If faith is a gift from God, and atheists (might) go to hell, is God ultimately willing to send atheists to hell? (Catholic perspective)

By choosing to turn one's back on God, one condemns oneself ...

  CCC 1033 To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him forever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called "hell."

An atheist does not repent (repentance ~ to turn toward God, or to return to God), nor accept God's love (how can one accept love from a person whom you insist does not exist?) and therefore remains separated from God forever by their own free choice.  Unlike the Calvinists, the Catholic Church believes in free will.  The willfulness figures into the self-condemnation, and so the asserted blamelessness in the question has no standing in Catholic belief.

Catholics do not subscribe to "once saved always saved." Even with the gift of faith, from God, and the remission of all sins at baptism the Catholic Church teaches that we are all sinners and that we can screw it up. (CCC 1704 - 17091).  The sacrament of penance and reconciliation has a purpose: to restore the state of being in communion with God.  The question has an embedded assumption of a lack of agency on the part of the atheist.  That is a Determinist assumption that is not valid for Catholic belief which embodies free will.

While there is more to this regarding particular judgment, which I covered here, in a nutshell God doesn't condemn the atheist: the atheist condemns himself, or herself.  To use a bit of imagery: the hand of God is there, extended, in the eternal offer of friendship and communion.

An atheist is not ignorant of God. (An agnostic could make that claim).  An atheist rejects God.  In theological terms, that is a willful turning away when one considers Catholic teaching.  The offer remains there, even with the face and heart turned away from God.

This is God's will (as stated in the CCC):

  CCC (Prologue) 2: God our Saviour desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. (ref 1 Tim 2:3-4.)

The grace that God offers aligns with the point in your question.  I want you to come to me is God's offer.  The atheist (or anyone for that matter) may accept or not accept that offer. The acceptance is an exercise of free will in Catholic belief.

From the opening statement of belief in the CCC:

  I. The life of man - to know and love God
  CCC 1 God, infinitely perfect and blessed in himself, in a plan of
  sheer goodness freely created man to make him share in his own blessed
  life. For this reason, at every time and in every place, God draws
  close to man. He calls man to seek him, to know him, to love him with
  all his strength.  He calls together all men, scattered and divided by
  sin, into the unity of his family, the Church. To accomplish this,
  when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son as Redeemer and
  Saviour. In his Son and through him, he invites men to become, in the
  Holy Spirit, his adopted children and thus heirs of his blessed life.

The atheist rejects this call, and this gift, freely.

  CCC 1022 Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven-through a purification or immediately, -- or immediate and everlasting damnation.

This was discussed in some detail in this answer here.

What is Grace?

Grace is an undeserved gift from God.

  CCC 1996
  Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life. [cf. John 1:12-18; 17:3; Romans 8:14-17; 2 Peter 1:3-4.]

You asked about faith as being gifted, assisted, even inspired by Grace.  If one rejects the gift, it is by an action of the will: as above, we are back to free will.

1 Some teaching on Free Will ...

  CCC 1704 The human person participates in the light and power of the
  divine Spirit. By his reason, he is capable of understanding the order
  of things established by the Creator. By free will, he is capable of
  directing himself toward his true good. He finds his perfection "in
  seeking and loving what is true and good."7

  1705 By virtue of his soul and his spiritual powers of intellect and
  will, man is endowed with freedom, an "outstanding manifestation of
  the divine image."8

  1706 By his reason, man recognizes the voice of God which urges him
  "to do what is good and avoid what is evil."9 Everyone is obliged to
  follow this law, which makes itself heard in conscience and is
  fulfilled in the love of God and of neighbor. Living a moral life
  bears witness to the dignity of the person.

  1707 "Man, enticed by the Evil One, abused his freedom at the very
  beginning of history."10 He succumbed to temptation and did what was
  evil. He still desires the good, but his nature bears the wound of
  original sin. He is now inclined to evil and subject to error:    Man
  is divided in himself. As a result, the whole life of men, both
  individual and social, shows itself to be a struggle, and a dramatic
  one, between good and evil, between light and darkness.11

References:  (Gaudium et spes)
7 GS 15 #2; 8 GS 17; 9, GS 16; 10 GS 13 #1; 11 GS 13 #2.


Why do Evangelicals like a spirituality book by a 16th century Catholic monk?

The Practice of the Presence of God is one of a variety of different Christian "classics" which really cross denominational boundaries (Imitation of Christ might be another). Since the truths it discusses are universal to Christianity and because there is very little in the document which must be Catholic, its benefits are generally considered to far outweigh the detriments.

But, here is a counter question: if it is acceptable to read documents by other Protestant traditions/denominations, why is it unacceptable to read Catholic material as well? From the perspective of a devout Calvinist, Bonhoeffer got some things dead wrong, but he was recommended reading in my Presbyterian Church. C. S. Lewis is an Anglican, but you'll often see Baptists reading Mere Christianity. Chesterton is a Catholic, but Orthodoxy is one of the better apologetics texts in the English language. If all of these alternate theologians are acceptable, why is it unacceptable to read the writings of a humble monk on how to live one's life?


What happens to a diocese when a bishop dies unexpectedly?

Prior to the naming of Archbishop Exner in my archdiocese, we were without a bishop for 11 months. The diocesan administrator (later named the apostolic administrator just prior his visit ad limina as a priest) performed most of the normal functions of the archbishop.

  The term "sede vacante" can be applied to other Catholic dioceses outside of Rome. In such cases, this means that the particular diocesan bishop has either died, resigned, transferred to a different diocese, or lost his office and a replacement has not yet been named. If there is a coadjutor bishop for the diocese, then this period does not take place, as the coadjutor bishop (or coadjutor archbishop, in the case of an archdiocese) immediately succeeds to the episcopal see.

  Within eight days after the episcopal see is known to be vacant, the college of consultors (or the cathedral chapter in some countries) is obliged to elect a diocesan administrator. The administrator they choose must be a priest or bishop who is at least 35 years old.

  If the college of consultors fails to elect a qualifying person within the time allotted, the choice of diocesan administrator passes to the metropolitan archbishop or, if the metropolitan see is vacant, to the senior-most by appointment of the suffragan bishops.

  Before the election of the diocesan administrator of a vacant see, the governance of the see is entrusted, with the powers of a vicar general, to the auxiliary bishop, if there is one, or to the senior among them, if there are several, otherwise to the college of consultors as a whole. The diocesan administrator has greater powers, essentially those of a bishop except for matters excepted by the nature of the matter or expressly by law. Canon law subjects his activity to various legal restrictions and to special supervision by the college of consultors (as for example canons 272 and 485).

  Vicars general and episcopal vicars lose their powers sede vacante if they are not bishops; the vicars that are themselves bishops retain the powers they had before the see fell vacant, which they are to exercise under the authority of the administrator. - Sede vacante

The diocesan administrator may perform the confirmations within the diocese even if he is a priest (Can. 427 §1).

  The diocesan Administrator is bound by the obligations and enjoys the power of a diocesan Bishop, excluding those matters which are excepted by the nature of things or by the law itself.

Who's in charge of the Diocese When There's No Bishop is an excellent read.


Are there reliable statistics about divorce rates in Christian churches?

While statistics for Christians are usually easy to establish, statistics for regular church-goers are much less reliable. This is partly because statisticians know that Americans frequently overstate their attendance at church, and partly because such statistics are often developed by people inexperienced in statistical methodologies. However, the  Barna Group, an evangelical Christian polling firm with expertise in statistical research, has published a report comparing the divorce rates for different Christian and non-Christian groups.

The report, dated 2009, found that only 33 per cent of all currently or formerly married adults had been divorced. This is a lot lower than the 50 per cent often cited, but measures a slightly different statistic. Also, a person who has been divorced more than once is only counted once, so that the proportion of marriages ending in divorce will be slightly higher than the proportion of currently or formerly married persons who have experienced a divorce.

The margin of error given for the total sample of 5017 adults is given as 1.6 per cent, and for the 3792 adults who have been married is given as 1.8 per cent. The margins of error for individual groups, such as Catholics or born-again Christians, are not given but will depend on the number of participants in each group.

Some basic facts:

Catholics - only 28 per cent of all adults had been divorced.  Statistically, this is probably significant, and would reflect the fact that the Catholic religion does not recognise divorce and insists that Catholics remain married for life.
Protestants - 34 per cent of all adults had been divorced. Against an overall divorce rate of 33 per cent, this is not statistically significant.
All born-again Christians - 32 per cent. This is not statistically significant.
Non-evangelical born-again Christians - 33 per cent. This is not statistically significant.
Evangelical Christians - 26 per cent. While this looks statistically significant, only 339 evangelical Christians were interviewed, so without a larger sample not a lot can be read from this.

For comparison, we can look at people from non-Christian faiths, who were interviewed.

Associated with non-Christian faith - 38 per cent had been divorced.
This is slightly higher than the national average, but not
statistically significant because only 197 persons were in this
group, which is too small for a sufficiently accurate estimate. A different sample could well give a quite different answer.

Similarly, the sample of atheist or agnostic participants in the survey was too small, at 269 adults, for a meaningful comparison. In this group, only 30 per cent had been divorced.

It may well be that church-going Christians have a lower divorce rate than Christians who do not attend church regularly, although on the basis of these figures this would necessarily mean that non-church-going Christians must have a particularly high divorce rate, compared with non-Christians. Another issue is whether some church-going Christians tend not to go to church after a divorce, either out of unintended, but subtle pressure from the church itself, or out of embarrassment. Any statistics that attempted to compare divorce rates between church-going Christians and non-church-going Christians must take issues like this into account.


No one knows for sure. The Bible doesn't speak directly to this issue, no Pope has spoken ex cathedra about it, and no ecumenical council has addressed it.

The "angelic doctor" Thomas Aquinas wrote in his catechism:

  All will rise in the condition of perfect age, which is of thirty-two
  or thirty-three years. This is because all who were not yet arrived at
  this age, did not possess this perfect age, and the old had already
  lost it. Hence, youths and children will be given what they lack, and
  what the aged once had will be restored to them.

Aquinas cites Ephesians 4:13 for support:

  until we all attain to the unity of faith and knowledge of the Son of
  God, to mature manhood, to the extent of the full stature of Christ

However, the connection to the teaching he gives is tenuous. Read it in its full context.

Catholic apologist Peter Kreeft said in a discourse on heaven:

  What age will we be in Heaven?

  Medieval philosophers usually thought we would all be 33, the ideal
  age, the age of maturity, as of Christ's earthly maturity. I take it
  this is symbolically accurate: we will all be fully mature. Infants
  who die prematurely will be given, by God (perhaps through the
  mediation of their own parents!), all the maturing they missed on
  Earth. Geneticists say that the aging process is not inevitable; that
  a live organism could theoretically be immortal, never age, never die.
  Cancer cells do not die unless they are killed or their host dies. The
  aging and dying process began at a certain time in our history, after
  the Fall. God did not make death, but he unmakes it. In Heaven no one
  will be old. Yet in a sense everyone will be both old and young, as a
  reflection of the God who is the Alpha and Omega, oldest and youngest,
  "beauty ancient yet ever new." Even now we sometimes see the wisdom of
  old age in the musing face of a baby or the eternal freshness of youth
  in the twinkling eyes of the very old. These are hints of Heaven.

Though nobody knows the answer, Kreeft affirms that Aquinas' answer is "symbolically accurate." That is, though we may not know the details, we do know that we will have perfect bodies.

There's a related question on the Catholic view of heaven which may interest you.


What is the biblical basis for the Immaculate Conception?

Q. Biblical Basis for Biblical literalists:

A. None.

Catholics believe that Mary is a type prefigured in the Old Testament of the Ark of the Covenant.  The basis for this belief is rooted in scripture as firmly as Mary is rooted in scripture.  God created His mother, and in so doing He created His mother as a fit dwelling place, like the Holy of Holies.  And like the Holy of Holies the dwelling place would bear the effects of the perfect priest, the perfect prophet and the perfect king. That is why the ark contained Aaron's Rod, Manna from Heaven and the Ten Commandments. That is why Jesus is priest prophet and king.

Q. Did Mary need to be redeemed?

A. Yes

But her redemption was pre-conception.

Q. Was she sinless?

A. Yes

Through a singular grace, she was able to avoid sin.  In a way she lived on earth as we will live in Heaven.  Furthermore she experienced Christ as fully as any human is able to this side of the grave.

Q. Did she suffer the consequences of sin?

A. No

It was not as a consequence of sin. She chose death (or dormition as it's called in the East) in imitation of Jesus and was subsequently assumed body and soul into Heaven.

I'll leave you with one piece of Biblical basis for Mary being sanctified. Used in the dogmatic text defining the Assumption

  Arise, O Lord, into your resting place: you and the ark, which you have sanctified

(Old Translation of Psalm 131(132):8)

More Info


Gospel writers who were not disciples of Jesus

Where did Mark and Luke get information about life of Jesus to write Gospel?

There is a very large field of study that attempts to put forth various theories of authorship by writing styles, word usage, and quite a bit of conjecture.

We do know of the twelve immediate disciples of Jesus. We also know of seventy others that were sent out on a particular ministry. It may be that there were even more. The criteria for being a disciple is given by Jesus;

  John 8:31-32  Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If
  ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;  And ye shall
  know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

We also have to consider that what was written was not just recording facts or gathering anecdotes.

  2 Timothy 3:16  All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
  profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction
  in righteousness:

Eyewitness accounts may have been collected, but the final authorship depends on the guiding hand of the Holy Spirit.

  1 Thessalonians 2:13  For this cause also thank we God without
  ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of
  us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the
  word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

  2 Peter 1:21  For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of
  man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

  John 14:26  But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the
  Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring
  all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.


According to Catholicism and/or Eastern Othodox, if we have Guardian Angels do we also have an assigned Demons?

Jesus says of the little ones who make up the kingdom of heaven :

  Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven. Matthew 18:10 KJV.

So, yes, I also believe that the children of the Father, born from above, redeemed by Christ, have angels (one at least) "assigned" to them.

From the incident regarding Peter, quoted in the question, it seems clear to me that the angel which assisted Peter to escape from prison had probably helped him previously and this was known among the church, therefore they said (on this occasion), 'It is his angel' because they were already acquainted with the angel's existence and guardianship.

The redeemed, previously, were indwelt by unclean spirits, demons, as we see in many places in the gospel accounts. Out of one man, the Gadarene, there went a whole legion of demons, enough to cause a whole herd of swine to rush off a precipice into the sea, Matthew 8, Mark 5, Luke 8.

Out of Mary of Magdalene, there went seven demons, and she was delivered of them.

  And certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils, Luke 8:2 KJV.

Jesus warns us that, being once delivered, and the house (of our soul) being 'swept and garnished' we should not have the place just . . .  vacant.

  When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none. Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished. Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Matthew 12:44 KJV, also Luke 11:25.

Those who believe the gospel and follow Jesus Christ are to be full of the Holy Spirit and are advised, by the apostle Paul :

  That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness. Ephesians 4:22 - 24 KJV.


What is the Roman Catholic interpretation of John 3:16?

I can't answer for the Catholic interpretation of Perish in John 3:16, but I can give you the Catholic approach to reading the Bible and my opinion of that.  It's all pretty obvious and doesn't help, but should shed light on why this is an unanswerable (yet good) question.
The four senses of scripture

Literal
John 3:16 literally means "shall not perish", the same way Jesus said to Peter later in the Book that the disciple whom He loved might live until He returns.

Moral
John 3:16 instructs the faithful just how much God the Father loves His children. If you love someone you will make the ultimate sacrifice for them.

Metaphorical
Perish could mean die a spiritual death as easily as it means die a physical death.  To die in ones sins, would be a metaphorical interpretation of the word perish.

Eternal
Here's where perish means, suffer the fire of hell and that would be true too.

So, there's 4 legitimate ways of looking at the same piece of scripture neither of which negate the other, neither of which are authoritative.


What Christians connected the Great Schism and Crab Nebula Supernova (1054 A.D.)?

The Chicago Tribune has an article that proposes some theories on why the observation of the supernova went mostly unnoticed in Europe. The article mentions the significance of the date with respect to the Church:

  Another reason the lack of records of the supernova is so puzzling is that 12 days after it first appeared in the sky, the Christian church began its final East-West split into the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. Astronomical events were believed to foreshadow developments on Earth, making it unlikely that the appearance of a new star so near the time of such a major event would go unrecorded.

This source seems to imply that the contemporary sources who might have commented were silent on the matter.

The connection, however, has not been lost on everyone. This letter on fivedoves.com relates the two events intimately, though perhaps presumptuously:

  In heaven, the Great Schism of 1054 AD is marked by a supernova explosion creating the beautiful Crab Nebula and witnessed visually by both Chinese and European astronomers. The supernova appeared visible to the unaided human eye during daylight hours in July 1054 at approximately the same time as the eastern bishops voted to remove themselves from communion with the Roman Bishopric.


What do Catholics believe about Yom kippur and judgment?

It is not the practice of the Catholic Church to have doctrines or precepts about particular Jewish Holy Days or celebrations. If the Church did, it would be easily found in the Catholic Encyclopedia. Here is what the Catholic Encyclopedia actually has to say about Yom Kippur.

  The rites to be observed on the Day of Atonement are fully set forth in the sixteenth chapter of Leviticus (cf. Exodus 30:10; Leviticus 23:27-31, 25:9; Numbers 29:7-11). It was a most solemn fast, on which no food could be taken throughout the whole the day, and servile works were forbidden. It was kept on nineteenth day of Tischri, which falls in September/October. The sacrifices included a calf, a ram, and seven lambs (Numbers 29:8-11). But the distinctive ceremony of the day was the offering of the two goats.

  "He (Aaron) shall make the two buck-goats to stand before Lord, in the door of the tabernacle of the testimony: and casting lots upon them both, one to be offered to the Lord and the other to be the emissary-goat: That whose lot fell to be offered to the Lord, he shall offer for sin: But that whose lot was to be the emissary goat he shall present alive before the Lord, that he may pour out prayers upon him, and let him go into the wilderness . . . After he hath cleansed the sanctuary, and the tabernacle, and the altar, let him offer the living goat: And putting both hands upon his head, let him confess all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their offences and sins, and praying that they may light on his head, he shall turn him out by a man ready for it, into the desert. And when the goat hath carried all their iniquities into an uninhabited land, and shall be let go into the desert, Aaron shall return into the tabernacle of the testimony." (Leviticus 16:7-10, 20-23) -
  Catholic Encyclopedia.

The Church does however uses Melchisedech, Yom Kippur, Manna, and the Paschal Lamb to represent the Eucharist in one fashion or another.

  The Church recognizes many and various realities from the Old Testament as figures for Christ’s gift of himself in the Most Holy Eucharist. On the Solemnity of Corpus Christi in the Ordinary Form, the Church read from the book of Exodus – how the people were cleansed and the covenant ratified through animal sacrifice at the foot of Mount Sinai.

  There are so many images and figures for the Eucharist in the Old Testament – the Manna, the bread and wine offered by Melchisedech, the sacrifice of the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur), the Paschal Lamb, etc.!

  Yom Kippur and the sacrifices of the Old Law

  "But Christ, being come an high priest of the good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hand, that is, not of this creation: Neither by the blood of goats, or of calves, but by his own blood, entered once into the holies, having obtained eternal redemption." (Hebrews 9:11-12)

  While all the sacrifices of the Old Law point to the perfect sacrifice which Christ would offer in his own blood upon the Cross, that expiatory sacrifice of Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement) is the chief figure of the Crucifixion of our Savior.

  On this day, the only time in the year, the high priest would enter into the Holy of Holies and, taking the blood of sacrifice, would sprinkle this blood in the direction of the Ark of the Covenant. Further, the blood would be sprinkled in several other places in the Temple. The priest, on this single day, invoked the Most Holy Name of the Lord – seeking mercy for himself and for the people.

  This was the only day of the year in which anyone entered the Holy of Holies, which was the most sacred part of the ancient Temple. This Holy of Holies was a sign and figure for the eternal sanctuary of heaven, which Christ opened through the shedding of his own Most Precious Blood. - Melchisedech, Yom Kippur, Manna, and the Paschal Lamb: Figures of the Eucharist

The Association of Hebrew Catholics has this to say about celebrating Jewish feasts and holidays:

  As Hebrew Catholics, we can recognize this same teaching technique in the parables of Jesus and the Sacraments which He initiated. Bread and wine, water and oil, incense and candles, prayers and songs are all rich and integral parts of Catholic liturgy and tradition.

  By celebrating the Hebrew feasts in light of Catholic truth, we can pass on to our children the great heritage of Faith, the wonder of God’s actions in the history of His people, and the enduring promise of salvation through Yeshua haMashiach.

Here is what they say about Yom Kippur:

  Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, is the day when God’s judgment is believed to be sealed for the coming year. The ten days between Rosh Hashonah and Yom Kippur are called the Days of Penitence. It is a time to repent of and to correct those things we have done wrong, especially to our neighbor, and to ask God’s forgiveness.

  For everyone thirteen years and older, Yom Kippur is a day of fasting. Fasting encourages humility and repentance, disciplines the body and clarifies the mind as we examine our conduct and thoughts.

  In the synagogue, the ancient Kol Nidre (Absolution of All Vows) is chanted and confession of sins as commanded in Leviticus 26:40 is made. At home, memorial candles are lit for members of the family who have died. The Mourner’s Kaddish and final blowing of the Shofar conclude the day.

  I have continued to keep Yom Kippur as a day of fasting and repentance, not for myself but for the Jewish people, especially those who have turned away from God. I also light candles and have Masses offered for departed relatives. It is the only holiday that makes itself known by the absence of food and festivities. We offer our prayers as we conclude the fast at the evening meal. - Yom Kippur

The Association of Hebrew Catholics has the ecclesiastical support of Archbishop Raymond L. Burke.


Why doesn't the Catholic Church ordain women to be deacons?

The reason that the Church does not ordain women as deacons is similar to that for not ordaining women as priests. (There is a separate question answering that.)

In essence, the answer is that the Church only has the power to act with those powers and abilities that Jesus has entrusted to it; it has no capacity do otherwise.

For example, Jesus gave priests and bishops the power to confect the Eucharist: that is, to convert wheat bread and grape wine into the Substance of Jesus Christ. He did not give them power, however, to confect the Eucharist using other substances, and attempting to do so would be without effect. It is impossible, for example, to confect the Eucharist using rice cakes, or wine made from fruit other than grape. If there were a shortage of either wheat or grapes, the Church would simply have to refrain from celebrating the Eucharist, since there is no other “matter” available. (See a document from the Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship called Inaestimabile donum, no. 8.)

In a similar way, Jesus gave bishops the power to ordain baptized males to the diaconate, the priesthood, and to the episcopate. He did not give them the ability to ordain women (certainly not to the priesthood or to the episcopate—see below), and so no matter how pressing is the situation, ordaining women is simply not possible. (In fact, attempting to do so would be without effect.)

The only difference, as regards the possibility of ordaining women, between the diaconate and the presbyterate (priesthood) is that the Magisterium (the teaching authority) of the Church has pronounced definitively on the impossibility of ordaining women to the priesthood. Pope John Paul II issued an apostolic letter called Ordinatio sacerdotalis in 1994, which says,

  Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful (No. 4).

Although ordination to the diaconate is not expressly excluded in this document, it is nearly certain that the exclusion also applies to that case, because the Sacrament of Holy Orders is a unified whole, albeit with three degrees, and also because it has been the universal practice of the Church to ordain only males, even to the diaconate, from the beginning.

Deaconesses?

At this point, attentive readers of the New Testament will note that in a few cases, women are called diakonoi, which is the term that came to be used for members of the first degree of holy orders (i.e., deacons). For example, there is Romans 16:1:

  I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant [diakonon] of the church at Cenchreae (ESV).

The problem is that, as the ESV suggests, the term “diakonos” was much broader in meaning in Koine Greek than it is today: it essentially meant “servant.” (For example the servants who fill the water jugs at the wedding at Cana, in John 2:5, are also called diakonoi.)

There is evidence that the early Church had orders of “deaconesses” who would, for example, assist adult women in their full-immersion Baptisms (which was the norm back then). It is clear by all accounts, however, that the deaconesses never received the Sacrament of Holy Orders through the imposition of hands, as (male) deacons do. Again, the term “deaconess” was applied before the term “deacon” came to have the technical use it has today. (There is a good summary of this issue in the old Catholic Encyclopedia).


Why was the devil given power over death?

Goodness exists.
Evil is not an object, it exists only as the negation of Good. Evil cannot create, it is a name for destruction. For instance, punching a stranger is bad because it would negate his happiness and his comfort (somewhat!)...but neither the fist, the motion, nor his face exist as evil objects. (Augustus felt this way- and the very great Mr CS Lewis agreed).
The sum of all goodness is in God.
Lucifer rebelled against God, so rebelled against goodness, so rebelled against creation. His is none-creation. His, therefore, is death. All who follow Satan follow true death because they have removed themselves from 'being'. All who follow God die to be raised in a perfected creation of goodness.


Why did God hide away the fact that He had the Son in the Old Testament times?

This is to some extent the idea of progressive revelation, which is a concept that originated in Origen and was fully expounded in Gregory the Theologian's Fifth Theological Oration (which was in defence of the divinity of the Holy Spirit against the Pneumatomachai).

This is the purple passage:

  The Old Testament proclaimed the Father openly, and the Son more obscurely.  The New manifested the Son, and suggested the Deity of the Spirit.  Now the Spirit Himself dwells among us, and supplies us with a clearer demonstration of Himself.  For it was not safe, when the Godhead of the Father was not yet acknowledged, plainly to proclaim the Son; nor when that of the Son was not yet received to burden us further (if I may use so bold an expression) with the Holy Ghost; lest perhaps people might, like men loaded with food beyond their strength, and presenting eyes as yet too weak to bear it to the sun’s light, risk the loss even of that which was within the reach of their powers; but that by gradual additions, and, as David says, Goings up, and advances and progress from glory to glory, the Light of the Trinity might shine upon the more illuminated.  For this reason it was, I think, that He gradually came to dwell in the Disciples, measuring Himself out to them according to their capacity to receive Him, at the beginning of the Gospel, after the Passion, after the Ascension, making perfect their powers, being breathed upon them, and appearing in fiery tongues. (Theo. Ora. V, XXVI)

So the idea that Gregory expounds (which is widely accepted) is that you get the revelation in stages, not all in one go. The doctrine of the Trinity (which for Gregory is the zenith of the Christian faith) would be meaningless outside the history of Israel in which the world had come to know God.

There are hints in the Old Testament, e.g. in the messianic prophecies of Proto-Isaiah, the Servant Songs of Deutero-Isaiah, various psalms (especially the royal ones), perhaps even in certain narrative passages (e.g. Jacob wrestling with God); these hints are revealed fully in the New Testament. Likewise, the New Testament has a foreshadowing of the revelation of the Spirit in the Church, but not a full acknowledgement of the full divinity of the Spirit.

You might also realise that there is a kind of progressive revelation in the NT of the divinity of Christ. If we take the Gospel of Mark, for instance, the knowledge of who Jesus is is a "secret" all the way through, with hints and foreshadowings; it is only on the Cross that he is revealed publicly. (Mark 15.39)


Is there a generally accepted term for "Christians in Communion with the Bishop of Rome"?

Perhaps a bit of history concerning the label "Roman Catholic" will serve us well by shedding light upon (if not answering) this very good question.

The term "Roman Catholic" appears to be directly connected to the Reformation in England, and was originally an imposed derogatory term of condescension.

The Catholic Encyclopedia references the Oxford English Dictionary:

  In the "Oxford English Dictionary", the highest existing authority
  upon questions of English philology, the following explanation is
  given under the heading "Roman Catholic".

  The use of this composite term in place of the simple Roman, Romanist,
  or Romish; which had acquired an invidious sense, appears to have
  arisen in the early years of the seventeenth century. For conciliatory
  reasons it was employed in the negotiations connected with the Spanish
  Match (1618-1624) and appears in formal documents relating to this
  printed by Rushworth (I, 85-89). After that date it was generally
  adopted as a non-controversial term and has long been the recognized
  legal and official designation, though in ordinary use Catholic alone
  is very frequently employed. (New Oxford Dict., VIII, 766)

One of the earliest appearances of the term "Roman Catholic" is in a book written by Robert Crowley called "A Deliberat Answere", printed in 1588. Though preferring to use the terms "Romish Catholike" or "Popish Catholike", he also writes of those "who wander with the Romane Catholiques in the uncertayne hypathes of Popish devises" (p. 86). A study of these and other early examples in their context shows plainly enough that the qualification "Romish Catholic" or "Roman Catholic" was introduced by Protestant divines who highly resented the Roman claim to any monopoly of the term Catholic. In Germany, Luther had omitted the word Catholic from the Creed, but this was not the case in England.

It is noteworthy that by the 17th century the label of "Roman Catholic," although a term of condescension, began to be subordinately accepted by both the Catholic clergy, as well as the laity, most prevalantly in heavily persecuted Ireland.

  ...[T]he use of the term Roman Catholic continued to be a mark
  of condescension, and language of much more uncomplimentary character
  was usually preferred. It was perhaps to encourage a friendlier
  attitude in the authorities that Catholics themselves henceforth began
  to adopt the qualified term in all official relations with the
  government. Thus the "Humble Remonstrance, Acknowledgment,
  Protestation and Petition of the Roman Catholic Clergy of Ireland" in
  1661, began "We, your Majesty's faithful subjects the Roman Catholick
  clergy of Ireland".

Up until the turn of the 20th century, Catholic clergy were "strongly advised" to maintain the official title of "Roman Catholic" for the sake of separation from the Church of England.

  In 1897 at the Diamond Jubilee of the accession of Queen Victoria, and
  again in 1901 when Edward VII succeeded to the throne, the Catholic
  episcopate desired to present addresses, but on each occasion it was
  intimated to the cardinal that the only permissible style would be
  "the Roman Catholic Archbishop and Bishops in England". Even the form
  "the Cardinal Archbishop and Bishops of the Catholic and Roman Church
  in England" was not approved. On the first occasion no address was
  presented, but in 1901 the requirements of the Home Secretary as to
  the use of the name "Roman Catholics" were complied with, though the
  cardinal reserved to himself the right of explaining subsequently on
  some public occasion the sense in which he used the words (see
  Snead-Cox, "Life of Cardinal Vaughan", II, 231-41). Accordingly, at
  the Newcastle Conference of the Catholic Truth Society (Aug., 1901)
  the cardinal explained clearly to his audience that "the term Roman
  Catholic has two meanings; a meaning that we repudiate and a meaning
  that we accept." The repudiated sense was that dear to many
  Protestants, according to which the term Catholic was a genus which
  resolved itself into the species Roman Catholic, Anglo-Catholic, Greek
  Catholic, etc. But, as the cardinal insisted, "with us the prefix
  Roman is not restrictive to a species, or a section, but simply
  declaratory of Catholic." The prefix in this sense draws attention to
  the unity of the Church, and "insists that the central point of
  Catholicity is Roman, the Roman See of St. Peter."

All things considered, I believe its safe to say that all English speaking countries refer to Christians in union with the Pope (both Eastern and Western) as "Roman Catholics" mainly because of the trickled down term that has been imposed on papal subordinates by the British Crown.

Of course there are many other reasons...

Long story short - the Reformation complicated things terminologically for English speaking Christians, as with many other aspects within Christianity.

  It is noteworthy that the representative Anglican divine, Bishop
  Andrewes, in his "Tortura Torti" (1609) ridicules the phrase Ecclesia
  Catholica Romana as a contradiction in terms. "What," he asks, "is the
  object of adding 'Roman'? The only purpose that such an adjunct can
  serve is to distinguish your Catholic Church from another Catholic
  Church which is not Roman"

I would like to reiterate that, although this may not answer your question satisfactorily, it may at least shed some light...

Personal experience/opinion...

I wish the label of Roman Catholic would be done away with altogether. I remember the first time I encountered this term. I was going through confirmation (around the mid '90s) and had only been taught by friends, family, and fellow parishioners that we were all simply "Catholics." I attended a youth retreat with thousands of other teenagers. I noticed someone wearing a shirt that said "Proud to be a Roman Catholic." I asked my youth leader, "What is a Roman Catholic?" He responded, "Well I guess it is just an emphasis on the fact that the Pope is our Pope and he happens to be the Bishops of Rome. Maybe that shirt is to signify to Protestants that he is marked by the Anti-Christ." (He was joking of course)

The label is self contradictory. If what we say is true...that the Church is all inclusive...then we shouldn't confuse people by clinging to an archaic label that was forced upon us in the first place. Perhaps "Petrine Catholics" or something of that nature would be more fitting. This question should not exist.

Maybe we should all write a letter to his Holiness suggesting a better label for the world to recognize.


What does the Emerging church see itself as emerging from?

Evangelicalism. The early leaders of the Emergent church were members of a special project of Leadership Network, a non-denominational parachurch organization designed to help implement church growth/creativity projects for evangelical leaders. Originally, it was a special project aiming at the millennial demographic, which at the time was roughly college aged and showed signed of being a major demographic gap in large evangelical churches. As many of these leaders began to grow in size and popularity they became less affiliated with their traditional churches and more influenced by postmodern theology and philosophy. Though they typically receive harsh criticism from evangelicals for being difficult to pin down, there seems to be a self identity that the Emergent Church is a progressive development of Evangelicalism.


In the case of Moses, God spoke with him directly (e.g., the forty days on Mount Sinai) and instructed him in everything he was to write on the two stone tablets, as well as the scrolls of parchment.

In the case of the apostles, God gave them the Holy Spirit, and regarding the Holy Spirit, it is written (John 14:26),

  But the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things and bring all things to your remembrance, whatever I have said to you.


Where did people who lived in Jesus's time go to when they died?

As a Christian of the Reformed Protestant persuasion, I do not think there is anything in the New Testament to suggest that Jesus, when on earth, was personally or individually in the business of judging the dead, either Jew or Gentile, or of escorting them either to heaven or to hell.  We know that our eternal destination is decided at the point of death.  The basis of judgment is on how we lived our lives.  Daniel spoke of the Book of Life and so does Revelation, in which names are written.

Ecclesiastes 12:6-7 informs us that we must remember God “before the silver cord is severed, or the golden bowl is broken; before the pitcher is shattered at the spring, or the wheel broken at the well, and the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.”
Significantly, verse 14 says “God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil.”

So it is God who does the judging.  Just because the third person of the Triune Godhead was temporarily on earth does not infer that the Father and the Holy Spirit were incapacitated in any way!
However, Jesus did have something to say about the condition of the dead and WHERE the soul went while awaiting the resurrection and the judgment to come.  It’s in Luke 16:19-31:

There was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day.  And at his gate was laid a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man’s table.   Moreover, even the dogs came and licked his sores.  The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s side [or bosom]. The rich man also died and was buried, and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side.  And he called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.’  But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish.  And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.’  And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father’s house—for I have five brothers—so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.’  But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’  And he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’  He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’  (English Standard Version)

The Greek word ‘kolpos’ is variously translated as “Abraham’s side” (NIV, ESV), “next to Abraham” (CEV), “with Abraham” (NLT), “the arms of Abraham” (NCV) and “Abraham’s bosom” (KJV).
“Abraham’s bosom” was used in the Talmud as a synonym for heaven.  The image in the story is of Lazarus reclining at a table leaning on Abraham’s breast at the heavenly banquet.  The point of the story is that wicked men will see the righteous in a happy state, while they themselves are in torment, and that a “great gulf” that can never be spanned exists between them (Luke 16:26).  Until the resurrection, the souls of those who have died are in an “interim holding place” – either in a state of bliss (paradise, or Abraham’s bosom) or in a state of torment.
It was at the cross that God pronounced judgment on the unbelieving world and on the enemy of our souls, Satan.  Jesus said, shortly before His arrest, “Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out” (John 12:31).  However, there are future judgments to come:

The judgments of the tribulation period (Revelation 6—16)
The judgment seat of Christ (2 Corinthians 5:10)
The judgment of the nations (Matthew 25:31–46)
The judgment of angels (1 Corinthians 6:2–3)
The Great White Throne Judgment (Revelation 20:11–15)

This final judgment of unbelievers occurs at the end of the Millennium, before the creation of the new heaven and earth.  At this judgment, unbelievers from all the ages are judged for their sins and consigned to the lake of fire (the permanent condition of those who reject Christ).
So, who judged all those persons who died while Jesus was on earth?  The Bible does not say, and I’m not about to guess.  It’s an interesting question but I suspect that the Father and the Holy Spirit had everything under their control (including sustaining the universe and all life) while the Logos, the Word of God, was on assignment for those few, short years when he dwelt with us.


What is the difference between obeisance and worship?

The best way to address this question is to start with definitions.
Definition of obeisance
1 : a movement of the body made in token of respect or submission : bow
//After making his obeisances he approached the altar.
2 : acknowledgment of another's superiority or importance : homage
//makes obeisance to her mentors
//The players paid obeisance to their coach.
Worship
Definition of worship (Entry 2 of 2)
1 : reverence offered a divine being or supernatural power
also : an act of expressing such reverence
2 : a form of religious practice with its creed and ritual.
I found some examples of "obeisance" at the jw.org site.
OBEISANCE

The act of bowing, kneeling, prostrating the body, or making some other gesture to betoken submission; or simply the paying of respect. It adequately translates the Hebrew hish·ta·chawahʹ and the Greek pro·sky·neʹo in many cases.

Hish·ta·chawahʹ means, basically, “bow down.” (Ge 18:2) Such bowing might be done as an act of respect or deference toward another human, as to a king (1Sa 24:8; 2Sa 24:20; Ps 45:11), the high priest (1Sa 2:36), a prophet (2Ki 2:15), or other person of authority (Ge 37:9, 10; 42:6; Ru 2:8-10), to an elder relative (Ge 33:1-6; 48:11, 12; Ex 18:7; 1Ki 2:19), or even to strangers as an expression of courteous regard (Ge 19:1, 2). Abraham bowed down to the Canaanite sons of Heth from whom he sought to buy a burial place."

In doing some research on this subject I found the following blog to be very helpful.  The answer I will quote from may have been given by a Jehovah’s Witness since they direct readers to jw.org for further information..
https://www.question.com/what-root-word-does-worship-come-from-and-what-it-1124088.html
I will only quote a few (in my view pertinent) statements.

True worship of the Creator embraces every aspect of an individual’s life.
Hebrew and Greek Terms.
Most Hebrew and Greek words that can denote worship can also be applied to acts other than worship. However, the context determines in what way the respective words are to be understood."

I agree, context is key and is always key in how we understand, define and interpret Scripture.

Worship That Is Acceptable to God. Jehovah God accepts only the worship of those who comport themselves in harmony with his will. (Mt 15:9; Mark 7:7) . Having become acquainted with God through the Bible and evidence of the operation of God’s spirit in his life, the person who worships with spirit and truth definitely ‘knows what he is worshiping."

Jesus says the following at Luke 4:8, "It is written, "You shall worship the Lord your God and serve Him only." The word for worship is "proskuneo" which refers to worship or adoration of God alone and Him only in the immediate context.
Then at Hebrews 1:6, God the Father says, "And when He again brings the first-born into the world, He says, "And Let all the Angels of God "proskuneo/worship" Him."
To me, one of the highest forms of worship can be found at John 20:28 when Thomas declared to Jesus Christ Himself, "My Lord and my God."
Another "highest" form of worship can be found at Acts 7:59-60 and what Stephen said in his dying breath. "And they went on stoning Stephen as he called upon the Lord and said, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!" Verse 60, And falling on his knees, he cried out with a loud voice. Lord, do not hold this sin against them!" And having said this, he fell asleep."
It's pretty obvious to me by looking at these Scriptures one can determine the difference between paying "obeisance" like what Abraham did at Genesis 18:2, and God the Father saying His Son should be "worshipped."
After all, Jesus did say at John 5:22-23, "For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son, verse 23, in order that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father, He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Me."


Calvinism: Does God force people to be saved?

You are correct in your estimation of God's action. God does, indeed, "force" salvation. The Scripture (e.g. Paul's description of the moral condition of man in Romans 3) makes it clear that it could be no other way since unregenerate man is unable to willingly turn to God. The analogy that Jesus used in his explanation to Nicodemus of salvation (John 3)  brings home this fact. He uses the metaphor of physical birth for the act of salvation. You did not ask to be born. Your will was not involved in the process of birth. Jesus indicates that the spirit moves where the spirit moves and that the recipient's will is not a participant in that process.

As you accurately point out, however, once regeneration has taken place, having eyes to see and ears to hear, the person who has been regenerated now makes a willing choice since they are no longer bound in slavery to sin.

Once given the inability, as described in Scripture, to willingly come to God, there is no other logical way for a person to be saved except for the monergistic work of God.

As you look throughout Scripture, you find that God chooses. That is his modus operandi. In Genesis 12, God chooses Abram rather than Abram choosing God.

Those who have and are teaching and preaching this "forcing of Salvation" are Alistair Begg, John Calvin, D. A. Carson, Jonathan Edwards, Sinclair Ferguson, Martin Luther, John Knox, John MacArthur, John Piper, R.C. Sproul, Charles H. Spurgeon, and Paul Washer.

And one final thought, would you "force" an intervention in the life of someone you loved if they were a drug addict and could not stop on their own?


Can someone point to a prophecy about the 3 days between the cross and resurrection?

Old Testament prophecies are sometimes 'thematic', by 'type' or 'metaphor' as in the case of these three days. There are various places in the Old Testament that give special meaning to three days.  The gospels however only refer to the prophecy of Jonah. Christ said that Jonah would be the 'sign' that God would give the Jews, as a rebuke for their obstinacy. (Math 12:39-40). As Jonah was buried in a watery death for three days, then spit out and believed upon by Gentiles, so would Christ be buried in the belly of the earth and spit out miraculously to be believed on by the Romans and Greeks.

Beyond this single prophecy, there does seem to be more in the Bible and in rabbinic history that enshrines a three-day significance. The main idea seems to stem from Abraham arriving at Mount Moriah to sacrifice his son, on the third-day (Gen 22:4). This is another resurrection image no doubt. The idea is that Isaac was good for dead all three days until God provided a ram in his place.  From this the third day, there seems to have become some concepts of a third day resurrection, further supported by Hosea 6:2. Notice though that Rabbi's often differed among themselves, just as we do with Revelation, so the three days in Hosea 6:2 was interpreted by some as 3000 years.

Despite the differing historical interpretations by the Rabbis, it cannot be denied that this three-day-theme existed before Christ. Still the bottom line is that in the New Testament Christ's reference to Jonah is enough to fully satisfy the statement that Chris was raised on the third day 'according to the scriptures' (I Cor 15:3-4) The Old Testament three day theme is mostly of supplemental interest.

For a deeper analysis on the three day theme, there is an excellent little article by Michael Brown at JewishRoots.net here.


God makes a distinction between your (the people to whom the prophecy is directed) prophets (e.g. 1 Ki 22:23, Jer 27:9, Jer 27:9, Ezek 13:1-7) and my (God's) prophets (e.g. 1 Chr 16:21-23).1 God's prophets are the only true prophets. The others are false prophets (e.g. De 13:1-5, 2 Ki 18:19, 1 Ki 22:1-28, Jer 2:8, Jer 5:31).

Regarding Ezekiel 12:27

  Ezekiel 12:27-28 (NASB)
  “Son of man, behold, the house of Israel is saying, ‘The vision that he sees is for many years from now, and he prophesies of times far off.’ Therefore say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD, “None of My words will be delayed any longer. Whatever word I speak will be performed,” ’ ” declares the Lord GOD.

There isn't sufficient reason to understand this as applying henceforth to all prophecies from all prophets. There were certainly prophets who came after Ezekiel (e.g. Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, possibly Daniel), some of whom foretell things about John the Baptist and Jesus (who came 400+ years later).

It is sufficiently plausible to understand the words of this passage as being a specific description of how God will behave in the short term regarding these people who are skeptical of Ezekiel's message. The alternative would seem logically inconsistent within the context of the entire Bible.

1 More frequently, people speaking/praying to God refer to them as your prophets. (e.g. 1 Ki 19:10, Neh 9:30)


Did everything Christ did perfectly match what was required for salvation?

Interesting.

Yes.

Salvation required the sacrifice of a perfect and immaculate victim. This means that it was required of Christ to do everything in accordance with God's will. There is of course no question that He could and did carry out this obligation. He was perfectly obedient. If He was not, He could not serve as an appropriate sacrifice. But then, if He was not perfectly obedient, He wouldn't be Jesus, either.

Does this include all of his intentional actions? Yes. This is because all actions can be done for God (related). Here is one reference, dealing with the use of material things: "There is scarcely any proper use of material things which cannot be thus directed toward the sanctification of men and the praise of God" (from the Catechism section 1670). And here is another, from 1 Corinthians 10:

  31 So whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do everything for the glory of God.

We can be sure that Jesus did do everything, absolutely everything, for the glory of God; and doing so was required for salvation, because salvation required the sacrifice of a perfect and immaculate victim.


Does Joyce Meyer preach salvation by faith in Jesus alone (ie not works)?

Does she preach the basic Christian message of salvation by faith in Jesus alone.

No.

Allow me to explain.

Another answer has postulated "yes", and there is a sense in which there are words she uses that can be construed that way. The trouble is most of them can also be construed another way. It is therefore necessary to look at the broader context of her teachings in order to determine how well they align with a "salvation by faith in Christ alone" Gospel.

This is a tricky issue because she mixes and matches a lot of content. Taken in isolation some, indeed many, points of her doctrine may seem in agreement with mainstream Christian teaching. It isn't until you put all the pieces together that you see the pieces fit in a different puzzle.

Definition of terms and outline of scope

In order to treat an open-ended question like this on this site, I think it is necessary to identify who holds what views and who, exactly, has issues with what. For the purposes of the scope of this site, anyone self-professing to be Christian is on topic. Baring any further scoping (which your question is a bit thin on) I will be working under the assumption that you are questioning from a generic mainstream Protestant perspective.

Since it seems self evident that this question isn't directed at Catholicism or Orthodoxy and the (dubious) tag biblical-basis tends to be the focus of Protestants, I'll be tackling this from that direction.

Broadly I find the following conflicts between Joyce's teaching on salvation and "salvation by faith".

She defines the concepts of faith and works differently.
She defines salvation differently.
It isn't her main message.

Statement of faith

If you examine the statement of faith from her website, there isn't much there to cause alarm. Most of it could pass for most any non-denominational or even Baptist. There are a couple of items that put it in a more Pentecostal camp, maybe most similar to AOG.

The trouble is the statements there are not consistent with what she teaches. For example point 1:

  The Bible is the infallible Word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit, and contains every answer to man's problems.

Sounds good. The trouble is she doesn't actually hold to the sufficiency of Scripture doctrine held by mainstream Protestants. Instead she believes in continued special revelation. She teaches that some things Christians should know are not spelled out in the Bible.

  The Bible can’t even find any way to explain this. Not really that is why you have got to get it by revelation. There are no words to explain what I am telling you. I have got to just trust God that he is putting it into your spirit like he put it Into mine. — Joyce Meyer (audio clip)

In other words, her statement of faith is not an accurate guide to her teachings. Ergo when it comes to the part relevant to your question, we must examine whether the statement is actually reflected in her teachings.

  Man is created in the image of God but separated from God by sin. Without Jesus we cannot have a relationship with God.

  We can have a personal relationship with God through salvation, God's free gift to man. It is not a result of what we do, but it is only available through God's unearned favor. By admitting we have sinned and believing in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, and accepting Him as Lord, we can spend eternity with God.

Alright so we have some stuff about Jesus, sin, salvation, personal relationship, etc. Fair enough.1 Lets see how they play out.

Soundly Biblical?

Your question made this observation:

  I only saw one talk and it was soundly Biblical.

This analysis would be is widely disputed by mainstream Protestants. See for example CARM's analysis.

So lets break down to where the dispute lines fall:

Starting easy, cults such as LDS and JW are different enough on core issues that no comparability is either implied or assumed.
The structure of Catholic, Orthodox, and even Anglican churches differs enough from her independent organization of one that there isn't much question that they don't match up.
Mainstream Protestants with which she is most often assumed to be associated (due in main part to her self-identification af 'simply Christian' have repeatedly disavowed her (some of the reasons for such are will be covered below).
Doctrinally, there are some notably similarities with the Seventh Day Adventist Church. Her view of continued revelation is not that different from the role Ellen White plays in the SDAC. Her views on the relationship between salvation and sanctification are also similar. Notably different would be their views on hell where Joyce is fairly traditional and the SDAC is decidedly Annihilationist.

So who does she agree with? The theological school of thought with which she is most properly identified with is:

Word of Faith

It is important to note that when I say "properly identified", I am referring to general theological constructs. She is not officially part of any movement or denomination. Her FAQ, for example, skirts the issue a bit by agreeing with the general teachings while noting awareness of a common point of criticism.

  13. Is Joyce Meyer Ministries a "word of faith" ministry?

  Joyce Meyer Ministries believes in the Word of God. Joyce teaches that God has made promises to us in His Word and as believers, we should trust His promises. However, it can be damaging when people place their faith in faith alone instead of placing their faith in God. Misappropriation of God’s promises solely for personal gain is not scripturally supported.

While most adherents don't use this terminology, Joyce is firmly in the realm of what mainstream Protestants would call 'Prosperity Gospel' or 'Health and Wealth'. Note what Wikipeda gives for references. This distinctive is even openly claimed in her FAQ, albeit with the same caveat as for Word of Faith, noting a weakness of the movement.

  14. Does Joyce Meyer Ministries teach a "prosperity gospel"?

  Joyce Meyer Ministries believes that God desires to bless His people. Joyce teaches that God’s blessings and prosperity apply to the spiritual, emotional, physical and financial areas of life. These blessings and prosperity are then to be used to bless others. A "prosperity gospel" that solely equates blessing with financial gain is out of balance and could damage a person’s walk with God.

In any case the overwhelming majority of her teaching falls squarely in this camp, and her choice of associations brings that tie even closer. See appearances with T.D. Jakes (former Oneness Pentecostal, + Word of Faith), her citations of Benny Henn (on the short list of top Prosperity Gospel proponents) on humans being 'little gods', sinlessness, etc., etc.

If you consider Prosperity / Health & Wealth teachings to be "soundly Biblical", the following may or may not be points of concern for you, but they are certainly causes for concern for mainstream Protestants of many different denominations.

So does she teach salvation by faith?

In addition to my previous knowledge and studies, in preparing for this answer, I reviewed about 3.5 hours of Joyce's teaching: 2 long conference segments and a few shorter messages (but still in whole segments so I'm sure I'm not just working with somebody else's cherry-picking. There are a couple of things to not from such a sampling.

While "faith" is often mentioned in her teachings including in the context of salvation, the fact that salvation if by faith alone is never stressed in the way that the Protestant doctrine of sola fide would have it be.

Works are never mentioned as a means to salvation, but they are constantly mentioned as a means to everything else. Her teaching is riddled with stories, often of her own experiences. The vast majority of these follow a pattern of "struggle with x, then finally I did y" or "make x mistake, then I realized y and did z". From a pragmatic standpoint a lot of preachers messages will include talk like this from time to time, but Joyce's preaching is exceptional for the pervasive use of the "I did" pattern. It is classic self-help coaching. God doing things and changing people is hardly given mention expect in response to something that men do first. All his action / blessing / etc is done as a result to somebody else's actions.

Here is a direct quote I heard in multiple sessions speaking to that theology:

  If we do things God's way God will give us double for our trouble. — Joyce Meyer

The scenario is constantly 'we do x, then and only then does God step up to do y'.
Her concept of "salvation" is at variance with Protestantism on the issue of sanctification.

In Protestant theology, we are saved from sin and justified before God once and for all by means of Christ's propitiatory death. Of the various pieces that make up salvation, justification happens once and for all but the process of our sanctification as believers is underway but not finished yet. Joyce completely disagrees with this and believes that as a result of her salvation she does not sin.

  I am not poor. I am not miserable and I am not a sinner. That is a lie from the pit of hell. That is what I were and if I still was then Jesus died in vain. I'm going to tell you something folks. I didn't stop sinning until I finally got it through my thick head I wasn't a sinner anymore. And the religious world thinks that's heresy and they want to hang you for it. But the Bible says that I am righteous and I can't be righteous and be a sinner at the same time. — Joyce Meyer (youtube source)

If the context of the Protestant doctrine of salvation my faith alone, the 'not by works' clause is a necessary clarification because we believe we are still sinners and, even in our 'saved' state we continue to sin. Hopefully we are learning to recognize sin, repent from sin, etc. We are in the process of putting sin to death, but it hasn't been completely purged from us yet. That's the ongoing process of sanctification that will not be completed until we are taken up to glory in Chris's presence. Ergo if our salvation depended on our works we would fail. We continue to sin and grieve God even as his adopted children.

In contrast the clause 'not by works' is basically meaningless for Joyce because she believes she is no longer a sinner and does not sin. So whether her salvation depended on works or not is no longer a meaningful distinction. She is correct in identifying that most of the religious world (by which I assume she means "Christian" world) believes this to be heresy.

Somebody who believes they can be / are currently sinless in our earthly pre-glorification state cannot be said to preach "salvation by faith" in the same way other Protestants do because she means something different when she says 'salvation'. To her credit she does teach a fairly orthodox view of hell and that we are saved from it by Jesus having gone there in our place2, but again very little airtime is given to the work of Christ in her teachings, most of it is human focused, self-help-ism.
In nearly well over 3 hours of whole segments, the amount of time she spent making any remarks on salvation at all was less than 5 minutes sum-total.

Can it properly be said that someone who does not devote any attention to a subject at "preaches" it per your question? I think not. She does not "preach" salvation an all. Her attention is solely on other matters.

Given that her professed ministry focus is to believers, is this appropriate?

Reading the apostolic letters to the NT churches addressed to believers, the amount of focus placed on salvation and how it works is much higher. I havn't done the statistics but my gut level instinct based on reading and preaching the NT is that it's closer to 1/3 that 1/50.
Most of Protestantism places a high value on the fundamentals of salvation in Christ, giving it regular airtime even to audiences that are assumed to be mostly Christian.

Conclusion

The specifics of your question boil down to this:

Does Joyce Meyer use a lot of words and phrases that sound familiar to evangelical ears? Sure.
When she uses there words, does she mean the same thing by them as is meant by most Protestants? Clearly not.

So can it be claimed that she "preaches salvation by faith" when a) none of the other pieces of her doctrine fit the puzzle that sola fide came from and b) most of what she preaches is something else entirely that is at fundamental variance with what sola fide brings with it doctrinally? No. She does not preach a gospel and a salvation that is consistent with "And this is not of yourselves, but it is the gift of God;".

End note regarding your comment about translations:

  Quoting from the Amplified version which seems to be her preference.

Interesting that you should note this. There is nothing inherently wrong with the Amplified version and it certainly serves a purpose. However, extensive reliance on it in teaching is a signal that there may be hermeneutical problems with the message. It can be useful in identifying the inherent difficulty of mapping Biblical languages to English and for getting your head around the possible senses of a text, but it does not help you settle on which sense(s) were intended and or guide correct interpretation. If not combined with other good hermeneutical practices, it leaves the text open to possibly saying much more (or quite different) things than it should rightly interpreted to say.

This tends to make it a favorite by teachers who don't actually have another hermeneutical leg to stand on. The Amplified translation, while a good tool used properly, in this scenario becomes a convenient spring-board for making a passage say whatever a speaker wants it to say. In the case of Joyce Meyer, she makes no bones about the fact that she does not believe the words of Scripture alone are sufficient to understand God's message and that she believes she has a special anointing to do explain things beyond the words of Scripture.

1 Actually not fine, my Reformed inclinations also want to point out the issue with "by admitting" being made causative rather that being a result of God's work in changing hearts, but for the body of my answer I am trying to stick to a generic Evangelical viewpoint.

2 Most Protestants would again disagree with her on the exact mechanics of this as they believe the wrath of God was poured out on Christ while on the cross, not later in hell. Whether or not (and why) Christ spent time in hell is not universally agreed on, but that the thing he did in our place was completed on the cross is generally agreed on, which Meyers rejects.


Why is Christianity so popular in (South) Korea?

Please excuse my short answer, I'm not very good with words :-)

The threat of North Korea is very real. Both countries are officially at war. Lethal incidents occur from time to time. All South Korean males have to fulfill a 21 month long military service which is a hard political decision due to the missing workforce for the economy. Where harm to body and life is a real threat, people do think about the life and death. They start to care about spiritual matters. South Koreans Christians are spiritually quite alive. (This is no argument trying to support growth of Christianity in SK, it solely tries to explain the vigorous spirit of SK Christians.)
Unlike in other Western Nations, Christianity is in a competitive state in South Korea. It is a major religion but has to compete with Buddhism. Buddhism is a very tolerant, non-radical religion and therefore widely accepted.
South Korea has a very hierarchal culture. Your boss is not just your boss. He is THE BOSS. How can I explain this? You simply do not speak bad of your boss. Also you do not stand up to him. Your respect to the boss is 'unlimited'. Thus, workers are very loyal and obedient. The hierarchal culture starts in the family where each member has a title. While my grandparents may greet me by my first name, I have to name them by their title. Due to the 'western' influence in our family this not that big of a deal. I think that it is the culturally induced obedience towards your superior that is reflected in the strong missionary work of South Koreans.
Christianity in South Korea is still young. It does not have the old relics and structures that the mainstream church has created in Western Europe. It's young and vibrant.
In the second world war, South Korea was occupied by Japan. There was an active persecution and deportation of Christians. Many were martyred. Since these events are only seventy years old or so, these events are still present in the memories of the older generation and have supported growth of Christians among the younger generations.

About point 5: This is what Korean relatives have told me: They themselves see this as the most important point to mention. In fact, my grandfather was close to getting killed by the Japanese military force. They locked him up with others in the church and started lighting it on fire from the outside. Yet, he managed to escape. Even though my own relatives were telling me this, I surprisingly could not find much evidence online to confirm such persecution of Christians in SK during WW2. Most information you find, will relate to persecution of Catholic Christians in the early 19th century.


What are the major Catholic academic journals?

What are the major Catholic academic journals in English?

The following list is some of the major Catholic academic journals. One can not establish which ones are the most major ones with any established certitude!

General

American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly
Communio
Horizons: The Journal of the College Theology Society
Logos: A Journal of Catholic Thought and Culture
Lumen Veritatis
Newman Studies Journal
Nova et Vetera
Philosophy and Theology
The New Scholasticism
The Thomist
Theological Studies
Thought: Fordham University Quarterly

Scripture

Catholic Biblical Quarterly

Bioethics

National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly
Linacre Quarterly
Catholic Medical Quarterly


Robert P. Carroll says in 'Prophecy and society', published in The World of Ancient Israel: Sociological, Anthropological and Political Perspectives page 209, the Bible presents so many different, ambiguous and ambivalent stories and treatments of prophets that the modern reader has to admit that the ancient Israelite writers had no clear image of what a prophet is or should be.

Daniel I Block says in 'My Servant David: Ancient Israel’s Vision of the Messiah', published in Israel’s Messiah:In the Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls, page 32, there is no evidence within the Old Testament that anyone in ancient Israel understood the office of prophet typologically. Nevertheless, the people seemed to know who their prophets were.  An Old Testament prophet did not necessarily predict the future, but his pious sincerity was accepted by his contemporaries, and he frequently claimed that God was speaking through his words.

The Bible contains accounts of some of the prophets, either in the books of Kings or books said to have been written by the prophets themselves. However, it appears there were prophets and seers whose books have been lost to us, such as a book of Shemaiah the prophet, mentioned in 2 Chronicles 12:15.

It appears that prophets could provide quite conflicting messages. Jeremiah is considered a prophet, but in Jeremiah 27:9,14,16,17 he tells the people not to listen to the other prophets, only to himself. He was recommending that Judah submit to the yoke of Babylon. In chapter 28, the prophet Hananiah (son of the prophet Azur) said that Babylon would soon be defeated. He took the yoke that Jeremiah had placed on his own neck to symbolise submission to Babylon, and broke it to demonstrate defiance of Babylon. In the event, Jeremiah was proven largely right, and Hananiah receives only a brief mention as a failed prophet; had events turned out differently it might be the book of Hananiah that we read in the Bible, with Jeremiah relegated to failed status.

Ronald E. Clements says in 'Israel in its historical and cultural setting', also published in The World of Ancient Israel, at page 13, the written form of prophecy can be seen frequently to have altered, and at times markedly transformed, the import of the prophet's original words in the Bible, even at times reversing their warnings or assurance.

If we define a prophet as someone through whom God spoke, then Joseph was not a prophet, as the Bible does not record God as ever communicating with him.


From an idealist perspective, what are the "seven spirits of God"?

The seven spirits referenced in Revelation may refer to the spirits mentioned in Isaiah 11.

Spirit of the Lord
Spirit of wisdom
Spirit of understanding
Spirit of counsel
Spirit of might
Spirit of knowledge
Spirit of fear of the LORD

  1 A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse;
     from his roots a Branch will bear fruit.
  2 The Spirit of the LORD will rest on him—
     the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding,
     the Spirit of counsel and of might,
     the Spirit of the knowledge and fear of the LORD—

It may also refer to the seven qualities mentioned in 2 Peter 1:5-7.

goodness
knowledge
self-control
perseverence
godliness
mutual affection
love

  5 For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith
  goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; 6 and to knowledge,
  self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance,
  godliness; 7 and to godliness, mutual affection; and to mutual
  affection, love.

As is the case with a lot of Revelation, I take the different references to the seven spirits of God as figurative representations of the spirits.  I do not believe there are physical manifestations of His spirit.

I believe the 7 spirits represent communicable attributes of God.  When they are sent out over the earth, we will receive these attributes fully.


Why does transubstantiation refer only to communion?

The beginnings of a response would consider the difference between a simile/parable ("The kingdom of heaven is like..."), a metaphor ("I am the vine"), and a prescription or statement of fact ("Blessed are the pure of heart"). Everyone would agree that Jesus employs a wealth of literary and rhetorical devices to communicate his beautiful message, and any attempt to argue otherwise would be hard-pressed to explain what the "Hand of God" could refer to in the Psalms. Origen has excellent things to say about the different levels of meaning of Scripture.
As for this particular instance: I will respond despite the fact that it is obviously posed as a "loaded" question.
Jesus uses "ego eimi" (I am) many times throughout the New Testament, either alone to refer to His divinity ("Before Abraham was, I am"), or to indicate his present ("Do not fear, it is I"), or to predicate something of himself. In the Gospel of John, especially, he does this numerous times: "I am the vine," "I am the bread of life," "I am the good shepherd," "I am the gate," etc.
I think it is very difficult to understand the four extant accounts of the Last Supper "Consecration" (as Catholics would refer to it) in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and St. Paul without hearkening back to a chapter that you mention in passing in your list of "Alleged Metaphors," and that chapter is John 6. It merits a long, slow read and reveals several characteristics which should make us pause before receiving it as merely metaphorical. Why?

Christ's insistence. He states "I am the bread of life" numerous times in several different ways in a way that makes the "Good Shepherd" discourse look like a short excursus.
His concreteness. Though "bread of life" easily argues a merely metaphorical reading, it is difficult to understand why Jesus not only repeats but also intensifies this statement to something that two millenia of Christian culture has not been able to make tame: "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood..." And then again, the same repetitive insistence.
The scandal. Perhaps most significant of all, the above reading of the statement as scandalously literal is all the more convincing given the reaction of the Jews themselves: they are scandalized and they scatter. Did they misunderstand Jesus? If so, could not Jesus have added a brief little note at the end, "You're not taking this the right way"? When he addresses the apostles, he does not say, "You understand what I mean, right?"; no, he says, "Will you leave me too?" Something big is at stake.

And then, the Last Supper. "This is my body; this is my blood." If this were an isolated image, again it would make more sense to read it metaphorically. Combined with the words of His ministry, though, it seems logical to ask: Is this the same body and blood that we are to eat and drink?
Perhaps we could get this far and still find it appealing to refer to the bread and wine as mere symbols, not substantially changed into the body and blood of Christ, as Catholic Transubstantiation says. Why so literal? The answer here hearkens back to a continual point of tension between the Catholic Church and certain other denominations over the proper place of Sacred Tradition. What did the early Christians do? What was their understanding of what they were doing? One first clue might be the continual suspicion under which the early Christians fell in the first few centuries of their existence under the Roman empire. They were continually accused of...anthropophagy: "eating human flesh." A curious accusation against a group of people who symbolically broke bread together.
The testimony of the Fathers is not unequivocally unanimous, but it is strongly in favor of the real presence. Some citations from the first and second centuries:

For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. (Source: Justin Martyr First Apology, 66)
Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons. (Source: Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to Philadelphians, 3:2-4:1)
[Christ] has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own Blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own Body, from which he gives increase to our bodies." (Source: St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 180 A.D)

My favorite testimony of the Fathers comes from St. John Chrysostom, who uses a graphic image to describe how literally he understands the Transubstantiation:

When the word says, ‘This is my Body,’ be convinced of it and believe it, and look at it with the eyes of the mind. For Christ did not give us something tangible, but even in His tangible things all is intellectual.... Since the soul is intertwined with the body, He hands over to you in tangible things, that which is perceived intellectually. How many now say, ‘I wish I could see His shape [Gr. ton tupon], His appearance, His garments, His scandals.’ Only look! You see Him! You touch Him. You eat Him. He had given to those who desire Him, not only to see Him and fix their teeth in His flesh, and to embrace Him and satisfy all their love. (Source: St. John Chrysostom Homily on Matthew 82.4)


What is the physical evidence for a global flood?

The Answers in Genesis website has an article that covers historical records of the flood -
Comparison of secular historical records, where they look at 200 flood traditions from across the world.  95% of the traditions had common elements with the Genesis account and described a worldwide flood.

Answers in Genesis also provides a number of articles describing geological evidence for a worldwide flood: Geological Links


Are there Christians who believe that Jesus does not have a physical body right now?

Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that the body of Jesus was disposed of by Jehovah God, dissolved into its constituent elements or atoms, and what came out of the tomb was a spirit creature.

JESUS’ FLESHLEY BODY DISSOLVED: What happened to the perfect fleshly body of Jesus after his death?  Was it preserved so that in time men will look upon it in worship? or does Jesus still have this fleshly body in the heavens, “spiritualized” so that it can be seen and worshiped? Neither. The Scriptures answer: It was disposed of by Jehovah God, dissolved into its constituent elements or atoms...  Moses’ body returned to the dust by process of decay, as all human bodies do, but not so in Jesus’ case, for it is written: “For thou wilt not leave my soul to Sheol; neither wilt thou suffer thy holy one to see corruption.” (Ps. 16:10, AS; Acts 2:31) So God caused Jesus’ body to disappear, but not corrupt, meaning that it was dissolved, disintegrated back into the elements from which all human bodies are made.—John 20:1-13.
JESUS RESURRECTED WITH SPIRIT ORGANISM:  The resurrected Jesus was given a spirit body: “He being put to death in the flesh, but being made alive in the spirit.” (1 Pet. 3:18, NW)

The article goes on say that the bodies that Jesus appeared in after his resurrection were materialized bodies.  The article concludes that those who refuse to recognize the signs of Jesus’ invisible presence because of looking for his coming in a body of flesh are mistaken.  Source: Watchtower 1 September 1953 pp. 517-520 article The Fleshly Body of Jesus https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1953641?q=resurrection+jesus+body&p=par

Hence Jehovah God the Father, who has life-giving power in himself, raised his Son from the dead on the third day to immortal life in heaven, in the spirit realm. ... When Jesus ascended to heaven forty days after his resurrection from the dead, he did not take the sacrificed human body to heaven with him—an impossibility!—but took with him the value of his sacrificed perfect human life, in order to present this to the heavenly Father in behalf of mankind.  Source: Watchtower 1 December 1964 pp.717-726  https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1964883?q=resurrection+spirit&p=par

Here is a quotation from a more recent Watchtower article:

The apostles knew that Jesus’ resurrection was different from the resurrections that preceded it. People who were brought back to life earlier came back with physical bodies and eventually died again. Jesus was resurrected with a spirit body that was imperishable. (Read Acts 13:34.) Peter wrote that Jesus “was put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit.” Moreover, “he is at God’s right hand, for he went to heaven, and angels and authorities and powers were made subject to him.” (1 Pet. 3:18-22) The previous resurrections were both marvelous and miraculous, but none compared to this supreme miracle.  Source: The Resurrection of Jesus—Its Meaning for Us – Watchtower 15 November 2014 pp. 3-7  https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2014842?q=resurrection+spirit&p=par

With regard to the return of Christ Jesus, Jehovah’s Witnesses believe he will be invisible:

In what form does Christ return? He was resurrected as an invisible spirit person. (1 Peter 3:18) Then, he went to heaven and sat at God’s right hand. (Psalm 110:1) Much later, Jesus was brought before Jehovah God, “the Ancient of Days,” who granted Jesus power to rule over mankind. So Jesus returns, not as a human, but as an invisible King.  Source: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2013888?q=return+Jesus&p=par

Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that after Jesus resurrection he materialised before his disciples to look like a human (even eating and drinking with them), but when he ascended into heaven, he was a spirit.  Therefore they say Jesus does not have a physical body right now.  Furthermore, when Jesus returns, they say it will not be in bodily form, but he will be an invisible spirit.
Please be aware that I am merely presenting the official view of Jehovah’s Witnesses.


Does specific authorship of a given book of the Bible "matter"?

Author means the person who wrote a book, put pen to paper and signed his name to the work. As far as books of the original "bible:" what has been found are only copies of books. Some have been signed by the copier - a few early copies have been dated - and we can discover something about who authorized the copy. But as we have found no original writings, we cannot know who might have been the originator of the text we do have. Since we cannot know who was the author, this topic is not important.

But if you want to know who wrote the translations of the Bible as we have them in our various Bibles, that's another topic, and worth discussing.


Are there published testimonies from Christians with a diagnosed personality disorders like psychopathy about their experience of sanctification?

Here is the testimony of David Wood, a formally anti-social-disorder-diagnosed atheist turned Christian.
Here is a variation of his testimony given to an audience, in 23:30 he states his formal diagnosis as anti-social personality disorder made by the mental hospital he was put into.


The need for three comings presupposes the following:

there will be a future period characterized by great suffering referred to as the Great Tribulation
the primary purpose of the secret preliminary coming is to take Christians away from the earth to prevent their experiencing this tribulation

Some non-rapturists, preterists specifically, see these presuppositions as problematic.  The biblical passages commonly used by rapturists to support these ideas have other interpretations that do not require a third coming and may have more evidence in their favor.  For instance, most preterists understand the fulfillment of passages like Matthew 24:36-45, Daniel 9:12,12:1, and Revelation 7:14 as the descriptions of the persecution of the Jewish people under Antiochus Epiphanes and later, the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. by the Romans.

In recent years, fewer rapturists are claiming support for the rapture in Matthew 24:36-45.  A few who still do are John F. Hart, professor at Moody Bible Institute and author Dave Hunt.

Dave Hunt states, in "How Close Are We? Compelling Evidence for the Soon Return of Christ", pages 210-11, that:

  When Christ says, "As it was in the days of Noah and Lot," it is absolutely certain that He is not describing conditions that will prevail at the time of the Second Coming. Therefore, these must be the conditions which will prevail just prior to the Rapture at a different time—and, obviously, before the devastation of the tribulation period.

John F. Hart has written the following 4 articles where he defends the idea that the rapture is referenced in Matthew:
A Defense of the Pretribulational Rapture in Matthew 24:36–44
Should Pretribulationists Reconsider the Rapture in Matthew 24:36-44? - Part 1
Should Pretribulationists Reconsider the Rapture in Matthew 24:36-44? - Part 2
Should Pretribulationists Reconsider the Rapture in Matthew 24:36-44? - Part 3

Partial preterist Steve Gregg attempts to refute the above interpretation of Matthew 24:36-45 in his article Who's Been Left Behind

He essentially argues as follows:

One rapturist interpretation of these verses supposes that the people taken are being saved from the tribulation and those who are left will suffer through it.  However, who are "they" who are "taken" in verse 39? "Noah" and his family or the other "people"? Grammatically, "they" must be the other "people" because "only the days of Noah" is specified, not his family.  And are "they" taken for judgement or redemption? The "people" who were taken in Noah's day were taken as a form of judgement. See Genesis 7:21,23.

However, many rapturists in fact reject the idea that Matthew 24:36-45 describes the rapture.  Although, they still believe it refers to a future Great Tribulation and the final phase of the future Second coming.

Even this view is troublesome for some non-rapturists, preterists specifically.  They see Luke 21:20-24 as a passage directly parallel to Matthew 24:36-45.  Most rapturists, like most scholars, concede that Luke 21:20-24 actually refers to the events of 70 A.D.  One such rapturist is Thomas Ice.

Here's how one preterist, Parker, argues that Ice's acceptance of Luke 21:20-24 as having been fulfilled in 70 A.D. poses a significant difficulty with regard to his contention that Matthew 24:15-21 is a reference to the last phase of the final coming of Christ following the Great Tribulation.  Parker believes that a verse-by-verse comparison of Matthew 24 to Luke 21 demonstrates that although a few statements are radically different between the two and seem to describe events that have not yet occurred, the differences can be accounted for in terms of symbolic language as used in the Old Testament.  Consequently, he reason's that if Luke 21:20-24 is fulfilled, the coming of Christ and tribulation of Matthew 24:15-21 must be as well.  And if the Great Tribulation is past, a two-phase final coming of Christ would seem unnecessary.

For reference, in the table of "Rapture & Second Coming Passages" found on page 3 of Differences Between the Rapture and the Second Coming , Ice excludes Luke 21:20-24 from both the Rapture and Second Coming columns.  Matthew 24:15-21 however is included in the Second Coming column.

Also, in "Differences" above, Ice states:

  Many important biblical doctrines are not given to us directly from a single verse, we often need to harmonize passages into systematic conclusions. Some truths are directly stated in the Bible, such as the deity of Christ (John 1:1, Titus 2:13). But doctrines like the Trinity and the incarnate nature of Christ are the product of biblical harmonization. Taking into account all biblical texts, orthodox theologians, over time, recognized that God is a Trinity and that Christ is the God-Man. Similarly, a systematic consideration of all biblical passages reveals that Scripture teaches two future comings."

Non-rapturists tend to see the exegetical techniques through which  rapturists harmonize passages into conclusions as being very unsystematic.

These techniques are argued to be vague and/or inconsistent for determining when:

dissimilarity in descriptions between particular passages demonstrates distinct referents
similarity in descriptions between particular passages demonstrates identical referents

Partial-preterist Hank Hanegraaff criticizes pretribulationist Tim LaHaye's definition of literalism on page 16 of his book "Apocalypse Code" as follows:

  "Not only is there nothing distinctive about this definition, but it is so vague as to be utterly useless."

Non-rapturists typically also express risks that the above mentioned exegetical techniques can result in dangerous interpretations of passages that they believe to be foundational to essential Christian beliefs and/or conduct consistent with those beliefs.


Do the conditions for mortal sin apply to non-catholics?

If the non-Catholic is not baptized, the non-Catholic has original sin and is damned, "unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock," as Pope Eugene IV puts it in his Cantate Domino.

If the non-Catholic is baptized, he does not have original sin, but he can certainly commit actual sins (mortal or venial).

Cain and Onan—who committed the sins of fratricide and contraception, respectively—were before Christ, yet that did not except them from sin.