calvin, within his own understanding, is expressing a sacramental expression. I will simply express again, within his own understanding.


What is the Catholic view of the Bible's teachings on marrying widows?

Remarriage in
New Testament
St. Paul says it's better for widows (as for virgins, too) to remain unmarried:

1Cor 7:27 Art thou bound to a wife? Seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife* [i.e., a widow]? Seek not a wife.

*by either death of the spouse or separation
But he does not prohibit widows (those "loosed from a wife/husband") from remarrying:

1Cor 7:28 But if thou take a wife, thou hast not sinned.

Young widows
especially if the widow is young and cannot contain her sexual desires:

1Tim 5:11 But the younger widows avoid. For when they have grown wanton in Christ, they will marry:

1Tim 5:14 I will, therefore, that the younger [wanton widows] should marry, bear children, be mistresses of families, give no occasion to the adversary to speak evil.

Old widows

1Tim 5:3 Honour [i.e., support, not marry] widows that are widows indeed.

St. Paul doesn't say widows should remarry; rather,

1Tim 3:4 if any widow have children or grandchildren, let her learn first to govern her own house and to make a return of duty to her parents; for this is acceptable before God.

He doesn't advise childless widows to remarry, either:

1Tim 3:5 But she that is a widow indeed, and desolate, let her trust in God and continue in supplications and prayers night and day.

Marrying widows
St. Paul says candidates for being a bishop must not have ever remarried:

1Tim 3:2 It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of [no more than] one wife, sober, prudent, of good behaviour, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher,

cf. the analogous "1Tim 5:9 Let a [female] widow be chosen of no less than threescore [60] years of age, who hath been the wife of one husband."
See St. Thomas Aquinas's commentary on 1 Timothy 5:9-16.
Old Testament

Proverbs 5:18 …rejoice with the wife of thy youth

i.e., honor your first wife.
And the holy young widow Judith didn't remarry, but vowed to remain a widow (cf. Judith 16:22).
Church's Practice
The Church discourages but does not prohibit second marriages. The marriage ceremony of widows is more somber, the father does not walk his daughter down the aisle, nor does he unveil her.
St. John Chrysostom's On Not Entering a Second Marriage (pp. 223-44) strongly discourages widows from remarrying.


ericgorr's answer is really good, but let me write a slightly simpler one.

Yes, absolutely God does love everyone. He totally wants the best for them and wants them to be the perfect person they were intended to be.

Now the trouble is that for Hitler, being the best he was intended to be absolutely involves not killing millions of people and starting a huge war. So God really really wants him to stop doing that - and not just because millions of people are dying, but also because doing this is screwing up Hitler as well and turning him into something he wasn't meant to be. Because of this God hates all the things that Hitler is doing, but still loves Hitler himself. Christians say that God "hates the sin but loves the sinner".

So let's imagine that in 1945 Hitler, instead of killing himself in a bunker, realises that he has been doing entirely the wrong thing this whole time, and is really sorry and genuinely wishes he had never done all those bad things, and asks God for forgiveness. Christians call that repentence. It's as vital to the process of getting right with God as 'coming to faith' is. Because God loves him, and because of Christ's death, God would forgive Hitler. That's pretty fundamental to Christianity.

Forgiveness doesn't mean there are no consequences. Had Hitler repented and lived he would probably still have been tried for war crimes, would certainly have been punished and hated by many people, would probably have been executed. Some Christians believe he might have spent a long time after death in a place called purgatory before going to heaven, possibly to get over the horror of understanding what he had done. Repentance is not an 'easy way out' like a get-out-of-jail-free card. And doing bad things and planning to repent afterwards doesn't work, because that means you thought the things you were doing weren't really bad after all.

There you go. I hope that's a helpful alternative to the more complete answer.


Can someone tell more about this artwork of Jesus Christ?

The image depicted is of the Crucifixion of Jesus.

  The crucifixion of Jesus occurred in 1st-century Judea, most likely between AD 30 and 33. Jesus' crucifixion is described in the four canonical gospels, referred to in the New Testament epistles, attested to by other ancient sources, and is established as a historical event confirmed by non-Christian sources, although there is no consensus among historians on the exact details.

  According to the canonical gospels, Jesus was arrested and tried by the Sanhedrin, and then sentenced by Pontius Pilate to be scourged, and finally crucified by the Romans. Jesus was stripped of his clothing and offered wine mixed with myrrh or gall to drink after saying I am thirsty. He was then hung between two convicted thieves and, according to the Gospel of Mark, died some six hours later. During this time, the soldiers affixed a sign to the top of the cross stating "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews" which, according to the Gospel of John, was written in three languages. They then divided his garments among themselves and cast lots for his seamless robe, according to the Gospel of John. According to the Gospel of John after Jesus' death, one soldier pierced his side with a spear to be certain that he had died, then blood and water gushed. The Bible describes seven statements that Jesus made while he was on the cross, as well as several supernatural events that occurred. - Crucifixion of Jesus

The Latin words are the opening words of Matins in the Divine Liturgy. The Church praises her redeemer for Christ saving humanity on the Cross.

  V: Domine labia mea aperies.

  R: Et os meum annunciabit laudem tuam.

And in English:

  V: Thou O Lord wilt open my lips.

  R: And my mouth shall declare thy praise.


Can a non-baptized Jehovah's Witness publisher date a non-believer?

It is worth noting that a person who has not been baptised as a Jehovah’s Witness but attends the meetings and shares in the preaching activity is known as “a publisher”.   Unbaptised publishers are therefore seen as potential members.  Since they have not yet been baptised, they are not officially identified as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

The general advice that is given in official publications is this:

  Why Jehovah’s Witnesses believe they should marry only within their religion: The Witnesses heed the Bible’s instruction to marry “only in the Lord,” that is, to marry a person who shares their faith. (1 Corinthians 7:39) This command is both Biblical and practical. For example, a 2010 article in the Journal of Marriage and Family said that “couples in which partners share common religious affiliations, practices, and beliefs” tend to have higher quality relationships.   Source: Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Break Up Families or Build Them Up?


How was the idea of homoousion developed, and when was this term used prior to the Nicean Council?

This seems to have been prompted by Greek Philosophy beginning about 600 BC. This is most pronounced in the teachings of Plato, specifically his Theory of Forms in Plato's cave allegory.

Details

In Plato's theory, εἶδος (eidos) represents the "Visible Form" while, μορφή (morphē) represents the "shape". Additionally, within Greco-Roman philosophy, there were also the φαινόμενα (phainomena), "appearances" which underwent significant philosophical discussion.

In Plato's allegory, Plato asks Glaucon to imagine a prisoner in a cell in a dungeon or cave. Out of view of the prisoner is a light source. This light source illuminates an object - again out of view of the prisoner. The prisoner in the cave is only able to see the shadow cast by the object:

In terms of the Allegory, the εἶδος (eidos) is the object or vase while the μορφή (morphē) is the projected image of the object, or the shadow of the vase.

As Wikipedia notes,

  The English word "form" may be used to translate two distinct concepts that concerned Plato—the outward "form" or appearance of something, and "Form" in a new, technical nature, that never

    ...assumes a form like that of any of the things which enter into her; ... But the forms which enter into and go out of her are the likenesses of real existences modelled after their patterns in a wonderful and inexplicable manner....

  The objects that are seen, according to Plato, are not real, but literally mimic the real Forms.

So in terms of God, the form of God as it appears to us (where we are the prisoner in Plato's cave) is the μορφή (morphē). This term acknowledges that our ability to view God is imperfect, and we are not capable of truly seeing God fully and directly. In trinitarian thought, the incarnation of Jesus might be thought of in some contexts as μορφή (morphē) - as Jesus, that was how God was able to appear to us.

Conversely, God's true form could be thought of as εἶδος (eidos). It holds the concept of God's true and actual form which we lack the ability and perspective to view properly due to our humanly limitations.

The Bible books of John and Philippians appear to reference this as do many other passages, I am sure:

  who, though he was in the form [morphe] of God, did not count
  equality with God a thing to be grasped (Philippians 2:6 ESV).

  And the Father who sent me has himself borne witness about me. His
  voice you have never heard, his form [eidos] you have never seen,
  (John 5:37 ESV)

Similarly, the Holy Spirit at Pentecost might be thought to be the φαινόμενα (phainomena) of God.

So, how do we get from form to substance?

The obvious problem for the philosopher here is that if Jesus is merely the form (morphē) of God, then he is not truly God. If Jesus is form (morphē) then he is not εἶδος (eidos). If the holy spirit is a φαινόμενα (phainomena) then she is not εἶδος (eidos).

This presents a problem for the Trinitarian scripturally, with Jesus's claims to be God.

This can then easily be corrected by asking "well, what if Jesus, the Holy Spirit and God are different forms, but are all of the same substance?" What if Jesus is but is a different form (morphē) of God, but is ὁμοούσιος (Homooúsios) as God?

Vs-à-vis Gnosticism

While Aristotle was known for using the term οὐσία to describe his philosophical concept of Primary Substances, the term ὁμοούσιος (Homooúsios) is first used by the Gnostics to describe their doctrine of Emanations, a concept that supported the idea of Aeons - a Panentheistic idea that we all worship the same God which simply appears in different forms (but these gods are also ὁμοούσιος [Homooúsios] or of the same substance as God). In contrast Sabellianism believed that God was singular and not triune, while Gnosticism taught god was polyune. According to Sabellianism, God is only one indivisible being and nothing can be of the same substance as God - he can only be taking on a different role or mode when he acts as the Holy Spirit or as Jesus.

Conclusion

From this context, we can easily see how we arrive at the Arian Controversy after this issue was raised and brought to the public attention by the Gnostics and philosophers. With this background in place, it is clear that when the language of Plato's Theory of Forms is used to describe Jesus as a form of God, it lends itself to the idea that Jesus is not God, but is merely a shadow or projection of God - not God himself. The language and concept of οὐσία therefore became necessary for the Trinitarians to explain both how Jesus could be both a form of God and BE God.


How was the church structured during the time of 300 AD - 500 AD?

Introduction

The early church had a church polity that had evolved through several centuries from being apostolic to presbytery culminating to predominantly being mono-episcopate.

FIRST CENTURY (1 to 100 A.D.)

Apostolic

The most ancient church leaders were the apostles. The preeminent of these was Peter, having been the first one to confess the true faith that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God (Matt.16:18). By his confession of the faith, Peter was called Cephas (''rock'') by the Lord Jesus. However, in his role of establishing the church , the Lord Jesus equally shared this to the other apostles (cf. Matthew 16:19; 18:18). Paul was clear and emphatic that the foundation of the early church were the apostles and the prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone (Eph. 2:20).

Only Catholicism teaches that the Roman bishop should be the new 'rock' (Peter) to lead the church of the next generations.

It is noteworthy that the Roman bishop did claim this to himself whilst the church disagreed. We have Cyprian (200-258 A.D.) , bishop of Carthage, in the 3rd century very explicit that he was against papacy.

  7th Council of Carthage: http://www.ccel.org... remains, that upon this
  same matter each of us should bring forward what we think, judging no
  man, nor rejecting any one from the right of communion, if he should
  think differently from us. For neither does any of us set himself
  up as a bishop of bishops, 4675 nor by tyrannical terror does
  any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since
  every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has
  his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another
  than he himself can judge another. 4676

Cyrian believed that the the other apostles were the same as Peter in regards to both honour and power:

  Treatise 1, Chapter 4 http://www.ccel.org...... He arranged by His
  authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly
  the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed
  with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning
  proceeds from unity.3110 [Which one Church, also, the Holy Spirit in
  the Song of Songs1 designated in the person of our Lord, and says,
  “My dove, my spotless one, is but one. She is the only one of her
  mother, elect of her that bare her.”]

However, in his Treatise I: On the Unity of the Church , Cyprian did believe in the primacy of Peter referring to the chair of Peter (cathedra Petri) as the source of that oneness or unity by which the church existed. Take note that the primacy of Peter (being held by Orthodox and some Protestants) is very different from papacy.

Presbytery

The New Testament had the original polity of presbytery (''πρεσβυτερίου'  - I Tim. 4:14). This church government is the ruling of bishops over a local church. In the earliest days of the church, bishop and elder are synonymous. The elders were functioning as bishops (''overseers'').

In Acts 20, Paul's ministry was going to finish soon when he gave a ﬁnal word of exhortation to the church in Ephesus. He began in verse 17 by addressing the πρεσβύτερος (elders) of the church, yet a few verses later in the passage, Paul referred to these same men in verse 28 as ἐπίσκοπος, or overseers. He described the same group one time as presbuteros and a second time as episkopos. Paul considered these two words to be synonyms for church leaders.

  17 Now from Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called the elders of the
  church to come to him. 18 And when they came to him, he said to
  them: “You yourselves know how I lived among you the whole time from
  the first day that I set foot in Asia, 19 serving the Lord with all
  humility and with tears and with trials that happened to me through
  the plots of the Jews; 20 how I did not shrink from declaring to you
  anything that was profitable, and teaching you in public and from
  house to house, 21 testifying both to Jews and to Greeks of repentance
  toward God and of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. 22 And now,
  behold, I am going to Jerusalem, constrained by the Spirit, not
  knowing what will happen to me there, 23 except that the Holy Spirit
  testifies to me in every city that imprisonment and afflictions await
  me. 24 But I do not account my life of any value nor as precious to
  myself, if only I may finish my course and the ministry that I
  received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the gospel of the grace of
  God. 25 And now, behold, I know that none of you among whom I have
  gone about proclaiming the kingdom will see my face again. 26
  Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of
  all, 27 for I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel
  of God. 28 Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the
  flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care
  for the church of God,[e] which he obtained with his own blood. (Acts
  20:17-28 ESV)

We also  have the Didache, a 1st century Christian document (ca. 65-80 A.D.) affirming this New Testament polity of elders/bishops.

  "Appoint, therefore, for yourselves, bishops and deacons worthy of
  the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money, and truthful and
  proved; for they also render to you the service of prophets and
  teachers." (Didache Chapter XV. -Bishops and Deacons; Christian
  Reproof.)

Monoepiscopacy

As early as the first century, churches had a polity that evolved rapidly from the presbytery to monoepiscopacy. In the New Testament, we had seen that such polity existed already in some churches notably of John's.

  I wrote somewhat unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have
  the preeminence among them, receiveth us not. (3 John 1:9 ASV)

We see in this passage that Diotrephes abuses his authority as leader in his local church. He loved more his position of being first rather than loving the family God has given him.

SECOND CENTURY TO THIRD CENTURY (101-300 A.D.)

Diocesan Monoepiscopacy

The church polity has evolved to having a bishop ruling not just his local church but other local churches as well. An instance is the bishop of Rome in the second century.

The first bishop to exercise jurisdictional authority was Victor I of Rome (r. ca 180 A.D.).

  ''Victor’s actions were more characteristic of a pope than those of
  preceding bishops of Rome.'' (Source)

  "Councils and Dioceses. We first hear of the bishops from local
  congregations in the same province meeting for consultation in the
  second half of the second century in connection with the problem posed
  by Montanism. These meetings were first held in connection with common
  problems but became regular gatherings. As churches in the large
  cities grew, presbyters (elders) were assigned to particular
  assemblies within the city. Earlier all congregational functions had
  been under the supervision of the bishop. Increasingly these had to be
  assigned to the presbyters. Christians living in outlying areas
  would not have their own bishop but would look to the city church for
  leadership. Thus the basis was laid for the bishop to preside over
  several assemblies, although in theory all remained one church. The
  territory presided over by a bishop is now called a diocese."
  (Everett Ferguson, Early Christians Speak, p 16)

FOURTH CENTURY (301-400 A.D.)

The Metropolitan bishops

The church polity has evolved further and now we have a bishop ruling not just local churches but every local church in a city (metropolitan bishop).

  The bishop of the capital city of a province (the metropolis) or of
  another principal city began in the third century to assume a leading
  position among the bishops of the province. He presided at the
  provincial councils, gave his approval for the ordination of bishops,
  and often was the principal ordainer himself when a new bishop was
  installed. The metropolitan bishops of the ancient church were
  forerunners of the medieval archbishops in the western church. The
  idea of councils of bishops led to the calling of ecumenical councils
  (world wide) to represent the whole church, the first of which was
  summoned by the emperor Constantine for Nicaea in 325. The council
  at Nicaea recognized the churches at Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch as
  having jurisdictional authority extending beyond the usual provincial
  limits. This was the germ of the patriarchal system. Eventually five
  patriarchs were recognized: the bishops of the above three churches
  and Constantinople and Jerusalem. When the division between the Greek
  (or Eastern) churches and the Latin (or Western) churches occurred,
  the Greek Church continued to hold to the patriarchal theory of church
  organization, whereas the Latin Church had recognized the bishop of
  Rome as the single pope thus giving it a monarchial organization."
  (Everett Ferguson, Early Christians Speak, p 16)

FIFTH CENTURY (401-500 A.D.)

The Patriarchs

In the fifth century, the church polity had evolved even further. Now we have a bishop ruling over a geographical site (i.e. nation). Such is called the Patriarch. In this century, there are five major patriarchs. One from the West. Four from the East: Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople and Jerusalem.

  "The first ecumenical council of Nice, in 325, as yet knew nothing of
  five patriarchs that would be fully established in 451 AD, but only the three metropolitans (Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome),
  confirming them in their traditional rights." (Philip Schaff, History
  of the Christian Church, book 3, chapter 5)

Discussion

The church polity from fourth century to fifth century was the same. Only Catholicism claimed that the traditional primacy of the bishop of Rome was really a Papacy or jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome over all churches both in the east and the west.

The East–West Schism of the 11th century was a product of centuries of differences (whether when to celebrate Easter, priests should be celibate, rules on fasting and of authority) between the Latin and Greek speaking churches. The bishop of Rome and the bishop of Constantinople had excommunicated each other due to the fact that the former dogmatically asserted his papacy over all bishops while the latter refused to acknowledge his papal authority.

Conclusion

The church structure from 300 A.D. to 500 A.D. was the same in both the East and the West. They were having monoepiscopacy that had evolved from metropolitan to patriarchy. Today the Orthodox remained the Patriarchy while in Roman Catholicism it was the Papacy.


Do Unitarians believe in the same number of books? Do they reject certain verses?

Do Unitarians generally believe in the same # of books as Catholics/Protestants?

Modern unitarians usually follow the Protestant bible, as modern Unitarianism is a branch of Protestantism from the Enlightenment period. However, it's roots go back much further than the 18th century. Here are some examples of various unitarian sects throughout the centuries, and their biblical canon:

The Ebionites and Nazarenes

The Ebionites are considered by secular historians to have been the first and original branch of Christianity. Their canon included the Hebrew Scriptures, as well as a Hebrew (or Aramaic) version of Matthew; believed by some to be the original gospel that Matthew wrote. Their copy of Matthew did not include the first two chapters, and it is unknown if they rejected the virgin birth, or if they just never heard of it. They also rejected any of Paul's letters, believing him to be a false apostle.

The Nazarenes were a similar sect of the same period. Some did accept a virgin birth, though it is often believed "Nazarenes" is just another name for the Ebionites. They were also unitarian and believed Yeshua was a spectacular man. Interestingly, some historians believe Yeshua was a prominent memeber of this sect. It's possible the Nazarenes were the same branch as the Nazarenes of the Judaic Essenes, seeing that there is no evidence of a city called Nazareth in the 1st century, and the Essenes are never mentioned in the gospels. Because of this, some scholars believe there was no "Jesus of Nazareth", but rather "Jesus the Nazarene".

The Early Church

Artemon and Theodotus of Byzantium were some of the earliest unitarians relevant to the early church. They taught that Yeshua was a man, and Eusebius says in one of his propaganda works: 1

  They do not endeavor to learn what the Divine Scriptures declare, but strive laboriously after any form of syllogism which may be devised to sustain their impiety. And if any one brings before them a passage of Divine Scripture, they see whether a conjective or disjunctive form of syllogism can be made from it. And as being of the earth and speaking of the earth, and as ignorant of him who cometh from above, they forsake the holy writings of God to devote themselves to geometry. Euclid is laboriously measured by some of them; and Aristotle and Theophrastus are admired; and Galen, perhaps, by some is even worshiped.

Paul of Samosata was a bishop in the late 200's AD. Although all his work has been destroyed, we know that he taught Yeshua was a man. It is unclear what his biblical canon was, but we know he believed in a virgin birth and accepted the letters of Paul.

The Reformation

During the Refmormation, many new and old idea were being presented. Although Michael Servetus may have believed in a form of Arianism rather than unitarianism, he is regarded by many Unitarian sects as their first martyr. Servetus was a polymath who studied the Scriptures in their original language. He accepted the virgin birth and the letters of Paul, but publicly denied the trinity, which led to his burning on a stake under the recommendation of John Calvin.

After Servestus there was a sect called Socinianism, named after their founder Fausto Sozzin. Sozzin accepted the Protestant canon, believed in the virgin birth, and accepted Paul's letters. However, unlikely Servetus, he denied any sort of "preexisting christ".

The Enlightenment

The Enlightenment, like the Reformation, saw many new ideas being presented. There was a fairly large unitarian movement happening during this time, and the first unitarian denomination was established by Theophilus Lindsey. With the help of polymath and chemist Joseph Priestley, the unitarian church spread throughout Europe. Priestley wrote many books during this period, including A History of the Corruptions of Christianity. Although Priestley accepted the letters of Paul, he denied the virgin birth and a preexistant Messiah. Thomas Jefferson, who is considered a unitarian deist and rejected the letters of Paul, wrote to John Adams: 2

  You are right in supposing, in one of yours, that I had not read much of Priestley’s Predestination, his No-soul system, or his controversy with Horsley. but I have read his Corruptions of Christianity, & Early opinions of Jesus, over and over again; and I rest on them, and on Middleton’s writings, especially his letters from Rome, and to Waterland, as the basis of my own faith. these writings have never been answered, nor can be answered, by quoting historical proofs, as they have done. for these facts therefore I cling to their learning, so much superior to my own.

Do they simply re-interpret verses in the NT or do they reject certain verses?

Unitarians do interpret many verses differently than triniatarians, modalist, and Arians, but the scope of this would be too large to cover here. If you have any questions about a verse, please ask a separate question so answers can deal with the specific problem.

Some unitarians reject the first two chapters of Matthew and Luke, believing them to be inconsistent with the gospels, lacking archaeological evidence, and of a pagan origin. Some unitarians also deny Paul as an apostle or having any sort of authority, believeing his conversion to be inconsistent with the human Messiah and accusing Paul of docetism.

I can only think of two relevant verses that most unitarians outright reject. Quotes are from the KJV (a Protestant bible):

  "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." 1 John 5:7

The bolded area is generally rejected by all newer translations, and seems to have popped up sometime during the 1600's. It was also a reason for Issac Newton's rejection of the trinity after he read the original Greek manuscripts of his time.

  "Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea." Revealtion 1:11

Again, modern translations usually reject the bolded quote. This is the resurrected Yeshua speaking to John, and would definitely provide evidence that Yeshua was claiming to be God, but this verse is absent from all of the oldest manuscripts. 3

Unitarians find it suspicious that these words were added to the Greek manuscripts and accepted in English translations, and usually consider this further evidence that a lack of biblical support for trinitarianism has caused these verses to be included.

Conclusion

The biblical canon for unitarians has varied over the centuries. Most accept the Protestant canon and only reject those verses which mainstream Christian scholars have determined to be corruptions.

Sources:

Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History Book v. Chapter xxviii
Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 22 August 1813
Commentaries on Revelation 1:11


According Catholic theology, what does the suffering of hell consist of?

Catechism of the Catholic Church

IV. Hell

  1034 Jesus often speaks of "Gehenna" of "the unquenchable fire"
  reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and
  be converted, where both soul and body can be lost. Jesus solemnly
  proclaims that he "will send his angels, and they will gather . . .
  all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire," and that
  he will pronounce the condemnation: "Depart from me, you cursed, into
  the eternal fire!"

  1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its
  eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a
  state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the
  punishments of hell, "eternal fire." The chief punishment of hell
  is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life
  and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

The emphasis in this passage is mine. The catechism says that separation from God is the chief punishment in hell. The reference to hell fire is placed in a strange context, given that the Church can hardly deny Jesus' words, yet it seems (to me) as if the Church would rather gloss over the hell fire aspect - perhaps because the concept of fire causing suffering to a pure spirit is not something easy to explain.


What is the biblical basis for salvation by faith alone (sola fide)?

I'm going to have to limit my quotes from Scripture and leave some compelling verses out, because there are simply so many.  This answer would be even longer than my  normal long-winded answers if I included all supporting Scripture references.  Please forgive me if I miss something you consider relevant.

First, there is the entire book of Romans, which is a build-up to, statement of, and then supporting evidence of, the doctrine.  Some relevant verses:

Chapter 1 is a description of Gentiles (non-Jews) and shows the wickedness as part of the build-up.  By extension, this shows that religious affiliation (even to a so-called "one true Church" as many denominations claim) can save us.

Chapters 2 segues into showing that the Jew is no better, for even though they have the promise of God, they are still corrupt.

Chapter 3 continues to show that the Jew (and by extension everyone) is unable to attain salvation through the works of the Law and gets to verse 27:

  Romans 3:27 and 28 (KJV)

  27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay:
  but by the law of faith.  28 Therefore we conclude that a man is
  justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

The remainder of Romans is support for this doctrinal statement.  Paul starts out by showing how the early heroes of the Jewish faith were not justified by their own goodness, but by Faith on God.

He then goes on to show how the Law is perfect, and cannot save us, but rather was given to us that we might know what sin is - so that we can realize that we are sinful.

In the words of Ray Comfort in his teaching on Hell's Best Kept Secret, God's Law is like a mirror that shows us to ourselves in our true nature.  If we see we have a dirty face in a mirror, we don't wash our faces with the mirror.  No, we wash our faces with water.

Likewise, we can't wash away our sins with the mirror of God's law, but instead are washed clean by the blood of Christ. This is the essence of the message to the Romans.

Other verses throughout the New Testament also state this doctrine plainly.

  Epesians 2:8-9 (KJV) 8 For by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works,
  lest any man should boast.

As I said in the beginning, a comprehensive list of Scriptures would be prohibitively large, and it would be impossible to do a better job of answering this than has already been done by Paul in Romans, but here is a link to an article with more.

http://www.biblefacts.org/bible/salfaith.html


Has anyone in history suffered God’s visible wrath by uttering disrespect & attack on the dignity of the Vicar of Christ?

Bishop William of Utrecht appears to have done so in 1076.

Pope Gregory VII, also known as Hildebrand, had excommunicated Henry IV, King of the Germans, also known as the  Holy Roman Emperor. Gregory said Henry was no longer King.  Henry summoned his bishops and ordered them to excommunicate the Pope. Henry said Gregory was no longer Pope.

Plans were made for the High Mass at Utrecht Cathedral on Easter Day, 27th March, 1076.  Henry was to attend wearing his crown and robes, several bishops were to formally denounce the Pope and pronounce his excommunication.

Several bishops left Utrecht secretly during the night of Easter Eve, leaving only Bishop William of Utrecht to formally condemn Gregory, and declare his excommunication, which he did.

Later that same day lightning struck the church and it was largely destroyed by fire. Then, exactly a month to the day later, Bishop William died in great agony.

Henry then summoned another council, to take place in the city of Worms, at Whitsun, seven weeks after William's formal excommunication of the Pope.  None of the nobles he had summoned turned up.

The following winter was unusually severe. Gregory was in a castle in Tuscany while Henry stood outside barefoot in the snow, wearing only a shirt, begging Gregory's forgiveness. Only after three days was he allowed inside to kiss the Pope's foot and receive pardon. Whether Henry's contrition was genuine, or merely politically astute, is unclear, but it was not the end of the disputes between the two men; or between future popes and monarchs.

Were the lightning strike and fire in the cathedral of Utrecht, and the agonising death of its Bishop a month later, really visible manifestations of God's wrath?  The chances of such events happening by chance, so soon after the formal excommunication was pronounced, must be very small. Many, at the time, concluded that it was highly likely that God had manifested his wrath in such a way as to demonstrate whose side He was on, the Pope's or the King's.

However unlikely it may be that the events at Utrecht, in 1076, considered alone, were due to pure chance, looking back over 2000 years we can see that there have been very many other occasions when opposition to, or criticism of,  the Papacy has not been met with a bolt of lightning or agonising death within a month. By the laws of probability, then, it would be extremely improbable if none of these occasions had coincided with a bolt of lightning and a death.

Nevertheless the idea that God uses bolts of lightning to expre3ss his disapproval is very persistent. The lightning strike on St Peter's Basilica in Rome on the night of Pope Benedict's resignation in 2013; and the 1984 strike on York Minster following the Consecration of the controversial Bishop Jenkins of Durham, are examples which have been popularly ascribed to God's disapproval.

Jong Ricafort, in his answer, has noted three prominent Catholic critics of modern Popes, all of whom seem to have lived for many years, continuing to propagate their views, before eventually dying of apparently natural causes. The exception may be Father Malachi Martin. Someone claims an anonymous close friend of Father Malachi said he had told him on his deathbed that he felt a push (from a kitchen stool he was standing on) when nobody was there. Since the friend is anonymous this cannot be corroborated. We cannot rule out the possibility that God allowed an invisible demon to push him off the stool as a mark of displeasure for his criticism of the Pope, but the evidence is not very strong.

Even if it were to be established that critics of the Pope were dying mysteriously, there would still be other possibilities to consider.

In 1988 Pope John Paul II addressed the European Parliament. The Reverend Ian Paisley, a member of the Parliament representing Northern Ireland, stood up and loudly denounced him as the Antichrist. Neither the Pope, nor Reverend Paisley, were zapped by lightning. Paisley remained a MEP until he retired in 2004, topping the poll at every election. He remained a member of the  UK Parliament until he retired in 2010, when his son took the seat. He became First Minister of Northern Ireland (equivalent to joint provincial premier); and was Moderator of the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster.  If God wished to demonstrate disapproval of criticism of the Pope then Mr Paisley would seem an obvious choice.

He died aged 88 in 2014. It was said at the time that, while on his deathbed, he told a close friend  that he wished to convert to Catholicism. The reason he is said to have given was that, if anybody was going to die, he'd rather it was a Catholic than a Protestant.  As with Malachi Martin, there is no corroboration.

In conclusion, there is no evidence that, as a rule, those who disrespect or attack the dignity of the Pope are subject to the visible wrath of God. Although it was believed in the 11th century that Bishop William of Utrecht  was;  this may be ascribed to chance coincidence  when considered in the context of history as a whole.


What is the Catholic understanding of "the thousand-year reign of Christ and his people"?

A caveat about my answer below is that I'm a Lutheran (LCMS) pastor and am trying to do justice to the Catholic view on this.  Lutherans, Catholics, Orthodox and others actually share the same view on the "thousand-year reign."

The Catholic view of the thousand-year reign is termed amillennialism.  As I mentioned, this view is shared by Lutherans, Orthodox, and others.  What it basically means is that the thousand-year reign is symbolic of the period from Christ's ascension to his return.  That is to say, Christ and his people reign now in the New Testament Church, since Christ has already defeated sin, death, and the devil through his death and resurrection.  When Christ returns, these enemies of creation will be cast out and God will again dwell directly with his people.  In the current reign, God dwells among his people through His Sacraments; at Christ's return, God will dwell directly with His people "immediately" (that is, not "mediated" through the Sacraments - the exact definition and number of Sacraments varies among the Catholic, Lutheran, and Orthodox views).

One implication of this view is that the Book of Revelation covers the entire span from Christ's ascension to his return and is not specifically about "the end."  For example, Revelation 5 is often seen as "heaven's view" of Christ's ascension, whereas Acts 1 is "earth's view."  The point of Revelation is that the Lord is with His Church, even as it is battered and killed on earth, and he is returning to resurrect His people to dwell with Him on the restored, new heaven and earth (see, for example, Pope Francis' remarks at: http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/audiences/2014/documents/papa-francesco_20141126_udienza-generale.html )

A good Wikipedia article comparing views of the millennium is at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amillennialism

A Catholic discussion of millennialism (as opposed to amillennialism), with some historical notes concerning the Church Fathers, is at: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10307a.htm


What does "two becoming one flesh" refer to?

St. Paul assumes the quote to be talking about the intercourse in 1 Kor 6, 16

  16 Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, "The two will become one flesh"


From an Evangelical perspective, I suggest googling "inductive bible study" and having a browse. The reality is that any tool you choose will be 'digested' in some way. The book How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, Gordon D. Fee & Douglas Stuart looks at this issue at a meta level - there's a fair bit of useful stuff in there, but it basically in a nutshell, boils the process down to reading whole books multiple times until you can understand the micro (each verse/passage) in terms of the macro (the whole book) bearing in mind that each book itself should be considered in the light of the whole of scripture.

Some study bibles have extensive introductions and section plans for each book that outline the structure, themes, key terms and salient background details that are very helpful in coming to terms with the meaning of the book. A further step is using bible commentaries to help you understand the text at deeper level, but the theological perspective of the author will almost always come into play in a commentary. It wouldn't be my cup of tea personally, but according to your 'yay' for Reformed Theology, I draw your attention to the Reformation Study Bible ESV Version (there is also a a NKJV version and NIV Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible).


The Hail Mary is simply a prayer. It happens to be recited 53 times during the course of praying the rosary. It is said in place of the psalms for the illiterate.  Since there are 150 or so psalms and traditionally the Rosary is split up into 15 decades to mediate on different events in the lives or Jesus and Mary, each decade consists of 10 Hail Mary prayers.

Because the purpose is contemplating the life of Jesus and the original purpose was about as far as illiterate medieval's could grasp.  It was certainly a good prayer, shouldn't be construed with any biblical injunction on vain repetition - so long as there is no vanity involved.

Numbers of prayers are also often assigned by priests as penance during confession.  As far as I know, this is a relatively modern practice (1900's and later).  Easy (and private) penances might bring more people into confession while still conferring the same grace.

Personally, I pray the Rosary every day.  Sometimes it's not done very well, most of the time it is done in a distracted way - but that's my problem, not a problem with the prayer.

Another thing I do is pray 3 Hail Mary's (This is also known as the "Little Office of Our Lady") before bed, asking for the grace of purity while remembering her as a model of purity.

As far as extra-biblical prayers are concerned, the Our Father is straight out the didache (teaching of the 12 apostles).  So even though that's ancient and the Hail Mary is comparatively modern. Catholics continually pray new prayers and invoke the communion of Saints for intercession. We don't ask Mary to forgive our sins, but we do ask her for protection.

The Hail Mary is one in a collection of Marian Antiphons found in the liturgy of the Hours (Book of Christian Prayer).

It is also prayed as part of the Angelus (a prayer traditionally prayed at 6:00 AM, Noon, and 6:00 PM).


What is the Christian perspective on deceptive brain messages?

Let me begin with the disclaimer that I have not read this book, I have never heard of this book, and so all I know about it is what you say here. So most of what I say here is about the general idea and not the specifics of this book.

I think two key points should be born in mind:

I would be very cautious about saying that "science has proven" something based on claims of one writer in one, let us admit, obscure book. There have been many books written over the centuries claiming to have "proof" of this or that, from cold fusion to people being kidnapped by aliens, and further investigation proves them to be inconclusive or flat wrong. (I'd be especially careful about concluding that the Bible must be wrong or must be "re-interpreted" based on such claims. The scientific and historical accuracy of the Bible has withstood endless attacks over thousands of years. If a claimed new scientific discovery contradicts the Bible, the safe bet is that the Bible will turn out to be right. But maybe that's a tangent: I gather that you are not saying that this book "proves" the Bible wrong, but simply that you want to fit this into your understanding of spiritual truth.)
That said, at least the general idea as you describe it is nothing new. The Bible makes numerous mentions of at least one case where a physical stimulus can affect the mind: Proverbs 20:1 "Wine is a mocker, Strong drink is a brawler, And whoever is led astray by it is not wise." There are warnings thoughout the Bible that excessive alcohol consumption interferes with good judgement. While I can't think of a Bible verse mentioning this, surely the Bible writers were aware that physical injury can hurt the mind. That is, they must have known cases where someone sufferred a head wound and was mentally impaired either temporarily or permeanently.

So nowhere does the Bible teach that the soul or mind is completely separate from and unaffected by the body, and indeed specifically talks about the counter-example of drunkenness on numerous occasions.

As the Bible of course teaches that the soul outlives the body, and that sould embodies the same mind you had when alive, the mind must be something more than the electrochemical processes of the brain.

So what exactly is the relationship between the brain, i.e. the physical organ, and the mind, i.e. the personality? I can give a complete and accurate answer to that question: I don't know.

Clearly the brain affects the mind, but the mind is not the same thing as the brain. There is an interrelationship.

It certainly brings up difficult moral and spiritual questions. If a person accidentally ingests a chemical that messes with his mind and causes him to become violent, does God hold him accountable for the acts committed while under the influence of this chemical? Could a drug or electrical stimulus or whatever interfere with the functioning of a person's mind in a way that causes him to reject God, while without this stimulus he would have turned to God and been saved?

It sounds very tricky, but a little thought will show that it's not different in principle from other human or natural events that could interfere with a person's salvation. Like, what if a person was on his way to visit a friend and tell him about God, and on the way he is killed in an automobile accident? What about people who, because of historical circumstances beyond their control, live in a place where the Gospel has never been heard? Etc etc. There are many natural events that can affect your spiritual life. Things that interfere with the functioning of the brain are more insidious -- "creepier" perhaps -- but not different in kind.


Is there any significance to naming Lazarus in this parable?

I think it is significant that the rich man knows and uses Lazarus's name for the same reason that it's significant that he knows Moses name. It clearly shows that he knew who the man was and had been aware in life of his condition and done nothing about it -- in the same way he did not heed the teachings of Moses and the prophets.

Leon Morris also suggests in his commentary on Luke that the name Lazarus (i.e Eleazar) may be significant because it means God has helped, thus adding more weight to the part of story where the poor man received no comfort from men in life.

  In contrast is the poor man, called Lazarus (i.e. Eleazar; the name means 'God has helped' and may be significant; certainly man did not help this unfortunate). He is the only character given a name in Jesus' parables. -- Leon Morris; Pg. 276, V. 3, Tyndale NT Commentaries


Trying to understand Original Sin in light of OT

You've got a couple of questions in your question, so I'm going to try and flesh out original sin.

Original sin is not that God punishes you because of the sins of your parents or anyone else. Ezekiel makes that clear for us:

  18:20 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the
  iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the
  son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the
  wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

Original sin is that you are inherently sinful. Exodus 25 is often used to show inherited sin, however I think that is a misreading:

  You shall not bow down to [idols] or worship them; for I, the LORD
  your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the
  fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me.”

The third and fourth generation are being punished because they still hate God. The parents sin was passed on to the children because children usually mimic what their parents do. If their parents don't worship God, then the kids will (more often than not) also not worship God.

The idea of Original Sin is based on places like Romans 5. It is the concept that because we are human, we are sinful. In Romans 5 we see original sin, that just as one man sinned, we all sin and so we all deserve death.

  Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death
  through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned (5:12)

The Old Testament does mention original sin at least once. It's a great reminder that like our parents are sinful, we too are sinful at birth. From the moment you are born, you are sinful and rightly deserve God's punishment:

  Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
      and in sin did my mother conceive me (Psalm 51:5 ESV)

In terms of this comment in your question:

  This Sin is only washed away if one is Baptized, so if a child born
  dies at say 6 months will go to Hell because they have this Sin.
  Psalm 51:5, Romans 3:11, Romans 5:12 (I could go on) all tell us that that 6 month old baby is sinful and deserves death, just like you and I do. To us it seems cruel and unjust, but God is the one being sinned against by that baby, not you or me. That child can be saved through Jesus' death and resurrection. I'm not sure on the Catholic position of infant forgiveness, but the bible teaches that the blood of Jesus is capable of saving anyone.

In terms of your question Do Catholics believe that God is not able to forgive Sin? I would say that Catholics believe that God is able to forgive sin. Forgiveness in the Catholic church is received through baptism, penance, confession, and reconciliation. (I'm not a Catholic, but I think I got that right).


Are parents responsible/accountable for the sins of their children?

Disclaimer

I have been studying the book of Revelation, and haven't looked at OT for a long time. Thus, if I mis-remembered the story of Eli, please correct me. Thanks!

Answer

Jeremiah 31:30

  But everyone shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eats the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge.

This does not say "die for parents of children's iniquity"

Revelation 20:12

  And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

This does not say "judged for parents or children's works"

How then does one explain Deuteronomy 5:9?

  Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me,

My personal understanding is that parents who reject God teach their children to reject God, and thus, the children, in following the parents advice, reject God and thus the sin "punishes for multiple generations."

Furthermore, in:

  Deuteronomy 6:6-9
  6 These commandments that I give you today are to be on your hearts. 7 Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. 8 Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. 9 Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates.

Parentes are commanded to raise their children to follow God. From thus, I would personally extrapolate that not raising up one's children to follow God is a sin; to not discipline them when they break the commands of God is sin.

In my personal interpretation, the failure of Eli were:

not raising his children to follow God (though I'm not sure how to handle this since I believe in predestination)
tolerating their evil behaviors (i.e. not removing them from power)


Was universalism the majority belief of the early church?

Background

Obviously, this topic suffers from dogmatists on both sides. Universalists are desperate to overstate their case, and traditionalists are desperate to prove the early church didn't have any (except a negligible few) universalists. Spoiler alert--they are both misguided.

The truth is that this subject is extremely confusing, which makes speculation easy. And even if it were true that the majority of the early church believed one view over the other, we probably couldn't know for sure. Perhaps modern scholarship will one day shed more light. Until then, we must be very careful.

I will demonstrate how difficult it can be to state that one view is the "majority" over the other by listing important Christians in the early church and their stance on the issue. Hopefully I have done a good job to avoid cherry picking, but I encourage you to do your own research and double check my work. I will gladly update this answer as this is a massively difficult question to answer.

Views an Early Christian is Likely to Hold

The present-day "traditional" view: The vast majority of human beings go to an eternal hell and the minority go to an eternal heaven. Early Christians who believed this almost always believed the fire was literal.
Annihilationism: Those who are damned are blotted out of existence and no longer conscious.
Denial of the general resurrection: The damned are never raised.
Apokatastasis: The majority of human beings go to hell, but hell is purgatorial. Eventually, after enough time, all the damned will "convert" in hell and join the saints in heaven. Most advocates of this doctrine argue that all evil will cease to exist one day--thus implying (or teaching) that even the devil will convert.

Important Early Christians on Eternality/Temporality of Hell1

Christians in the First and Second Century

Author of the Gospel of Mark: He may be telling Peter's account of the Gospel. He writes for a gentile audience. He uses the term aiōnios once in reference to judgement.
Author of the Gospel of Matthew: He may favor annihilation based on how he quotes/paraphrases Jesus in Matthew 10:28. He wrote to a Jewish audience and uses the term aiōnios many times when talking about punishment in the afterlife.
Author of the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles: He uses the term aiōnios only in reference to salvation. This is true of his Gospel and Acts. He writes to a gentile audience.
Author of the Gospel of John: He uses aiōnios only in reference to salvation. He demonstrates influence from Greek philosophy (i.e. John 1's Hymn to the Word). He writes to a gentile audience. His rendering of Christ's words seem to imply a cosmic scope of God's salvific will.
Odd Christians Paul references in 1st Corinthians 15: Paul mentions that some Christians performed baptisms on behalf of dead people in order that those dead people might be raised. It seems these primitive Christians believed postmortem salvation was possible, and so it is possible that they might have thought all who are dead could one day be saved.
Paul: He leaves us without anything definitive. Romans 9 can be evidenced as belief in double predestination while Romans 11 can be evidenced as belief in universal predestination to salvation. 2 Corinthians 5 says Christ is reconciling the world to himself. It is possible he may have never used the term aiōnios in reference to fate of the damned, but this depends on the authenticity of 2nd Thessalonians. 1 Corinthians 15 is indicative of apokatastasis, but it is possible we misunderstand him. Philippians 2 says all will confess Christ as Lord. Passages about those perishing (i.e. 2 Cor 2:15-16) indicate he believed in an eternal hell, but it is hard to say. Our interpretations of Paul's theology typically determines our interpretations of "perish."
Author of the 2nd Epistle of the Thessalonians: He uses aiōnios once in reference to the damned's fate, but he pairs it with olethros suggesting the damned are annihilated.
Author of the Epistle to the Colossians: He mentions that Christ will "reconcile to himself all things" by virtue of his atoning sacrifice.
Author of the 1st Epistle to Timothy: He says God desires all men to be saved and says Christ is the savior "of all men, especially those who believe." But the epistle is pastoral, so the author is possibly guarding his audience from the full story. Some argue that the author didn't really mean "all men," but instead meant "some (or a minority) of all classes of men"--this interpretation first appears in the 5th century in Augustine's letter to a friend.
Author of Epistle of James: He mentions how reconciled apostates were saved from "death." This may imply annihilation, though we have little of substance to draw from.
Author of Epistle of Hebrews: He says the damned will be devoured and suffer fiery indignation, and refers to judgement as aiōnios once.
Author of Epistle of 1st Peter: This writer believes Jesus descended into hades to preach the Gospel to imprisoned spirits. He might have meant Christ redeemed some of the damned.2
Author of Epistle of 2nd Peter: He says God desires for all to come to repentance and does not desire for any to perish.
Author of Epistle of 1st John: Most readers understand this author to mean Christ is the propitiation for even the damned. However, a minority think that this author doesn't actually mean that, but instead meant Christ is the propitiation for Christians everywhere. The author also talks about a "sin leading to death" which no one should pray for. Perhaps he believed in a sort of "mortal sin" which damns people forever, or perhaps he meant something else.
Jude: He compares the eternal fire the damned will suffer with the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. This suggests he thinks of damnation as annihilation.
Author of Revelation: Nearly impossible to tell given the symbolic nature of the text. Secular scholar Bart Ehrman believe he is depicting annihilation. He says the devil will burn aiōnas tōn aiōnōn, seeming to indicate eternal suffering. Though some early Christians interpreted the "lake of fire" as being a "refiner's crucible" indicating universalism.
Author of the Didache: He doesn't seem to believe in the general resurrection.3 It is possible he thinks that only the saved are raised to life and the damned are left dead. It is hard to tell, however, because the document abruptly ends right when he is explaining this.
Author of the Eighth (Christian) Sibyllines: This author defends the idea that prayers for the damned are efficacious.
Author of the Apocalypse of Peter: This author defends the idea that prayers for the damned are efficacious, and in some versions, he says Jesus said that hell will not last forever. There are very graphic depictions of hell in the text.
Author of the Odes of Solomon: This author says Jesus saves all of the dead in hell.
Author of the Shepherd of Hermas: This author says something related to this topic. Something to do with penance in the early church. Someone in the comments help me figure out a short description for this one.

Christians Producing Apocryphal Texts in Third and Fourth Century

Apocalypse of Paul: He writes of postmortem repentance and intersession for the damned.
Author of the Gospel of Nicodemus: He says the tree of Jesus' cross destroys all that Satan gained with the tree of knowledge.
Author of the Acts of Paul and Thecla: The writer tells of story of a damned woman being saved through her friend's prayers.
Author of the Acts of Thomas: The writer writes about Jesus rescuing spirits in hell. There are many other things which can be said about the universalistic tendencies of this document. It is also extremely heretical and endorses all sorts of odd gnostic ideas.
Author of the Acts of Philip: The writer is argued by some to be anti-gnostic. Many of its passages demonstrate the writer believes firmly in the salvation of all.
If anyone knows of any other early Christian texts which hint towards one view or another, please add to this list. Also let me know of any errors and if you know of any scholars who argue that any Christian above actually believed other than what I put.

Notable Post-Apostolic Christians' Positions4,5

If I bold someone's position it is because there is a very high probability that they actually held that position. If I do not bold, it just means we do not know with high probability.

St. Ignatius of Antioch (35 -107): annihilationism/eternal hell
St. Polycarp of Smyrna (69 - 115): annihilationism/eternal hell
Valentinus (heretical gnostic, 100 - 160): annihilationism/eternal hell6
St. Justin Martyr (100 - 165): annihilationism/eternal hell/apokatastasis
Tatian (120 - 180): eternal hell
St. Irenaeus of Lyons (140 - 202): annihilationism/eternal hell/apokatastasis
Clement of Alexandria (150 - 215): apokatastasis
Bardaisan (heretical gnostic, 154 - 222): apokatastasis7
Tertullian (155 - 240): eternal hell
St. Hippolytus of Rome (170 - 235): apokatastasis?8
Origen (184 - 253): apokatastasis9
St. Cyprian of Carthage (200 - 258): eternal hell
Pope St. Dionysius of Alexandria (Patriarch of the See of St. Mark, ? - 264): apokatastasis
Arius (heretic, 250 - 336): eternal hell
Arnobius of Sicca (255 - 330): annihilationism
Eusebius of Caesarea (260 - 340): apokatastasis
St. Aphrahat (280 - 345): unknown
St. Athanasius of Alexandria (296 - 373): apokatastasis
St. Hilary of Poitiers (300 - 368): eternal hell
St. Ephrem the Syrian (306 - 373): eternal hell/apokatastasis
St. Gregory of Nyssa (335 - 395): apokatastasis10
St. Ambrose (340 - 397): eternal hell/apokatastasis
Evagrius Ponticus (345 - 399): apokatastasis
St. Jerome (347 - 420): apokatastasis and then later eternal hell
St. John Chrysostom (349 - 407): eternal hell (though he has some faint suggestions of apokatastasis)
St. Augustine (354 - 430): apokatastasis and then later eternal hell
Pelagius (heretic, 360 - 418): eternal hell
St. Cyril of Alexandria (376 - 444): unknown
St. Isaac of Antioch (400s) : unknown
St. Pope Gregory the Great (540 - 604): I'd assume eternal hell, but someone ought to double check for me
St. Maximus the Confessor (580 - 662): apokatastasis (though with "warnings" of eternal hell)
St. Isaac of Nineveh (613 - 700): apokatastasis
St. John of Damascus (675 - 749): eternal hell
John Scotus Eriugena (815 - 877): apokatastasis

Other Early Christian Universalists Just for Fun

St. Theophilus of Antioch (120 - 183)
St. Didymus the Blind (313 - 398)
St. Basil of Caesarea (329 - 379)
St. Gregory of Nazianzus (329 - 390)
Diodore of Tarsus (? - 390)
St. Macrina the Younger (330 - 379)
St. Maximus of Turin (? - 408/423)
Theodore of Mopsuestia (350 - 428)
St. John Cassian (360 - 435)
St. Peter Chrysologus (380 - 450)
Theodoret of Cyrus (393 - 466)
Ps. Dionysius the Areopagite (4th - 5th century)

Conclusion

Universalism is certainly present in the early church, but it is too difficult to say if it was the majority view. Notice too how easy it is to deceive people by listing only universalists as I did in the "Other Early Christian Universalists Just for Fun" section. There are lots of early Christians, so it is easy to cherry pick.

Footnotes

1As I move further in time, I will be less comprehensive and only mention the most significant figures.

2Again, authors might believe in universalism if they believe in postmortem salvation.

3General resurrection or universal resurrection is the orthodox Christian doctrine that all men, saved and damned, will have their physical bodies physically resurrected on the last day. This idea is expressed clearly in John's Gospel.

4I roughly deem an early Christian "notable" if they either are 1) very clear as to their position on the eternality of hell or 2) vital to the development of Christian orthodoxy. I also include all notable church fathers even if we don't know their position.

5If a particular Christian's position cannot be pinned down but is still relevant to this the subject, I include them too. Comment if you have any to add.

6I include Valentinus because he nearly became the bishop of Rome, and his heretical beliefs framed some of the discussion for how the orthodox Christians would respond and then formulate their beliefs. Some will claim Valentinus taught apokatastasis, but this is a half-truth. Valentinus' apokatastasis was neither universal nor holistic, viz. only a certain class of men and only the souls of these men (not their material bodies) would be benefactors of this "apokatastasis." See Ilaria Ramelli's book for more information on this.

7Bardaisan was very against the Valentinian gnostics despite being a gnostic himself. He denied the resurrection of the body as well.

8 St. Hippolytus of Rome taught Origen mostly about the theology of the Logos during Origen's stay in Rome. He was a good friend of Origen, and was anti-Valentinian like Origen. Hippolytus wrote in Greek, but we have his writings in Latin translations. He teaches a form of Purgatory, and when writing against heresies he never condemns apokatastasis. I struggled to find any definitive proof that he believed apokatastasis from scholarship other than that Ramelli seems to hint at him being predisposed to it, but maybe I'm misreading her. In my estimation, he seems to lean more towards apokatastasis than otherwise.

9Some orthodox Christians drew a parallel between the belief that the devil could never be saved with Valentinus' predestination. Origen responded by biting the bullet saying even the devil could be saved, thus defending his doctrine of free will. Though, he later "denied" he believed in the eventual salvation of the devil in a letter to his friends in Alexandria. See Joseph F Badir's document "Predestination and Election" in the academia.edu link in the resources below.

10St. Gregory of Nyssa is one of the three great Cappadocian Fathers. He is certainly a universalist, and he even believed the devil would be saved. The other two, St. Gregory of Nazianzus and St. Basil of Caesarea are very likely to be universalists.

Resources

https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Christian_Doctrine_of_i_Apokatastasi.html?id=YfGZAAAAQBAJ
https://www.patristics.co/patristic-universalism/
https://www.academia.edu/Documents/in/Christian_Universalism


How do Mormons view events like the Holocaust considering that they view Adam's fall as a move forward?

Depperm's answer, with the article/answer and Book of Mormon chapter linked therein, is much more complete than mine.  However, I wish to address one part of the OP's question:

Presumably things like the Holocaust would never had happened if the transgression would not have happened.

First, let's reference 2 Nephi 2:22-23:

22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.
23 And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.

Thus, in the Mormon theology, if Adam and Eve had not fallen they would have never had children.  So yes, if they had not transgressed the Holocaust would not have happened, but also everything else that has happened since they transgressed would not have happened.  Nobody would have been born to the earth, and Adam and Eve would have remained childless forever (or, until they chose to partake of the forbidden fruit).


How is God's rest on the 7th day traditionally understood?

As you imply, God did not need to rest. But He chose to, apparently as a pattern for us:

Exodus 20:8-11
“Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

This is not the only time God has done something He didn't need to, to set an example for us. Another was when Jesus was baptised (Matthew 3:13-15).