What's the meaning of this quote by C. S. Lewis, regarding the heart and head?

Perhaps reading the context of the quote will help make more sense of it.  It is from The Abolition of Man:

  No emotion is, in itself, a judgement; in that sense all emotions and sentiments are alogical.  But they can be reasonable or unreasonable as they conform to Reason or fail to conform.  The heart never takes the place of the head; but it can, and should, obey it. (source)

Lewis here is discussing the difference between reason and emotions, and pointing out that in some cases, our emotions are out of line with reason – we may recognize that we ought to like something, but we don't feel any liking for it (or vice versa).  Lewis says that such discrepancies are defects in ourselves, like color blindness or tone deafness.

Thus this quote is saying that though the heart does not replace the head, it (the heart) can, and should, obey the head; or, put another way, we should seek to conform our emotions to reason.


How do the early church fathers expound upon the "exaltation of Christ" (Philippians 2:9-11) in light of the immutability of Jesus Christ?

How do the early church fathers expound upon the “exaltation of Christ” (Philippians 2:9-11) in light of the immutability of Jesus Christ?

The early church fathers uniformly believed that the pre-existent Word , by being the only-begotten from the Father, was and is fully God in essence (nature).

  “We acknowledge a God, and a Son (His Logos), and a Holy Spirit.
  These are united in essence-the Father, the Son , and the Spirit.
  Now, the Son is the Intelligence, Reason and Wisdom of the Father. And
  the Spirit is an emanation, as light from a fire.” – Athenogoras (c.
  A.D. 175)

  [Quoting John 1:1] "'...and the Word was God,' of course, for that
  which is begotten of God is God." (Against Heresies, Book I, ch. 8,
  section 5)

  "The Word, that is, the Son, was always with the Father." (Against
  Heresies, Book IV, ch. 20, section 3)

Pre-Nicence

Irenaeus (130-202 C.E.) believed that the Word has added another nature to himself,  namely, the human nature. This nature of Jesus Christ is what he considered mutable and passible. When it comes to his divine nature, he is immutable and impassible.

  "When the Word became flesh , the immutable became mutable and the
  impassible became passible."

  Irenaeus (Against Heresis 3:18.3).

Nicene Era

  Hitherto we have met their irrational conceits with the true conceptions [2042] implied in the Word Son,' as the Lord Himself has
  given us. But it will be well next to cite the divine oracles, that
  the unalterableness of the Son and His unchangeable nature, which is
  the Father's, as well as their perverseness, may be still more fully
  proved. The Apostle then, writing to the Philippians, says, Have
  this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus; who, being in the
  form of God, thought it not a prize to be equal with God; but emptied
  Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of
  men. And, being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself,
  becoming obedient to death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God
  also highly exalted Him, and gave Him a Name which is above every
  name; that in the Name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in
  heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that
  every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of
  God the Father .' Can anything be plainer and more express than
  this? He was not from a lower state promoted: but rather, existing as
  God, He took the form of a servant, and in taking it, was not promoted
  but humbled Himself. Where then is there here any reward of virtue, or
  what advancement and promotion in humiliation? For if, being God, He
  became man, and descending from on high He is still said to be
  exalted, where is He exalted, being God? this withal being plain,
  that, since God is highest of all, His Word must necessarily be
  highest also. Where then could He be exalted higher, who is in the
  Father and like the Father in all things ? Therefore He is beyond
  the need of any addition; nor is such as the Arians think Him. For
  though the Word has descended in order to be exalted, and so it is
  written, yet what need was there that He should humble Himself, as if
  to seek that which He had already? And what grace did He receive who
  is the Giver of grace ? or how did He receive that Name for worship,
  who is always worshipped by His Name? Nay, certainly before He became
  man, the sacred writers invoke Him, Save me, O God, for Thy Name's
  sake  ;'and again, Some put their trust in chariots, and some in
  horses, but we will remember the Name of the Lord our  .' And while He
  was worshipped by the Patriarchs, concerning the Angels it is written,
  Let all the Angels of God worship Him .'
  And if, as David says in the 71st Psalm, His Name remaineth before the sun, and before the moon, from one generation to another  ,' how
  did He receive what He had always, even before He now received it? or
  how is He exalted, being before His exaltation the Most High? or how
  did He receive the right of being worshipped, who before He now
  received it, was ever worshipped? It is not a dark saying but a divine
  mystery . In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,
  and the Word was God;' but for our sakes afterwards the Word was made
  flesh.' And the term in question, highly exalted,' does not signify
  that the essence of the Word was exalted, for He was ever and is equal
  to God  ,' but the exaltation is of the manhood. Accordingly this is
  not said before the Word became flesh; that it might be plain that
  humbled' and exalted' are spoken of His human nature; for where
  there is humble estate, there too may be exaltation; and if because of
  His taking flesh humbled' is written, it is clear that highly exalted'
  is also said because of it. For of this was man's nature in want,
  because of the humble estate of the flesh and of death. Since then the
  Word, being the Image of the Father and immortal, took the form of the
  servant, and as man underwent for us death in His flesh, that thereby
  He might offer Himself for us through death to the Father; therefore
  also, as man, He is said because of us and for us to be highly
  exalted, that as by His death we all died in Christ, so again in the
  Christ Himself we might be highly exalted, being raised from the dead,
  and ascending into heaven, whither the forerunner Jesus is for us
  entered, not into the figures of the true, but into heaven itself, now
  to appear in the presence of God for us (Athanasius, Chapter
  IX:41-42).

Athanasius (296-373 C.E.) believed that Jesus Christ, being God himself, was already exalted but because of his exinanition , he took on human nature and was therefore, became lowly in status. His humiliation was his mission. The completion of his work prompted the Father to give back everything he had temporarily given up. In other words, Jesus did not lose his divine nature at his incarnation. He was fully God when he was on earth. However, the use of his unlimited divine powers has become limited due to his own choice and this is what his "self-emptying" really means.

Conclusion

The church fathers interpret the exaltation of Christ in Philippians 2:9-11 in light of his human nature.


The short answer is “not really,” or at least, it wouldn’t apply only to the Pope.

The passage clearly refers directly to the Old Testament priesthood (see, e.g., Leviticus 16) and indirectly to Christ, who is the fulfillment of Old-Testament High Priest (Hebrews 4:14).

Today’s priests and bishops do participate in the priesthood of Christ, and the Old-Testament priesthood was a prefiguring of the New-Testament priesthood. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) puts it,

  The liturgy of the Church, however, sees in the priesthood of Aaron and the service of the Levites, as in the institution of the seventy elders, a prefiguring of the ordained ministry of the New Covenant (No. 1541).

Also,

  The ministerial or hierarchical priesthood of bishops and priests, and the common priesthood of all the faithful participate, “each in its own proper way, in the one priesthood of Christ” (CCC 1547, quoting Lumen gentium 10 § 2; the common priesthood applies to all Christians by virtue of their baptism, and the ministerial priesthood pertains to those who have received the Sacrament of Holy Orders).

Hence, all priests and bishops participate in a special way in the priesthood of Christ, a participation that is essentially different from that of the common priesthood. (See the remainder of CCC 1547.)

This participation applies to all priests and bishops, and bishops to the greatest extent possible, since they possess the fullness of the Sacrament of Holy Orders. (See CCC 1557.) It would be a mistake, however, to think of the Pope as a “super-bishop.” He is not: he is just the bishop of Rome, and by virtue of being bishop of Rome, he is the head of all his other brother bishops, and as such has authority over the whole Church. (See CCC 882.) But his participation in Christ’s priesthood derives from his Holy Orders, just as with all the other bishops in the world.

Hence, it would rather uncommon for Catholics to interpret Hebrews 5:1 as applying to the Pope.


Who ordered Saint Stephen to death?

No individual person ordered St. Stephen to be stoned to death. If in fact someone had ordered Stephen’s execution, I believe St. Luke would have named that individual in the Book of Acts.

  At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him. - Acts 7:57

Moreover, the Jews themselves made a point of making known the Roman authority in regards to executing someone to Pilate himself when they wanted Jesus put to death!

  31 Pilate said, “Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law.”

  “But we have no right to execute anyone,” they objected. - John 18:31

General consensus has it that the crowd spontaneously has him stoned. St. Stephen’s words in themselves infuriated the the Jews listening to his words. In today way of thinking, I would suspect that the modern phrase that it was due something like to a spontaneous local public uprising in the affair of St. Stephen’s stoning.

Simply put St. Stephen’s words infuriated the Jews standing before him.

It is equally possible that some members of the Jewish Sanhedrin or even the high priest that year, could have influenced the decision made by the crowd, for some of them were present!

  The stoning of Stephen

  Thus castigated, the account is that the crowd could contain their anger no longer. However, Stephen looked up and cried, "Look! I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God!" He said that the recently executed Jesus was standing by the side of God.[9][Acts 7:54] The people from the crowd, who threw the first stones laid their coats down so as to be able to do this, at the feet of a "young man named Saul" (later known as Paul the Apostle). Stephen prayed that the Lord would receive his spirit and his killers be forgiven, sank to his knees, and "fell asleep".[Acts 7:58–60] Saul "approved of their killing him."[Acts 8:1] In the aftermath of Stephen's death, the remaining disciples fled to distant lands, many to Antioch.[Acts 11:19–20] - Saint Stephen

Knowing that the Jewish nation was under Roman occupation; they did not have the right to put any man to death. Thus, it only makes sense that his death was due to a popular uprising, thus keeping both the High Priest and the Jewish Sanhedrin away from being considered as ignoring the Roman authority’s powers.

Seeing that the high priests could easily be deposed by Roman authority, it would be highly unlikely that Caiaphas would have been willing to to implicated in Stephen’s death in 34 AD.

In any case he was eventually deposed in 36/37 AD.

  Joseph Caiaphas

  Caiaphas was the son-in-law of Annas, by marriage to his daughter. He was appointed by the Roman governor Valerius Gratus in AD 18 (Jos Ant 18:2:2), and ruled as high priest for eighteen years. This was the longest reign of any high priest in New Testament times. He remained high priest under Pontius Pilate, and was finally deposed in AD 36 by Vitellius, the governor of Syria. He was replaced by Jonathan, another son of Annas (Jos Ant 18:4:3). Pontius Pilate was removed from office a few months before Caiaphas, after killing large numbers of Samaritans (Jos Ant 18:4:2). Caiaphas was replaced by Jonathan, another son of Annas


Do annihilationism and universalism argue against eternal life?

The views expressed below are not my own, but your question merits an answer that I hope represents annihilationism as an annihilationist might. I will seek to demonstrate you are correct in believing some annihilationists resort to alternate translations about hell which present difficulties for the traditional understanding of verses about heaven. Nevertheless, understood consistently, annihilationists can still believe that heaven is an eternal state.

1. Some annihilationists believe in translating references to eternity as 'eons' or 'ages'

Even annihilationists will admit that certain verses in scripture can be difficult to interpret from their perspective. Greg Boyd writes:

  The most difficult passages for annihilationists to explain are Revelation 14:10-11 and 20:10. These passages speak of the wicked being tormented “day and night forever and ever.”

The solution seems to be a matter of translation, accompanied, as I will suggest below, with a paradigmatic shift in the way we think about all such references to the 'temporal' nature of hell. Boyd Goes on to suggest that 'forever and ever' doesn't have to be a reference to eternity.

  The phrase “forever and ever” can be translated “for ages upon ages” which implies an indefinite, but not necessarily unending, period of time.

This leads the a difficulty regarding verses about heaven. If the same trick is used in verses like Matthew 25:46 to make "eternal punishment" into something less than eternal, it seems to undermine the eternality of "eternal life" mentioned in the exact same verse using the exact same word aiōnios.

2. Annihilationists can still believe in the eternity of the heavenly reward

Although seeming to present a difficulty if that were how Matthew 25:46 is translated that way, annihilationism both offers a new translation and an entirely new way of understanding the point of this verse. Boyd also writes:

  Now, Scripture certainly teaches that the wicked are punished eternally, but not that the wicked endure eternal punishment. The wicked suffer “eternal punishment”(Mt 25:46), “eternal judgment” (Heb 6:2) and “eternal destruction” (2 Thess 1:9) the same way the elect experience “eternal redemption” (Heb 5:9, 9:12). The elect do not undergo an eternal process of redemption. Their redemption is “eternal” in the sense that once the elect are redeemed, it is forever. So too, the damned do not undergo an eternal process of punishment or destruction. But once they are punished and destroyed, it is forever. Hell is eternal in consequence, not duration. The wicked are “destroyed forever” (Ps 92:7), but they are not forever being destroyed.

Therefore, the solution for an annihilationist isn't merely to translate words like aiōn as 'ages' but to also suggest the meaning of temporal references to eternity - both heaven and hell - is not in fact primarily temporal but descriptions of finality and intensity. Therefore, while 'complete' destruction implies full and just punishment that doesn't need to be eternal, to be 'completely' redeemed places one entirely outside of the clutches of sin, death, and the devil meaning that even without the use of the word eternal, the redeemed are implicitly redeemed forever because they have been redeemed 'completely'. This certainly softens the temporal references to the lasting eternal state of the redeemed of heaven, but it also seems to do justice to the different connotations a descriptor can take when applied to the different concepts of 'destruction' and 'life'.

I am not an expert in biblical Greek so I suppose an expert could mount a critique of the degree to which this explanation depends on English translations and grammar, but this is the way Boyd, as an annihilationist, explains his perspective.


In Trinitarian theology who created the world?

In Trinitarian thought, God has one will and one action. Everything is accomplished by the Three Persons of the Trinity acting in unity. This applies to creation as well. The typical language is along the lines of 'The Father created through the Son in the Spirit', but there is always an emphasis that the Three Persons act in unity.
Concerning creation St Athanasius uses this unity of action in creation as a defense of the divinity of both the Word and the Spirit. In his first letter to Serapion he writes

The Son, like the Father, is creator; for he says: ‘What things I see the Father doing, these things I also do’. 'All things’, indeed, 'were made through him, and without him was not anything made’.
But if the Son, being, like the Father, creator, is not a creature; and if, because all things were created through him, he does not belong to things created; then, clearly, neither is the Spirit a creature.
For it is written concerning him in the one hundred and third Psalm: 'Thou shalt take away their spirit, and they shall die and return to their dust. Thou shalt put forth thy Spirit, and they shall be created, and thou shalt renew the face of the earth’.
As it is thus written, it is clear that the Spirit is not a creature, but takes part in the act of creation.
The Father creates all things through the Word in the Spirit; for where the Word is, there is the Spirit also, and the things which are created through the Word have their vital strength out of the Spirit from the Word.
Thus it is written in the thirty-second Psalm: 'By the Word of the Lord the heavens were established, and by the Spirit of his mouth is all their power

The Church Fathers often speak of this unity in action, but usually it is in the context of redemption or the arrival of the Spirit at Pentecost instead of creation.
Pope Leo the Great wrote in Sermon 77 on Pentecost

For the Majesty of the Holy Ghost is never separate from the Omnipotence of the Father and the Son, and whatever the Divine government accomplishes in the ordering of all things, proceeds from the Providence of the whole Trinity. Therein exists unity of mercy and loving-kindness, unity of judgment and justice: nor is there any division in action where there is no divergence of will. What, therefore, the Father enlightens, the Son enlightens, and the Holy Ghost enlightens: and while there is one Person of the Sent, another of the Sender, and another of the Promiser, both the Unity and the Trinity are at the same time revealed to us, so that the Essence which possesses equality and does not admit of solitariness is understood to belong to the same Substance but not the same Person.

St Ambrose in his treatise On the Holy Spirit wrote

But the Holy Spirit also was given, for it is written: I will ask the Father, and He shall give you another Paraclete.  And the Apostle says: Wherefore he that despises these things despises not man but God, Who has given us His Holy Spirit. Isaiah, too, shows that both the Spirit and the Son are given: Thus, says he, says the Lord God, Who made the heaven and fashioned it, Who established the earth, and the things which are in it, and gives breath to the people upon it, and the Spirit to them that walk upon it.  And to the Son: I am the Lord God, Who have called You in righteousness, and will hold Your hand, and will strengthen You; and I have given You for a covenant of My people, for a light of the Gentiles, to open the eyes of the blind, to bring out of their fetters those that are bound. Since, then, the Son is both sent and given, and the Spirit also is both sent and given, They have assuredly a oneness of Godhead Who have a oneness of action

This continues to to be the traditional understanding of the Trinity.
Much more recently, St John (Maximovitch) of San Francisco wrote

Men have also one nature. But whereas God is a Trinty One in Essence, in men there constantly occur divisions.
In Father, Son, and Holy Spirit there are One Thought, One Will, One Activity.
What the Father desires, that also the Son desires, and that the Holy Spirit desires. What the Son loves, that also the Father loves, and the Holy Spirit. What is pleasing to the Holy Spirit, is pleasing also to the Father and to the Son.
Their Activity is likewise one, everything is done jointly and harmoniously.


Is there any equivalent of the Shivoham experience in Christianity?

In the terms you describe, most - if not all - forms of Christianity are Monotheistic in nature.  That said, there are three key concepts (that again most forms of Christianity subscribe to) that are somewhat comparable to 'Shivoham' as you've described it: God's Immanence, the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit in a believer, the Glorification of believers.

Before describing those three concepts, I will firstly explain why Christianity* should be regarded as Monotheistic (versus Pantheistic) in character because God is transcendant over His creation:

  ...[this] means that God is above, other than, and distinct from all he has made - he transcends it all. - Theopedia.com

This is repeatedly implied in the Bible through descriptions of God as Holy (cf. Isaiah 6:3,Revelation 4:8,Leviticus 20:26) - ie separated, other, above - as well as stated more explicitly in certain passages such as:

  8 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
      neither are your ways my ways,”
  declares the Lord.
  9 “As the heavens are higher than the earth,
      so are my ways higher than your ways
      and my thoughts than your thoughts. - Isaiah 55:8-9 NIV

The concept of the transendence of God in Christianity is antithetical to the concept of Shivoham.

Moving on to briefly outline the three more comparable concepts:

Firstly, The doctrine of the Immanence of God means:

  ..."to be within" or "near" in relation to God's creation. Immanence is closely related to God's omnipresence, in that God is always present within the universe, though distinct from it. God is 'within' the universe in that God is its sustaining cause. - Theopedia.com

This teaching empasizes the closeness of God to his creation and can be seen in passages such as:

  27 God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. 28 ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’ - Acts 17:27-28 NIV (emphasis added)

While this doctrine does not go to the extant of Shivoham in identifying God as inseparable from creation, it qualifies our understanding of transendence - God may be 'other', but He is not completely separated from His creation, rather He is close and His presence sustains it. This is an explicit disavowal of Deism.

Secondly, the doctrine of the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit in believers is inextricably linked to the concept of sanctification and teaches that not only is God 'close' in a particular way to them, but through the agency of the Holy Spirit, he allows them to become partakers in the divine nature:

  Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature, having escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires. - 2 Peter 1:4 NIV (emphasis added)

Most forms of Christianity are not universalist however, and this particular identification of the (renewed) nature of the believer with the nature of God is restricted to the 'household of faith'.

Finally, the doctrine(s) of the Glorification of the believer address the end stage of spiritual development and while appearing in somewhat different forms in the various branches of those who identify as Christian, most will affirm something very similar to:

  ...“glorification” is God's final removal of sin from the life of the saints (i.e., everyone who is saved) in the eternal state (Romans 8:18; 2 Corinthians 4:17). At Christ’s coming, the glory of God (Romans 5:2) – His honor, praise, majesty, and holiness-- will be realized in us; instead of being mortals burdened with sin nature, we will be changed into holy immortals with direct and unhindered access to God’s presence, and we will enjoy holy commune with Him throughout eternity. In considering glorification, we should focus on Christ, for He is every Christian’s “blessed hope”; also, we may consider final glorification as the culmination of sanctification.

  Final glorification must await the manifestation of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ (Titus 2:13; 1 Timothy 6:14). Until He returns, we are burdened with sin, and our spiritual vision is distorted because of the curse. “For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known” (1 Corinthians 13:12). Every day, we should be diligent by the Spirit to put to death what is earthly in us (Romans 8:13). - gotquestions.org

In conclusion, while there are some elements of the doctrines of Immanence, Indwelling of the Holy Spirit and Glorification that are somewhat comparable to the concept of Shivoham as described, they cannot be considered as identical, as they assume the transendance of God which explicitly denies it.

*Generally on this site, we seek to avoid characterising 'Christianity' as a whole, as there are many religions that claim such a label that possess exclusionary elements to each other. This is so even within the largest generally recognized meta grouping of Nicene Christianity (Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Protestants). That said, 99.9% of Christian sects can be accurately characterised as monotheistic despite the very real distinctions in many other aspects of their theologies.


How does calling someone an "idiot" make one bound for Gehenna?

It's not so much something lost in translation, though there may be some cultural factors coming into play. Jews considered the Words of the ten commandments to be minimum requirements, and beginning with Matthew 5:21, Jesus expounds on some the commandments pertaining to the relationship to other other people. The essence of the teaching in Matthew 5:21 ff is that the actual commandment not to murder is insufficient. Not only is murdering another a violation of the commandment, but even to insult another person violates the spirit of it. He then similarly expounds on others of the commandments, for example, not only is it a sin to commit adultery, but it is a sin to think about committing adultery. After making similar comments on other commandments, Jesus summarizes his points in Matthew 5:48--"You, therefore, must be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect." (RSV)

To go back to the original question, merely not committing murder is imperfect, as it is the minimum required. Not insulting another person, as in calling them a fool, is perfection.


What is the theological import behind genealogies?

I'm not Catholic, but the Catholic Encyclopedia does a good job of outlining the importance of the genealogies here.

There are several purposes for including the genealogies in Scripture, some theological, some merely cultural.

On the cultural side:

  The Hebrews shared the predilection for genealogies which prevailed
  among all the Semitic races. Among the Arabs, for instance, no
  biography is complete without a long list of the hero's ancestors.

On the theological side:

  The priests and Levites had to prove their
  legal descent in order to fulfil the honourable and remunerative
  functions of their respective offices. On returning from the
  Babylonian Captivity several were excluded from the priestly class
  because they could not prove their Levitical pedigree (Ezra 2:62;
  Nehemiah 7:64).

Finally (and most importantly), the genealogies help to establish Jesus as the Messiah, since the Messiah was to come from the line of David.

As for how to use them from the Pulpit, use them as they were intended, and don't fall into the trap of making more of them than what they really are.  It's very easy to take a few verses and read a whole lot of meaning into them that aren't there.  Stick to the Word, and what it says, and you can avoid a whole lot of confusion.


Why at Judges 2:1 does it say the angel of the Lord would never break his covenant he swore to the fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?

The angel of the Lord in Judges 2:1 speaks as Deity. Not as a representative of Deity but speaks as Deity, personally.
The conclusion of what is laid out, competently, in the above question can only, logically, be that the 'messenger of the Lord' (the word is malak in Hebrew) is the same 'messenger of the Lord' referred to in, for example, Malachi 3:1, which states that 'the Lord whom ye seek' is the 'messenger of the covenant' and this 'messenger', says God, is preceded by another 'messenger' whom 'I will send' and he shall 'prepare the way before me'.
Jesus quotes this and, if it is indeed the case that he is quoting the Septuagint, then he changes one letter in the Greek and says (instead of prepare the way before me ) says :

Behold, I send my messenger before thy face [Matthew 11:10 KJV]

Which Mark, in the opening of his gospel account repeats :

Behold, I send my messenger before thy face [Mark 1:2 KJV]

Clearly the messenger before my face (which is a prophecy of John the Baptist in Malachi) is further revealed to be the messenger before thy face, by Jesus adjusting the text.
Thus the messenger of the covenant (the Lord himself) is preceded (before my face in Hebrew but before thy face in Greek).
Thus Jesus Christ, being the messenger of the covenant (preceded before his face by John the baptist) is the Lord himself (preceded before my face, saith the Lord).
The logical conclusion is that the face of Jesus Christ is the face of the Lord.
And this 'messenger of the covenant' (the Lord himself) is also the 'messenger' who came up from Gilgad in Judges 2;1.
What was revealed in careful wording in the Hebrew scriptures - prior to the manifestation of God in flesh - is now revealed plainly in the Greek scriptures, now that Jesus Christ is come and now that he reveals the Father.
He who said 'Before Abraham was, I am (strictly speaking it is 'I, I am' ego eimi) is revealed to be the angel of the Lord seen at the burning bush, seen by Manoah and his wife, seen at Bochim, and prophesied of by Malachi.
Seen in the burning furnace by the Gentile King who witnessed a likeness of 'son of deity', seen by Jacob when he wrestled till the break of day.
Seen by faith by those who have faith to see him.
But hidden from view if the eyes are blinded.


Does Jesus' public reading of the Scriptures imply that he had any authority within the religious community?

It would have been common for some members to recite the scriptures in same way it happens in some Churches or assemblies. Though the reciter might not be a random person but of some credibility. Jesus had a good credibility and reputation as a teacher.

  (Luke 4:14-15) 14 And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit to
  Galilee, and a report about him went out through all the surrounding
  country. 15 And he taught in their synagogues, being glorified by all.

  (Matthew 13:53-54) 53 And when Jesus had finished these parables, he
  went away from there, 54 and coming to his hometown he taught them in
  their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, “Where did
  this man get this wisdom and these mighty works?

The reading of scripture was indeed a custom in Synagogues. A quote from The IVP New Testament Commentary Series – Jesus Preaches in Nazareth: The Time of Fulfillment Has Come (4:16-30)

  To appreciate the account, it helps to understand the order of an
  ancient synagogue service (m. Megilla 3—4; m. Berakot 2). To have a
  synagogue service required the presence of ten adult males. At the
  service, the Shema was recited (Deut 6:4-9), followed by prayers,
  including some set prayers like the Tephillah and the Eighteen
  Benedictions (m. Berakot 2:2). After this the Scripture was read,
  beginning with a portion from the Torah (Gen—Deut) and moving next to
  a section from the Prophets. Instruction then followed. Often the
  speaker linked the texts together through appeal to other passages.
  The service then closed with a benediction.


The better question may be "What is it that God is jealous of?"  He is righteously jealous of the devotion and affections of His people.  This is mirrored in our own lives as a married individual is righteously jealous for the affections and devotion of his or her spouse.  Furthermore, a father or mother is righteously jealous for the affections of their children.  If their children started calling other men and women "Dad" and "Mom", it would be a tremendous insult to them, because they alone are the ones that have the true parental devotion to their children.

So, God is not jealous of another god or another being, but for the affections of His people.


What is the Biblical Basis for "Schools of Prophecy"?

1. Schools of the Prophets in the Old Testament

Many well known commentaries explain the "sons of the prophets" referred to on multiple occasions in the Old Testament [1 Kings 20:35; 2 Kings 2:3,5,7,15; 4:1,38; 5:22; 6:1; 9:1] as:

  ...the schools of the prophets... - Benson, Pulpit, Matthew Henry

  ...a school of the prophets... - Gill

  ...schools... - Barnes, Matthew Poole

  ...The Prophetic college... - Ellicott

In summarising what can be drawn from scripture about these institutions, Ira M. Price (a founding faculty member of the University of Chicago, professor of ancient languages and literatures) concluded1:

  ...The sons of the prophets 1) were collected together in bands or schools; 2) in six different localities, viz., (a) Ramah, (b) Bethel, (c) Gilgal, (d) Jericho, (e) Carmel, (f) Samaria; 3) Under the tuition of (a) Samuel, (b) Elijah, (c) Elisha; 4) with instruction in (a) prophesying-worship, (b) sacred music, (c) practical matters of their day; 5) with their time wholly occupied in (a) study and worship, (b) doing errands for their masters and God, (c) performing the regular duties of a prophet; 6) largely dependent for their support on the charity of the people.

2. Training mandate given to the New Testament Office of Prophet

In instructing the Ephesian church with regard to spiritual gifts, the Apostle Paul had the following to say:

  7 But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift. 8 Therefore He says:

  “When He ascended on high,
  He led captivity captive,
  And gave gifts to men.”

  9 (Now this, “He ascended”—what does it mean but that He also first descended into the lower parts of the earth? 10 He who descended is also the One who ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things.)

  11 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, 13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; 14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, 15 but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ— 16 from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love. - Ephesians 4:7-16 NKJV

Those who advocate for modern day schools of prophecy generally interpret this passage as:

Establishing ongoing (v13) five-fold "office gifts" (v11) (including the office of Prophet).
The role of the office gifted is not so much to do the work of ministry themselves, but primarily to train the saints to do the work of ministry (v12).
The type of training offered by five-fold ministers varies according to their gifts - Apostles excel in training the Church to be more apostolic, Prophets excel in trainging the Church to be more prophetic etc.

This passage is referred to under the statement of beliefs of the Azusa Street Mission:

  THE MINISTRIES OF CHRIST - We believe in the full function of the five-fold ministry which was given to perfect and equip the saints so they can enter into the work of their ministry, thereby edifying the whole Body of Christ. [Eph. 4:11-16; I Cor. 12:28.] We believe in the present day ministries of the apostles and prophets, which Christ has set in the Church as foundational and revelational ministries. We believe these two ministries will be restored to function in full power and authority before the literal second coming of Christ. [Eph. 2:20; Acts 3:21.]

The associated ecclesiology is explained a little more under:

  ORDINANCES - We believe in two primary New Testament ordinances: Baptism by immersion and The Lord's Supper. However, we do not believe that the administration of such ordinances is limited to ordained or licensed ministers. We believe in the priesthood of believers. Ordination and licensing in this organization is a separation and recognition of a specific gifting of God. We believe that God calls men into specific ministries as apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers. God calls. Man can only recognize the call and acknowledge it. Ordination is on the basis of that recognition of God's gifting. Men called to a specific office by God and ordained or licensed by this organization will have the right to participate in the traditional sacramental and ordinal functions of the organization such as marriage, funerals, baptisms, and the like. They shall also be expected to function in the spiritual gifting(s) of their office and to demonstrate the reality of their calling. This organization is a non-sacramental protestant group. We reject the efficacy of ritual and the concept of a separate priestly class. We recognize the priesthood of believers and the serving ministry of the apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor, and teacher with government by elders. As such, we recognize that those called to those offices will function in a manner to lead by example in prayer, worship, teaching, laying on of hands, and prophesying and that such action on the part of those ordained and licensed by this organization are equivalent to the sacramental function of the priesthood in traditional sacramental churches.

1.  The Schools of the Sons of the Prophets,
Ira M. Price,
The Old Testament Student,
Vol. 8, No. 7 (Mar., 1889), pp. 244-249


What is the Biblical basis for Total Depravity?

This is a good place to start:

  We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous
  deeds are like a polluted garment. We all fade like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away. -- Isaiah 64:6, ESV

Btw, the Hebrew for "polluted garment" is more literally "menstrual rag".

But I think there is a lot of misunderstanding about total depravity. The Heidelberg Catechism has this to say about what it means to do something good:

  Q91. What do we do that is good?

  A. Only that which
        arises out of true faith,
        conforms to God's law,
        and is done for his glory;    and not that which is based
        on what we think is right
        or on established human tradition.

And who would argue that natural man can do anything that fits that definition apart from grace? Here is the Canon of Dordt on the topic of total depravity:

  Therefore all men are conceived in sin, and by nature children of
  wrath, incapable of saving good, prone to evil, dead in sin, and in
  bondage thereto, and without the regenerating grace of the Holy
  Spirit, they are neither able nor willing to return to God, to reform
  the depravity of their nature, nor to dispose themselves to
  reformation.

If you simply delete the word "regenerating" from that article, you get something that both John Wesley and Thomas Aquinas could agree to (because of prevenient grace).

Understood this way, total depravity is not a "Calvinist" doctrine but one affirmed by the whole western church (the Eastern Orthodox have a distinctly different understanding of original sin). It only becomes Calvinist-specific when you start arguing over prevenient vs. regenerating grace, which to me seems like a pretty minor issue.


Why is the sin of the fallen angels unforgivable? (Catholic catechism)

Satan and all the fallen angels (demons) are completely consumed with evil and chose to do evil with all their intellect and sin against God, thus repentance is no longer possible for them.

  According to Canon 1 of the VI Lateran Council in 1215, the fallen angels were good. Does any goodness still exist within these demons and can they repent since God is merciful to sinful humans who repent of their evil? According to the teaching of the Catholic Church, no. There is not good left within Satan and his angels and they are completely consumed by evil. As a result of this and because they chose to sin against God with their full intellect and will. As Paragraph 393 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

  It is the irrevocable character of their choice, and not a defect in the infinite divine mercy, that makes the angels' sin unforgivable. "There is no repentance for the angels after their fall, just as there is no repentance for men after death." - The Catholic Teachings On The Angels - Part 2: The Fall Of Satan

Before the death of a human being, man is able to repent of past sins, but not after death.

Why does the soul become immutably fixed, in good or in evil, immediately after death can be read about here:  IMMUTABILITY AFTER DEATH.


Why is Jesus occasionally referred to as "The Christ"? Is there a different definition between the two?

The word "Christ" is simply the English transliteration of the Greek word "Χριστός" (pronounced "khristós"). It has the same meaning as the word "Messiah" which is simply a loose English transliteration of the Hebrew word "מָשִׁיחַ" (pronounced "mashíach"). Therefore, you'll find the word "Christ" used in translations of the New Testament and the word "Messiah" used in translations of the Old Testament.

Both words essentially mean "the anointed one".  In other words, Jesus is the one chosen by God to save His people. He is the Messiah who was promised to the children of Israel. He is the fulfillment of the prophecies.

When people call Jesus, "Jesus Christ," they are simply using the word as his title or epithet.  And when Jesus is called "The Christ," it is the same thing as calling him "The Messiah" or "The Anointed One." There is no obvious distinction in meaning between the two. It is simply a matter of grammatical style.


How did the world get populated according to Bible?

The Bible actually indicates that Adam and Eve did, in fact, have daughters.

  This is the book of the generations of Adam. When God created man, he
  made him in the likeness of God. 2 Male and female he created them,
  and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created. 3
  When Adam had lived 130 years, he fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth. 4 The days of Adam
  after he fathered Seth were 800 years; and he had other sons and
  daughters. 5 Thus all the days that Adam lived were 930 years, and
  he died.  Genesis 5:1-5

We also know that Seth was born after Cain had killed Abel:

  And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and called his name
  Seth, for she said, "God has appointed for me another offspring
  instead of Abel, for Cain killed him."  Genesis 4:25

So, when Adam was 130 years old after Cain killed Abel, Eve became pregnant and gave birth to Seth.  So, did Adam and Eve have other children in between the time that Cain and Abel were born and Seth was born?  We can't say absolutely, but we can't say absolutely not either.  It certainly seems reasonable that other children would have been born during that time.

Genesis 5 does indicate that Adam and Eve had daughters as well (plural), though we are not told how many.  The very minimum would be three sons and two daughters.

Apparently Jewish tradition holds that Adam and Eve actually had 33 sons and 23 daughters.  This is not biblical, of course, but it aligns with the idea that Adam and Eve were probably extremely fruitful and multiplied greatly, as God had commanded them.  The genetics were quite pure as well as the environment at that time.  They lived a long time (Adam was 930 years old when he died according to Genesis 5), so they had a lot of time to have children.

Now, it should be noted that this doesn't completely answer the question of how the world got populated.  The Bible teaches that the world was destroyed by a flood and that only Noah, his wife, his three sons and their wives survived.

  And all flesh died that moved on the earth, birds, livestock, beasts,
  all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and all mankind. 22
  Everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life
  died.  Genesis 7:21-22

So, the world has become populated today as descendants of those 8 people.  Even Noah could possibly have had children after the flood as well as Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

  These are the clans of the sons of Noah, according to their
  genealogies, in their nations, and from these the nations spread
  abroad on the earth after the flood.  Genesis 10:32


What does the Catholic Church say happens on the New Earth?

Creation will be renewed one day, freed from corruption and illumined by God’s glory. - (RSVCE) note for Rev 21:1.

New Advent says the following on the new heaven and the new earth:

[For the the elect], after the last judgment the new heaven and the new earth will afford them manifold enjoyment ... [and] accidental beatitude will receive some increase from the union of soul and body, and from the sight of the new heaven and the earth. cf. [ Heaven | New Advent].
Results of the General Judgment | New Advent:

  With the fulfilment of the sentence pronounced in the last judgment
  the relations and the dealings of the Creator with the creature find
  their culmination, are explained and justified. The Divine purpose
  being accomplished, the human race will, as a consequence, attain its
  final destiny. The reign of Christ over mankind will be the sequel of
  the General Judgment.

Against Heresies (St. Irenaeus) > Book V, Chapter 36 | New Advent:

Men shall be actually raised.
The world shall not be annihilated; but there shall be various mansions for the saints, according to the rank allotted to each individual.
All things shall be subject to God the Father, and so shall He be all in all.
But when this present fashion of things passes away, and man has been renewed, and flourishes in an incorruptible state, so as to preclude the possibility of becoming old, then there shall be the new heaven and the new earth, in which the new man shall remain continually, always holding fresh converse with God.
Then those who are deemed worthy of an abode in heaven shall go there, others shall enjoy the delights of paradise, and others shall possess the splendour of the city; for everywhere the Saviour shall be seen according as they who see Him shall be worthy.
The just will be resurrected and inherit the kingdom of the earth.
The creation shall be free from the bondage of corruption, so as to pass into the liberty of the sons of God.
And God the Father bestowing in a paternal manner those things which neither the eye has seen, nor the ear has heard, nor has thought concerning them arisen within the heart of man.

Please see also:

Section VI. in the Catechism of the Catholic Church The Hope of the New Heaven and the New Earth, CCC 1042-1050.
Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium Et Spes, 39, Promulgated By His Holiness, Pope Paul VI On December 7, 1965:

  We do not know the time for the consummation of the earth and of humanity,1 nor do we know how all things will be
  transformed. As deformed by sin, the shape of this world will pass
  away;2 but we are taught that God is preparing a new
  dwelling place and a new earth where justice will abide,3
  and whose blessedness will answer and surpass all the longings for
  peace which spring up in the human heart.4 Then, with death
  overcome, the sons of God will be raised up in Christ, and what was
  sown in weakness and corruption will be invested with
  incorruptibility.5 Enduring with charity and its
  fruits,6 all that creation7 which God made on
  man's account will be unchained from the bondage of vanity.

  1. Cf. Acts 1:7.
  2. Cf. 1 Cor. 7:31; St. Irenaeus, Adversus haereses, V, 36, PG,
  VIII, 1221.
  3. Cf. 2 Cor. 5:2; 2 Pet. 3:13.
  4. Cf. 1 Cor. 2:9; Apoc. 21:4-5.
  5. Cf. 1 Cor. 15:42 and 53.
  6. Cf. 1 Cor. 13:8; 3:14.
  7. Cf. Rom. 8:19-21.


Did John Wesley use to pray in Latin due to the bad relationship with his wife?

From the Wikipedia article on the subject:

Though Wesley favoured celibacy rather than marital bond, he married very unhappily at the age of 48 to a widow, Mary Vazeille, described as "a well-to-do widow and mother of four children." The couple had no children. Vazeille left him 15 years later. John Singleton writes:

"By 1758 she had left him – unable to cope, it is said, with the competition for his time and devotion presented by the ever-burgeoning Methodist movement. Molly, as she was known, was to return and leave him again on several occasions before their final separation."

Wesley wryly reported in his journal, "I did not forsake her, I did not dismiss her, I will not recall her."

What is the source of the idea that John Wesley used to pray in Latin so that his spouse won't understand?

Most likely from the author's personal sense of humor (the entire presentation seems to adopt a colloquial rather than scholarly tone); Latin basically served as an international and prestige language in much of the Western world until the late nineteenth and early twentieth century; it's highly unlikely that its usage in either individual prayer, private conversation, or public discourse, was done for the purpose of hiding anything from anyone; many Catholics, with which High Church Anglicanism is intimately connected (see Anglo-Catholicism), still serve Mass in Latin even today, let alone in Wesley's time.


The difference between how the Holy Spirit and Son "proceed" from the Father

Regarding the term ἐκπορεύομαι

We have to keep in mind that Trinitarian doctrine and the technical terminology surrounding it did not stabilize until the Fourth Century A.D. The creed commonly called the Nicene Creed would be better termed the “Nicene-Constantinopolitan” Creed, since it incorporates material that was elaborated not only in the first Council of Nicaea (held in 325) but also in the first Council of Constantinople (381).

Although the term ἐκπορεύομαι is certainly inspired by John 15:26, St. John is not using it in the technical sense that the Greek Fathers applied to it (especially St. Basil the Great and St. Gregory Nazianzen). This is important to keep in mind, because the Latin versions of the Gospel of John (both the so-called Vetus Latina and St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate) translated the word ἐκπορευόμενον in that passage with qui procedit. However, the Latin verb procedo is slightly different in meaning from the Greek verb ἐκπορεύομαι (albeit sufficiently similar to be a correct translation when the terms are used in their common, non-technical senses).

I think it would be a mistake, therefore, to infer from the fact that St. John uses the verb ἐξέρχομαι instead of ἐκπορεύομαι in John 8:42 that he is making a theologically precise distinction between his own procession and that of the Holy Spirit. (Etymologically, both verbs mean essentially the same thing: to come from something. See below.)

The technical meaning of ἐκπόρευσις and τὸ προϊέναι

Greek Trinitarian theology makes a distinction between ἐκπόρευσις and something that the Greek Fathers call τὸ προϊέναι.

The difference can actually be seen from the way the terms are formed: ἐκπόρευσις comes from ἐκ (from, out of) and πορεύομαι (to go or come), and thus means “coming from something.” On the other hand, τὸ προϊέναι comes from πρό (forward or before) and εἶμι (to go—not to be confused with εἰμί, to be, which lacks the circumflex accent) and means “going forth.”

Hence the notion of ἐκπόρευσις always contains a reference to the original sender, so to speak, whereas τὸ προϊέναι makes no such reference.

I like to make the following analogy: suppose that the President of the United States sends a letter to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Naturally, he sends it though his secretary of state. Who is the original sender of the letter (from whom does it “ἐκπόρευται”)? The President alone. But who did the sending (τὸ προϊέναι)? Both the President and the Secretary of State.

What can be (and historically has been) a source of confusion, especially between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, is that the Latin Fathers (for various historical and linguistic reasons) generally fused the two concepts of ἐκπόρευσις and τὸ προϊέναι into a single generic notion that they called processio (from which the English term comes, evidently).

For a good and accessible overview of the distinction between ἐκπόρευσις and τὸ προϊέναι and the Latin processio, see a document called “the Greek and Latin Traditions regarding the Procession of the Holy Spirit.”

Procession in the Holy Trinity

The theological problem that gave rise to Trinitarian dogma is that the Scriptures make it clear that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are distinct subjects: in the terminology of Trinitarian dogma, distinct Persons or Hypostases.

On the other hand, the Scriptures also make it clear that all three Persons are perfectly and equally God. (I realize that there have been important challenges to this view, but it is the one that the Church Fathers were working with when they were formulating Trinitarian dogma.)

The Scriptures are also unequivocally monotheistic, and the Church Fathers knew from philosophy that God‘s essence or substance must be utterly unique, simple, undivided, and indivisible. To use the technical term, the Son and the Spirit are consubstantial with the Father.

Jesus, whom John identifies as the Divine Word or Son (see John 1:1-15), claims to come from the Father, as we saw, and sent from the Father (see., e.g., John 20:21). How can the Divine Word be consubstantial with the Father and yet also be from the Father? Because the Father communicates His Divine Essence to the Son. (And the Son receives the very same Essence as the Father, entirely, and without division.)

The Greek Fathers (especially those in Alexandria of Egypt) termed this communication of the Divine Essence τὸ προϊέναι.

The Father, through the Son, also eternally communicates His Essence to the Holy Spirit; hence that communication may also be termed τὸ προϊέναι.

The Greek Fathers (in order to combat Manichaeism and similar dualistic systems) made a great effort to emphasize the so-called monarchy of the Father: the fact the He is the unique and ultimate Principle or Cause. That idea is connected with the term ἐκπόρευσις, which concerns these same communications of the Divine Essence, but always refers to their ultimate origin: namely, the Father.

As I mentioned, the Latin Fathers essentially fused the notions of τὸ προϊέναι and ἐκπόρευσις into the single concept of processio, but the same thing can be said: the Son proceeds eternally from the Father alone, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (or, equivalently, from the Father through the Son).

(Note that it is incorrect to say that the Holy Spirit ἐκπόρευται—i.e., has His ultimate origin in—the Father and the Son. It is, however, correct to speak of a τὸ προϊέναι of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son.)

The short answer

The short answer to the original poster‘s question is that the Son does indeed proceed from the Father (whether you mean ἐκπόρευσις or τὸ προϊέναι), just as the Holy Spirit does. The difference is that the Son receives the Divine Essence from the Father alone, whereas the Holy Spirit receives the Divine Essence from the Father through the Son.

If by “procession” we mean what the Greek Fathers termed ἐκπόρευσις, then we must affirm that the Holy Spirit has His ultimate origin (ἐκπόρευται) in the Father alone. (This is what the Greek version of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed affirms: τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον.)

If, however, we mean τὸ προϊέναι, then we must affirm that the Holy Spirit proceeds (πρόεισι or procedit) from the Father and the Son. (This is what the Latin version of the Creed affirms: qui ex Patre Filioque procedit.)


Why do some seek 'two beginnings' in scripture?

Gap theory (Ruin Reconstruction Theory) is an attempt to reconcile those who wish to take the Bible literally with a scientific view of a very old Earth.

The universe—heaven and Earth—was originally ("in the beginning") created aeons ago; life flourished for millions or billions of years. But this world (perhaps just Earth and not the entire universe) grew to be evil, and God destroyed it in a gigantic cataclysm. Earth became "without form and void" as a result of this destruction. (Gap theorists hold that the verb in the second verse is more accurately translated as became or had become rather than as was. The familiar six-day creation—a re-creation really—then followed, mere thousands of years ago, upon the ruin and chaos of this ancient former world.
Gap theory advocates, by this maneuver, are able to reconcile the
scientific evidence for an old Earth and universe and for life itself.
They, just as much as the young-Earth creationists, reject evolution;
to them, the re-creation six thousand or so years ago was not entirely
ex nihilo (although humans may have been created out of nothing) but
was certainly by divine fiat. Therefore, although they differ markedly
from "strict" creationists regarding the age of Earth, their
antievolution attitudes and arguments are virtually identical. - [NCSE  Creation/Evolution Journal, vol.8, no.3, Fall 1988 1

This insertion of a vast expanse of time between the first two verses of Genesis is undertaken without any reference at all to the first verse of John's gospel.
A similar attempt to reconcile Scripture with modern science posits a day/age scenario in which each of the six days of creation are not literally 24 hour periods but are, instead, periods of hundreds of millions or even billions of years.  Again there is no mention of John 1:1 in the formulation of this theory.
Difficulties in or refusal to accept the "In the beginning" of Genesis and John as referring to the same instance are usually driven by a theological need to strip Jesus, the Son of God, of His pre-incarnate divinity.  A common theme includes the notion that "the Word" was God's first, and only, direct creation after which everything else was created by God through the Word.
In this paradigm if Genesis 1:1 is the beginning of the creation of all that there is then John 1:1 has already occurred and if Genesis 1:1 can be widened to implicitly include the creation of the Word then "in the beginning" of John 1:1 is not equivalent to Genesis 1:1 but merely one aspect which is less than the whole.


What LDS scriptures support the doctrine that Jesus is Jehovah of the Old Testament?

Jesus has many titles. We know him by "Son of Man", "Savior", "I AM", "The Word", "Christ", "Lamb of God", and so forth. "Jehovah" is the title give to the pre-moral Jesus Christ.
In the book of Isaiah, we read the words of Jehovah:

41:14 Fear not, thou worm Jacob, and ye men of Israel; I will help thee, saith the Lord, and thy redeemer, the Holy One of Israel.
44:6 Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

Notice how "Redeemer" is used as He speaks or is spoken about.  Jesus Christ is our Redeemer, and Jehovah mentions he is or will be the "Redeemer"
In the Book of John 8:58-59 we read:

58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

Here the Jews recognized that Christ confessed or claimed to be "I AM" who is Jehovah of the Old Testament. This they considered blasphemy and set out to stone him.
In addition to Biblical evidence that Jesus is Jehovah, we have prophets in the Book of Mormon who declared it. Abinidi was one (Mosiah 13:33-34).

33 For behold, did not Moses prophesy unto them concerning the coming of the Messiah, and that God should redeem his people? Yea, and even all the prophets who have prophesied ever since the world began—have they not spoken more or less concerning these things?
34 Have they not said that God himself should come down among the children of men, and take upon him the form of man, and go forth in mighty power upon the face of the earth?

The God of Moses was Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament. Here we see that Moses declared that God (Jehovah) would come to earth and "go forth in mighty power."
The very last verse in the Book of Mormon talks about coming before the judgement bar of Jehovah. But right before it (verses 32-33) speaks of coming to Christ and becoming perfected in him.

34 And now I bid unto all, farewell. I soon go to rest in the paradise of God, until my spirit and body shall again reunite, and I am brought forth triumphant through the air, to meet you before the pleasing bar of the great Jehovah, the Eternal Judge of both quick and dead. Amen.

We know from Isaiah 33:22 that Christ is our judge. This is another example of how Jesus and Jehovah are the same person.
Beyond The Book of Mormon we have modern revelation found in Doctrine and Covenants 110:3-4

3 His eyes were as a flame of fire; the hair of his head was white like the pure snow; his countenance shone above the brightness of the sun; and his voice was as the sound of the rushing of great waters, even the voice of Jehovah, saying:
4 I am the first and the last; I am he who liveth, I am he who was slain; I am your advocate with the Father.

Jehovah (Jesus Christ) appeared to Joseph Smith and others in the Kirtland Temple. I am he who was slain is a good indication Jehovah is Christ who was slain for the sins of the world.
For more explanation here is a bit from the LDS Old Testament Student Manual


What are the 'Scriptures' mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15?

As a "Pharisee amongst Pharisees," Paul would have seen the Scriptures as the Scriptures of the Jews - the Torah, the Ketu'vim, and the Nevi'im, or as we say in English, the Law, the Writings, and the Prophets. When Jesus was on the transfiguration mount, he prefigured this. These Scriptures are the Old Testament to modern Christians, or "the Hebrew Bible" as some scholars like to say.

Dead for three days, in the OT Scriptures

When Paul was speaking of Jesus, rising again after three days, for example, he was probably remembering what the eyewitnesses had said, and which Matthew later wrote as follows:

  38 Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying, “Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you.” 39 But he answered them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40 For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth  (Matthew 12:40)

Here, Jesus explicitly called out Jonah (an Old Testament prophet) as being prophetically foretelling that the Son of Man would also be dead for three days. Paul admits to having been taught by Peter, and Peter would have been privy to this teaching from Jesus himself.
Dying for our sins in the OT Scriptures

Likewise, Paul may very well have read into Isaiah 53 for inspiration about Jesus death paying for our sins, when the prophet writes:

  But he was pierced for our transgressions;
  he was crushed for our iniquities;
  upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
  and with his wounds we are healed.
  6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
  we have turned—every one—to his own way;
  and the Lord has laid on him
  the iniquity of us all. ... 10 his soul makes an offering for guilt,

While scholars may disagree on the nature of substitutionary atonement as the "Gospel" that Paul preached, this prophecy could at least be seen to be in harmony with Paul's understanding.
Jesus calling himself the OT Scriptures

While the specific passages may or may not "clearly" be the exact references in question, the overall point is explicit - that Jesus was the fufillment of what the Jews had long believed. Jesus says as much to the Pharisees in John 5:39:

  You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me.

Herein the obvious implication is that the Scriptures are those Scriptures that the Pharisees and the religious folk of the day had been searching for centuries. Presented with the Christ who literally was the Word (John 1), it all began to make sense.

The New Testament, by definition, came after the Hebrew Scriptures and to the Hebrews for whom those Scriptures were written. By definition, the "Scriptures" should mean to those authors what "Scripture" meant to the contemporaries of those authors.  When Paul was writing his letters, there were no "Gospels", only eyewitness accounts, so he couldn't have been referring to anything more.

Corinth itself, as a port city in Greece, was home to a substantial Jewish population, so there is no reason to assume the word would have meant anything different than what you'd expect a Jew to think it - namely those books we now call the Old Testament.


What is the Biblical basis for God's divine decree in Scripture (Calvinism)?

Not that I am a Calvinist, but perhaps these may be some examples:

Isaiah 14:24

The LORD of hosts hath sworn, saying, Surely as I have thought, so shall it come to pass; and as I have purposed, [so] shall it stand:

Isaiah 14:27

For the LORD of hosts hath purposed, and who shall disannul [it]? and his hand [is] stretched out, and who shall turn it back?


How much money does the Christian Church save because of religious tax exemption in the United States?

Much, much less than that, if anything.

The $85billion figure has already been debunked in this question.

Religious institutions would not pay $85b even if they were taxed as profit-making businesses. $85B would be around 3/4 of the entire amount of money donated to all religious organizations in the US. No entity pays 75% of its income in taxes - nor would it exist if it was taxed at that rate.


Is modern Evangelical Protestant soteriology consistent with the early Christian idea of "theosis"?

My short answer is yes, they are compatible but you're correct to observe a shift in emphasis.

The reason for the divergence in eastern and western thought is that in the Bible there are a variety of different analogies and explanations for the nature of salvation. The west at some point latched more onto the juridicial/courtroom analogies, while the east latched more onto what Adolf von Harnack described as "mystical" explanations. Donald Fairbairn, an evangelical and a professor of patristics, analyzes and (to a degree) critiques this narrative. Says Fairbairn:

  The rise of the penitential system and the notion of the Mass as a re-sacriﬁce of Christ at the beginning of the Middle Ages, the Anselmian revolution in atonement doctrine in the 11th century, and the crystallizing of the sacramental system in the 12th–13th centuries all served to solidify this juridical soteriology [in the west], in which salvation was seen as a state before God. Furthermore, it seems to me that the Reformers did little to reverse the juridical trajectory of the Western Church. Granted, the Reformers gave a radically different answer to the question of how one attains a right standing before God, but most of them did not fundamentally alter the general idea that salvation is primarily juridical in character.

Elsewhere in his article, he emphasizes that, for many of the fathers, the idea of theosis was not so much sharing God's qualities but rather sharing in the fellowship between the persons of the trinity. This idea, while not wrapped in the language of theosis, is huge in the recent evangelical book Delighting in the Trinity.

Athanasius is often regarded as giving the idea of theosis the best and clearest expression in the early church. Analyzing his writings on the topic, Philip Edgecombe Hughes defines Athanasius' concept of theosis as:

  the reintegration of the divine image of man’s creation through the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit conforming the redeemed into the likeness of Christ, and also of the believer’s transition from mortality to immortality so that he is enabled to participate in the eternal bliss and glory of the kingdom of God. (P. E. Hughes, The True Image (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989) pg 281. Quoted in Robert Rakestraw, Becoming Like God: An Evangelical Doctrine of Theosis)

So defined, the doctrine is compatible with various evangelical soteriological frameworks. Ultimately, the doctrine of theosis gets its support from the Bible. There are a number of passages speaking directly or indirectly of it, but 2 Peter 1:4 is the best place to start:

  And because of his glory and excellence, he has given us great and precious promises. These are the promises that enable you to share his divine nature and escape the world's corruption caused by human desires.

Throughout history, though the western emphasis has been on juridicial explanations for salvation, recent scholarship says deification language isn't entirely absent in the west historically:

  Many assume that the patristic notion of deification is absent from the mainstreams of post-patristic Western theology. Recent scholarship, however, identifies deification in Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, early Anglicanism, early Methodism and Jonathan Edwards -- all fountainheads of Western theology. This article contends that deification is also present in Calvin's theology. It is not a prominent theme in its own right and some of the bolder patristic terminology is not employed. Nonetheless, the concept and imagery of deification regularly appear on stage while other doctrines are explicated. For Calvin, deification is the eschatological goal and blessing greater than which nothing can be imagined. (Carl Mosser, The Greatest Possible Blessing: Calvin and Deification, Abstract)

I write from a reformed perspective so Calvin is the most significant of the bunch for me. In reformed thought the terminology of union with Christ is often employed to express this idea. The seventeenth century work The Life of God in the Soul of Man is a classic on the topic.

Really, what "theosis" expresses is the idea of sanctification (becoming more holy and more like Christ) and glorification (being finally so like Christ as to radiate with glory) wrapped into one. The reformers emphasized the distinction between these things and justification in order to emphasize that our union with Christ, while synergistic, is not possible without God unilaterally (monergistically) declaring us righteous first. Orthodox and Catholic thought don't make this distinction. Therefore, in Protestant thought, salvation and justification are often equated and therefore spoken of juridicially, even while recognizing that the goal of our justification is to reflect God's glory more and more.

While the language, and even a lot of the underlying theology, may be different between east and west and between Protestants and non-Protestants, the idea of becoming like God in our salvation is not foreign to evangelicalism. John Piper, an evangelical pastor, briefly touches on this in his spoken biography of Athanasius (though it doesn't seem to be in the abridged transcript).

The goal of entering God's kingdom is to enter into fellowship with him.


Was Jesus superior to man when he was in flesh?

Trinitarian Christianity teaches that Jesus is both human and divine (i.e. Hypostatic union affirmed in the AD 451 Council of Chalcedon).  That Jesus is 100% human was already affirmed before the council, for example by Early Church Father Gregory of Nazianzus (d. AD 390) who wrote in a letter to Cledonius against Apollinarism (a heresy saying Jesus has a human body but has only a divine mind without a human soul):

If anyone has put his trust in Him as a Man without a human mind, he is really bereft of mind, and quite unworthy of salvation. For that which He has not assumed He has not healed; but that which is united to His Godhead is also saved. If only half Adam fell, then that which Christ assumes and saves may be half also; but if the whole of his nature fell, it must be united to the whole nature of Him that was begotten, and so be saved as a whole.

The question then becomes whether in doing miracles Jesus depends only on the Holy Spirit or also on His divine nature?  Remember that St. Peter and St. Paul, who remain 100% human to the end, also could do miracles due to the power of the Holy Spirit.  Also, in the Old Testament, the prophets Elijah and Elisha did a lot of miracles while remaining 100% human.
The article How Did Jesus Do Miracles—His Divine Nature or the Holy Spirit? answers this question by pointing out some miracles that seem to be performed by Jesus's divine nature: Walking on Water (Matt 14:22-33):

But Who Really Walked on Water?
Three clues in this passage, however, point to a different understanding of this miracle.
First, when Jesus reveals to his fearful disciples that “it is I” (Matt. 14:27; Greek ego eimi), this isn’t a call to recognize his human features that mark him out as “Jesus from Nazareth.” Rather, he’s appropriating Yahweh’s name revealed in Exodus 3:14 (I AM: ego eimi). He’s commanding his disciples to take heart and not be afraid because he, the one walking on the water, is Yahweh.
The second clue flows from the first: Jesus is taking over an Old Testament theophany motif. Who tramples the waves of the sea but Yahweh alone (Job 9:8)? Through this and his personal identification with the divine name, Jesus is making clear the who of this miracle: the incarnate second person of the Trinity who, though veiling his heavenly glory in human flesh, didn’t abandon or mute the attributes of his divine nature (as if he ever could!). No, the Creator who first fashioned the sea now masters it through his own power.
The third clue is found in the disciples’ response to this revelation. Initially we see Peter addressing this Yahweh-incarnate-who-walks-on-water as “Lord.” But then, after Jesus gets into the boat and the wind ceases, they worship him: “Truly you are the Son of God” (Matt. 14:33). It’s clear that for the disciples this miracle bears the unmistakable marks of a divine person (cf. Ps. 107:23–32). The disciples didn’t marvel at Jesus’s complete dependence on another, nor did they ascribe praise to the Spirit’s power. Rather, their eyes are drawn to the incarnate Son of God as worthy of praise. For them, the who explained the how and ushered them into worship.

Conclusion
What is important to remember is that Jesus is a human person who possess human nature as well as divine nature.  He does not have to be superhuman to do miracles, because like Paul or Elijah He could have done them by the power of the Holy Spirit.  Therefore we do not really know which nature did the miracles.
But, as the article points out:

It’s not wrong to say that the Spirit is acting in Jesus’s miracles; he is. It is wrong to say that the second person of the Trinity isn’t.


Does the Catholic Church quote any saying of Jesus to which His question in John 14:2 can be attributed?

This is not exactly a direct answer to your question, but I don't think there is that much support for translating the verse as a question.  I say this, however, acknowledging that there are translations that are approved by the Roman Catholic and/or Eastern Orthodox Church that show it this way (e.g. RSV, RSVCE, NAB).
The oldest manuscripts were not punctuated, so modern translators have incredible discretion in how they can choose to interpret a verse.  In any case, the way this verse was understood by the Greek Church in antiquity was more along the lines of:

In My Father's house are many abodes; otherwise I would have told you.
I go to prepare a place for you.

(I am using the Orthodox New Testament translation).  There is no question implied.
John Chrysostom (4th century Byzantine), a respected Father of both the eastern and western Church (he is a Doctor of the Roman Catholic Church), clearly understands the verse in the above sense, as he comments:

In My Father's house are many mansions
As He comforteth Peter when bewilderedby saying, "but thou shalt
follow afterwards," so also He gives this glimpse of hope to the
others. For lest they should think that the promise was given to him
alone, He saith, In My Father's house are many mansions.
If it were not so I would have said to you, I go to prepare a place for you.
That is, "The same place which receiveth Peter shall receive you." For
a great abundance of dwellings is there, and it may not be said that
they need preparation.
Homily LXXIII on John

This is consistent with how the verse appears in the Clementine Vulgate, and as rendered by the Douay-Rheims translation:

In domo Patris mei mansiones multæ sunt; si quominus dixissem vobis:
quia vado parare vobis locum.
In my Father’s house there are many mansions. If not, I would have told you: because I go to prepare a place for you.

Other sources that I could find in the ANF/NPNF series that discuss or include the entire verse were a translation of the Syriac Diatesseron and Augustine's Tractate LXVIII on the Gospel of John.  Neither of these, from what I can tell from the context, understand the verse as a question. (The aforementioned can both be found online at ccel.org).
The semi-official Greek text of the Eastern Orthodox Church is the 1904 Patriarchal Text, which does not indicate a question:

ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ τοῦ πατρός μου μοναὶ πολλαί εἰσιν·  εἰ δὲ μή, εἶπον
ἂν ὑμῖν·  πορεύομαι ἑτοιμάσαι τόπον ὑμῖν·

(The punctuation for a question mark is ";", which does not appear)


Where can I find scans of original Biblical manuscripts?

The original manuscripts are not believed to be in existence any more, and most manuscripts we do have aren't easily accessible. But some important ones can be viewed online:

Aleppo Codex
Codex Sinaiticus
Codex Vaticanus

Because there are so many manuscripts, most scholars rely on critical texts: the editors of these texts choose which variations they think are most likely to be authentic, and then in footnotes list the alternatives and which manuscripts support each. The most widely regarded critical text for the New Testament is the Nestle-Aland, whose text can be read online, but without the critical apparatus (footnotes). It looks like this:


What were Martin Luther's main disagreements with the Catholic Church?

The Fundamental Change

So the question is: How did Luther change from a Catholic theologian to a Protstant theologian? Or to highlight more the historical aspect: How did he change from a late-scholastic to a reformer? Or a last variation: How did the early Luther change to the "old Luther"?

This leads us to a certain happening, to a conversion-like radical change in his life. What I'm talking about is the so called tower experience of Luther.

The Luther before this experience is the Luther of the monastery-struggles. With increasing progress he can not find inner peace – neither by the sacramental means of grace nor by monastic pastoral care. In light of the coming angry justice of God, that he was taught, he despairs.

Now Luther insists on trying to understand what that righteousness is. According to the doctrine of the Catholic Church at that time, this righteousness must be understood as a philosophical, formal and active righteousness. This means: God is righteous and punishes the sinner and unrighteous. Luther not only despairs, but even hates this doctrine.

In that situation, the above-mentioned tower experience can take place, since Luther discovers, that Romans 1:17, doesn't only say

  For therein is the righteousness of God revealed

But rather has to be read in its context:

  For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

This makes Luther understand: The righteousness of God is this righteousness, which lets the just live by faith through God's gift. According to that Luther builds his understanding of righteousness inspired by Paul: it's passive and makes the sinner righteous by faith and not by any good work.

This is, what changes Luther from a Catholic theologian to a Protestant theologian.

From that point on, the Lutheran doctrine starts to grow.

Against Sale of Indulgence

He starts critisizing the sale of indulgences since they imply that righteousness can be reached by a good human work. According to Luther it can only by reached by faith in God, who makes the sinner righteous.

Against the Communion as a Sacrifice

For Luther the communion is a promise of God and not a sacrifice, like the Papacy has taught, as he says in his book The Misuse of the Mass (1521):

  Sacrifice and promise are more apart from each other than east and west, rise and decline. A sacrifice is a work, that we give God, whereas the promise is God's word, which gives us God's grace and mercy. It is inconceivable how Gods promise could become a human sacrifice. [...] They give, but Christ promises the people.
  (WA 8, 512, 12 and 28)

And much more …

Against the Papacy
Against the free will (See one of his main works "De servo arbitrio")

A final word …

Luther was misused by some European principalities in the 16th century to shrink the popes and the Kaiser's influence. Against Luther's will it came to a schism, building of the Lutheran church and other confessions of Protestantism.


Is there any biblical doctrine on how to avoid paranoia as a Christian under an Protestant framework?

What can keep him calm? The ninth blessing:

Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

You should be happy when you are persecuted for Christ's sake, not afraid. If you have faith in Christ, then you know that persecution is blessing and that God is more powerful than your persecutor. You don't feel a need to revenge or fear. So you are not in a danger of paranoia.


Was Jesus a Hindu saint and belong to the religion of Hinduism?

It's quite possible that someone with a similar name was born in India at around that time, but this person is not Jesus as understood by Christianity.  Our understanding of the details of his life comes from the Gospels, the first four books of the New Testament, which make it clear that he was born in Bethlehem, a small village near the city of Jerusalem in Israel, to an observing Jewish family, who raised him as a Jew, and that he lived in the Roman-occupied lands of Palestine for the majority of his life.  It gives no indication that he ever headed east across Arabia, much less came anywhere near the Indian subcontinent, although he did send his disciples "into all the world"--which necessarily includes India--to preach the Gospel.

Simply put, any person not matching this description is a different person than the Jesus of Christianity.


The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass has intrinsic value, apart from the congregation.

A Mass without a congregation is called a private Mass (Missa privata), and it has just as much intrinsic value (valor intrinsecus) as a Mass with a congregation.

  [I]n view of the infinite worth of Christ as the Victim and High Priest in one Person, the [Holy] sacrifice [of the Mass] must be regarded as of infinite value, just as the sacrifice of the Last Supper and that of the Cross.

—J. Pohle, Catholic Encyclopedia, "Sacrifice of the Mass" §"The Causality of the Mass", §§"The Effects of the Sacrifice of the Mass"; cited in: Fr. Chad Ripperger, "The Merit of a Mass", p. 21

The priest alone causes transubstantiation.

Pius XII's 1947 encyclical on the liturgy, Mediator Dei, condemns the error that a congregation is necessary for a Mass:

  Some in fact disapprove altogether of those Masses which are offered privately and without any congregation, on the ground that they are a departure from the ancient way of offering the sacrifice; moreover, there are some who assert that [multiple] priests cannot offer Mass at different altars at the same time, because, by doing so, they separate the community of the faithful and imperil its unity; while some go so far as to hold that the people must confirm and ratify the sacrifice if it is to have its proper force and value.
  They are mistaken in appealing in this matter to the social character of the eucharistic sacrifice, for as often as a priest repeats what the divine Redeemer did at the Last Supper, the sacrifice is really completed. Moreover, this sacrifice, necessarily and of its very nature, has always and everywhere the character of a public and social act, inasmuch as he who offers it acts in the name of Christ and of the faithful, whose Head is the divine Redeemer, and he offers it to God for the holy Catholic Church, and for the living and the dead.88 This is undoubtedly so, whether the faithful are present—as we desire and commend them to be in great numbers and with devotion—or are not present, since it is in no wise required that the people ratify what the sacred minister has done.

  88. Roman Missal, Canon of the Mass.

This error that Pope Pius XII condemned found its way into the 1969 Institutio Generalis's Protestant-friendly definition of the Mass, which was subsequently corrected.

Private Masses valid.

Council of Trent sess. 22 can. 8:

  If any one saith, that masses, wherein the priest alone communicates sacramentally, are unlawful, and are, therefore, to be abrogated: let him be anathema.Si quis dixerit, missas, in quibus solus sacerdos sacramentaliter communicat, illicitas esse ideoque abrogandas: anathema sit.

Multiple simultaneous private Masses

at side altars of

an Institute of Christ the King Catholic church in Tucson, Arizona, circa 2019 anno Domini:

priests in a seminary:

bishops during Vatican II:


The Bible reveals no provision of salvation for angelic beings, while it speaks quite a bit about the provision of salvation for mankind.  It also speaks of "the eternal fire" as a place prepared for the devil and his angels...

  Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you cursed,
  into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.  Matthew
  25:41 ESV

Theologically speaking, there is no "first Adam" of the race of angels, because they neither marry nor are given in marriage.

  For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage,
  but are like angels in heaven.  Matthew 22:30

So, without a "first Adam", there could be no "Second Adam", and consequently, no Savior.


Did Jesus preach One God and follow the commandments to the Jews, and another message to the Romans?

I believe that you may be misreading the scripture.
These Scriptures elaborate on the subject:

Jas 1:25  KJV But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.
Jas 2:10  KJV For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

you may compare that to saying she was only a little bit pregnant. The meaning here being that you cannot be only slightly guilty of breaking the Law, any more than you not really a sinner because all you did was to tell a white lie.
I have taken the liberty of quoting a couple of the more prominent commentaries here
David Gusik's commentary:

Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments: The
commandments    are to be obeyed as explained and fulfilled by Jesus'
life and teaching, not as in the legalistic thinking of the religious
authorities of Jesus' day. For example, sacrifice is commanded by the
law, but it was fulfilled in Jesus, so we do not run the danger of
being called least in the kingdom of heaven by not observing animal
sacrifice as detailed in the Law of Moses.
Whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom
of heaven: The Christian is done with the law as a means of gaining a
righteous standing before God. One passage that explains this is Gal.
2:21: For if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in
vain. However, the law stands as the perfect expression of God's
ethical character and requirements.
The law sends us to Jesus to be justified, because it shows us our
inability to please God in ourselves. But after we come to Jesus, He
sends us back to the law to learn the heart of God for our conduct and
sanctification.

John Gill's commentary:

Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments,....
Which are to be understood not of the beatitudes in the preceding
verses, for these were not delivered by Christ under the form of
commandments; nor of any of the peculiar commands of Christ under the
Gospel dispensation; but of the precepts of the law, of which some
were comparatively lesser than others; and might be said to be broke,
loosed, or dissolved, as the word here used signifies, when men acted
contrary to them.
And shall teach men so; not only teach them by their example to break
the commandments, but by express orders: for however gross and absurd
this may seem to be, that there should be any such teachers, and they
should have any hearers, yet such there were among the Jews; and our
Lord here manifestly strikes at them: for notwithstanding the great
and excellent things they say of the law, yet they tell us, that the
doctors of the sanhedrim had power to root anything out of the law; to
loose or make void any of its commands, for a time, excepting in the
case of idolatry; and so might any true prophet, or wise man; which
they pretend is sometimes necessary for the glory of God, and the good
of men; and they are to be heard and obeyed, when they say, transgress
anyone of all the commands which are in the law {h}. Maimonides says
{i}, that the sanhedrim had power, when it was convenient, for the
time present, to make void an affirmative command, and to transgress a
negative one, in order to return many to their religion; or to deliver
many of the Israelites from stumbling at other things, they may do
whatsoever the present time makes necessary: for so, adds he, the
former wise men say, a man may profane one sabbath, in order to keep
many sabbaths. And elsewhere {k} he affirms,
"if a prophet, whom we know to be a prophet, should order us לעבור על
אחת מכל מצות, "to transgress anyone of the commands", which are
mentioned in the law, or many commands, whether light or heavy, for a
time, we are ordered to hearken to him; and so we learn from the
former wise men, by tradition, that in everything a prophet shall say
to thee עבור על דברי תורה, "transgress the words of the law", as Elias
on Mount Carmel, hear him, except in the case of idolatry.''
And another of their writers says {l},
"it is lawful sometimes to make void the law, and to do that which
appears to be forbidden.''
Nay, they even {m} say, that if a Gentile should bid an Israelite transgress anyone of the commands mentioned in the law, excepting
idolatry, adultery, and murder, he may transgress with impunity,
provided it is done privately. You see what reason Christ had to
express himself in the manner he does, and that with resentment,
saying,
he shall be called, or be the least in the kingdom of heaven; meaning
either the church of God, where he shall have neither a name, nor
place; he shall not be in the least esteemed, but shall be cast out as
a worthless man; or the ultimate state of happiness and glory, in the
other world, where he shall not enter, as is said in the next verse;
but, on the other hand,
whosoever shall do and teach; whose doctrine and conversation,
principles and practices agree together; who both teach obedience to
the law, and perform it themselves: where again he glances at the
masters in Israel, and tacitly reproves them who said, but did not;
taught the people what they themselves did not practise; and so were
unworthy of the honour, which he that both teaches and does shall
have: for
the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven; he shall be
highly esteemed of in the church here, and be honoured hereafter in
the world to come. The Jews have a saying somewhat like this;
"he that lessens himself for the words of the law in this world, נעשה
גדול, "he shall become great" in the world to come {n},''
or days of the Messiah.

Hope this helps.


Did Adam and Eve understand death? What did death mean to them?

Every recorded interaction that Adam and Eve had in Genesis portrays them as active, reasoning adults, so there is no particular reason to assume they had less than normal intelligence. That said, there had been no killing in the garden, so Adam would not have had any first hand knowledge, that is true. (Unless if you want to get into the apocraphyal story of Lillith, but that's a whole other story!)

What Adam probably would have understood, however, is the concept of alive and not alive. He was alive before Eve, and while he wasn't awake for it, probably understood ru'ach - breath inside of Eve animating her.

The idea of not having breath, of being inanimate, probably would have made sense, because Adam in naming the animals, would have understood what is not animal, and therefore what is not alive.

What became clear, upon The sin, was the new way in which God was no longer felt. Being scared of God led Adam and Eve to cover up after the fall- so if they didn't know what death was, they learned quickly.

What is strange about the question, however, is the implicit understanding that if Adam and Eve didn't know what death was, then the punishment should not necessarily have been a deterrent.  That postulate itself is questionable, however. An understanding of the consequences is not necessarily a prerequisite for obedience.

If I tell my kids, "you had better do so and so, or else you will be in trouble," is sufficient reason alone to do what I say. Punishments are equally valid even when they only teach lessons after the fact.

That Adam and Eve Died to God that day taught them that God must be obeyed. A lack of understanding of the consequences is not a justifiable defense.


To the bold part of your question, I would answer: I am reasonably sure it has happened, but I cannot name a specific case. Dispair of salvation, and belief that one is "beyond hope" or belief that God "cannot forgive me" are not unheard of.

To your second question:

To the first part:

The Catholic teaching is that no one is beyond redemption prior to the moment of death.
Hebrews is taken to mean, "If you decide to live a sinful life after having believed, you will be condemned." (and, based on other passages in the Bible, it will be worse than had you never believed)
Dying in sin is what "blaspheme of the Holy Spirit" means.

To the second part:

Dispair of salvation, no matter the circumstances, is still dispair of salvation.
If someone will not accept forgiveness, for whatever reason, that person will be condemned.


Did Jesus and the repentant thief reunite in heaven on the very day they died?(Catholic view)

The Catholic Church certainly teaches that the good thief—often traditionally called St. Dismas—did in fact merit and receive salvation:

  The parable of the poor man Lazarus and the words of Christ on the cross to the good thief, as well as other New Testament texts speak of a final destiny of the soul—a destiny which can be different for some and for others.

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1021; emphasis added)

As for when this occurred:

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

(Catechism paragraph 1022; emphasis added)

Of course, after death, it's arguable that time doesn't have much meaning; so asking whether after death someone was "in heaven" on the 14th of the month or not until later, or asking how long someone spends in Purgatory, probably doesn't make sense. That being the case, Catholic commentators seem to have argued that it is best to believe that indeed the thief was in Heaven as soon as Jesus died. Richard Challoner, who revised and edited the Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible, stated in a footnote to the passage:

  Christ was pleased, by a special privilege, to reward the faith and confession of the penitent thief, with a full discharge of all his sins, both as to the guilt and punishment; and to introduce him immediately after death into the happy society of the saints, whose limbo, that is, the place of their confinement, was now made a paradise by our Lord's going thither.


Is there any substantive difference between the verbal reference "second Corinthians" and "two Corinthians"?

There is absolutely no difference in meaning.

But there are regional conventions. Donald Trump was mocked for saying "Two Corinthians", but in Australia that is not just acceptable, but probably more common than "Second Corinthians". We would also say "One Samuel", "Two Kings", "Two Timothy" and "Three John". In fact, I think think it's almost slightly unnatural to say something like "Second Thessalonians" (it's certainly a mouthful), and I'd bet a lot of other Aussie Christians would too.