Did Jesus' hypostatic union limit Christ's consciousness?

I think you're asking questions about "the Son" that can't be answered without "dividing the question", as they say in parliamentary procedure. That is, you simply have to ask the question about Jesus' divine nature and His human nature separately. I'm not saying that we need to separate the two natures of Jesus - that's heretical. I'm saying that they are distinct but not separate, without mixture or confusion, as the Definition of Chalcedon teaches us:

  This one and the same Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son [of God]
  must be confessed to be in two natures, unconfusedly, immutably,
  indivisibly, inseparably [united], and that without the distinction of
  natures being taken away by such union, but rather the peculiar
  property of each nature being preserved and being united in one Person
  and subsistence, not separated or divided into two persons, but one
  and the same Son and only-begotten, God the Word, our Lord Jesus
  Christ,...

The divine nature of Jesus is omniscient, and the hypostatic union surely does not change the fact that the divine nature still knows everything. The human nature of Jesus, while on earth, slept at times, and that sleep was normal human sleep.


In which other churches do Roman Catholics recognize apostolic succession?

I am not really satisfied with any of the answers given here, because they do not seem to answer the question.

First of all, apostolic succession refers to the fact that all bishops (that is, all those who have received the fullness of Holy Orders) can trace their Holy Orders all the way back to the Apostles. (See Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC] 77-79. I will observe that the documentation detailing episcopal consecration only goes back to the Renaissance; however the Catholic Church holds that today’s Holy Orders form an unbroken line to the Apostles.)

Therefore, apostolic succession refers neither to doctrinal orthodoxy, nor to communion with the Bishop of Rome: it refers to the validity of holy orders in a given Church.

In addition to its own Holy Orders (both in the Western and the sui-iuris Eastern Catholic Churches), the Catholic Church recognizes the validity of the Holy Orders (hence of apostolic succession) in the following churches:

All of the Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches, also known as the Eastern Orthodox Church.
All of the non-Chalcedonian Oriental Orthodox Churches, such as the Coptic, Ethiopian, and Eretrian Orthodox Churches, as well as the Armenian Apostolic Church).
The non-Ephesian Churches (such as the Assyrian Church of the East).
The Polish National Catholic Church.

(Source: Wikipedia article “Holy Orders (Catholic Church).”)

Notably absent from this list are the members of the Anglican Communion. As Pope Leo XIII taught in his apostolic letter Apostolicae Curae, the Catholic Church holds that the Anglican Church lost its ability to consecrate bishops in the 16th Century, when it changed its rite for episcopal consecration. (Some individual bishops may have found ways to be ordained validly, but it cannot be affirmed with certainty as a body.)

It is possible that other smaller groups, such as the Old Catholic churches, maintain valid Holy Orders, but there is no official recognition of such groups by the Holy See.


What was/is different about the way the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate celebrate the Novus Ordo Mass?

Good luck trying to figure that one out ;) Let me, though, attempt a little insight.

For one, is has been said that the FFI has not contradicted magisterial teaching on faith or morals. Rather, what it appears to be is that leadership and discipline has broken down significantly enough that some members of FFI itself have called on Rome to help them sort things out in 2012 (that's not, by the way, a complaint but a formal petition the Holy See has to deal with). The Holy See indeed dealt with it, through a visitation (=inquiry) that lasted a whole year and ended this July. It found a lot of shortcomings, in particular through an questionnaire in which over 60% of respondents noted that there are big problems in how the FFI was run. Hence the appointment of Fr Fidenzio Volpi as Apostolic Commissioner, who is somewhat equivalent to an Administrator in English insolvency law: he's overseeing where things will go (bankruptcy, reorganisation &c.) on a temporary basis.

The unfortunate thing is that we know all about what the administrator did, but never why -- those decisions are not, as a rule, published and thus everything is ascribed to a hostility to the Latin Mass. I daresay the FFI probably hasn't done anything liturgically wrong. Rather, the main problems seem to be at the head, in particular with the founder and Superior General, Fr Manelli. He has been rather absent from the whole picture, having admitted himself to a private clinic. To which Fr Volpi's reaction was 'okay then!', and thus forbade him to leave until he's recovered. This was then widely reported as "conservative priest who likes Tridentine Mass in house arrest by Vatican commissar!", giving the impression that a lot of this had to do with their particular rite.

One of the liturgical misdeeds they have committed was 1) the Franciscan Sisters (the female part of FFI) putting through a modification of their constitution under which they would be allowed to choose spiritual directors from those FFI friars who approve of the Extraordinary Form and 2) Fr Manelli mandatorily imposing the Extraordinary Form. There's a difference between the Extraordinary Form being 'permitted' and 'mandatory', and the vow (which is really unusual but on the other hand, given its content, is something any Catholic ought to be able to take with confidence) is meant to sort that out.

A little footnote to this is that liturgical conservatives feel a bit persecuted at the moment, and rightly so: there have been other hotspots of heresy and the Vatican hasn't tackled them yet. It's not entirely an unjustified feeling but every person investigated first will point to the other guy. Normally, interventions like this are staged when there has been a systemic breakdown of things, and as present in this case, there is a lot more to it than merely their preference for the Extraordinary Form.


Brush the dust from your feet vs cursing a town

Jesus said this to his disciples prior to sending them out:

  If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town.  I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town (Matthew 10:14-15)

My NIV Study Bible makes this comment:

  A symbolic act practised by the Pharisees when they left an “unclean” Gentile area.  Here [in Matthew 10:14] it represented an act of solemn warning to those who rejected God’s message.

It seems that the Pharisees had a tradition of shaking the dust off their feet when leaving an unclean place.  There is a similar event recorded in Luke 9:5:

  “If people do not welcome you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave their town, as a testimony against them.”

My NIV Study Bible makes this comment:

  A sign of repudiation for their rejection of God’s message and a gesture showing separation from everything associated with the place.

Another example is when Paul and Barnabas left Pisidian Antioch.  They shook the dust from their feet in protest against the Jewish community  who had stirred up persecution against them and who expelled them from their region (Acts 13:50-51). My NIV Study Bible makes this comment:

  Paul and Barnabas did this to show the severance of responsibility and the repudiation of those who had rejected their message and had brought suffering to the servants of the Lord.

By rejecting Jesus’ messengers, who proclaimed the nearness of the Kingdom of God, the people of that town were effectively rejecting the gospel message, and so they would have to answer to God for their unbelief. However, Paul and Barnabas did not place a curse on the towns from which they had been forcibly ejected. They came back to continue preaching the gospel, which was received by the Gentiles in those places, and they established churches and appointed elders.


What groups advocate and establish "unlicensed" churches in the US?

Most of the churches that do this do so as they are fiercely independent from any government over the local churches. As a result, they are also in denominations or groups that exercise little control over them, or they are not part of denominations at all. Many churches only even consider incorporating when they get larger (mine incorporated after being around for 30 years and with 500+ members)

As part of this, the groups that these churches are a part of also do not universally reject 501(c)3.

Churches that might go this way are congregational in polity. So, Baptists, Brethren Churches, Bible Churches, Non-denominational, Amish, or other misc. Anabaptist.


Did John know Jesus was the Messiah and Son of God during Jesus's baptism?

The idea behind John 1:31 when John says I knew Messiah/Jesus not is in the same sense as before in John 1:26.

John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not;

In other words, they knew of the forerunner (John the Baptist), but not the person of whom he was "forerunning".
Recall Jesus said to His mother about working miracles; not before My time.  We saw Jesus at age 12 asking questions, but nothing is recorded about Him being Messiah until His baptism when the Spirit descended, clarifying He was of the Melchizedek priesthood.

And I [John] knew him [Messiah] not: but he [God] that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.

Regarding Matthew 3:14, it appears to be a reference to when Mary came to visit Elizabeth as recorded in Luke 1.

And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.
Luke 1:43-44

When Jesus is about age 30 and John is about 30 1/2, Jesus again comes to John and it is apparent that John "knew" intuitively that Jesus was Messiah at that point.  John baptizes Jesus, the Spirit descends, and confirmation of what John had been foretold did happen.
So, from the bookends of the womb to pre-baptism, John would not in-between know Jesus was Messiah.  At His baptism, John would fully know, though doubt might enter later.
At the same time, John would know the role, function, detail of Messiah of whom he was "clearing the way".  Messiah would be perfect.


Non-Christian/secular translation of the Bible?

The Society for Biblical Literature produces a well regarded translation (Logos even carries it).  According to their own mission statement, they are concerned with biblical scholarship and not doctrine. Their vowed mission statement is simply "to promote biblical scholarship." They are a secular organization not affiliated with any religious organization (see comment below). Their Greek translation of the New Testament is available for free here, but I believe their translation of the Old Testament requires purchase.

Additionally, Isaac Asimov and Thomas Jefferson both have secular digests that bear some reading. (Admittedly, neither is an ad fontes translation, but they did look at sources to compile their versions.)

As for commentaries that speak to the translation difficulties that come from a decidedly secular point of view.:

The Oxford Companion to the Bible was the product of many well respected theological scholars, including several who are not Christians. Bruce Metzger is (was?) the chief editor.
Anything by Bart Ehrmann e.g. Misquoting Jesus should speak to the historical value of the source texts and give guidance.
Anything by John Dominic Crossan or The Jesus Seminar would also fall into this category. JDC is currently in the leadership of the SBL.


What hard evidence is there that Charles Wesley was Arminian?

Yes, there are claims that both John and Charles Wesley were Arminians, but more often than not it is the theology of John that is under discussion.  “And can it be” is a wonderful example of how Charles Wesley used hymns to present his theological views.  The article in the first link below gives an interesting insight into the background and biblical basis behind the words.
Another article that sheds light on the theology of Charles Wesley is in the second link below: “Ye Need Not One Be Left Behind/For God Hath Bidden All Mankind”: Charles Wesley’s Response to the Doctrine of Limited Atonement by Charles Edward White, Spring Arbor University.  Part of that article says:

“When John Wesley collected his brother’s hymns for the use of the people called Methodists, he opened the book with his brother’s birthday anthem, O For a Thousand Tongues to Sing. This song serves as an overture for the hymnal, introducing many of the characteristic themes of Methodist belief. Beginning with overwhelming gratitude and praise for Father and Son, it quickly moves to the proper human response of spreading God’s honor throughout the world. The intense personal experience of forgiveness, liberty, and cleansing comes next and then the declaration that all is of grace by faith fills out the first six verses. With verse six, however, Charles subtly moves from proclamation to argumentation. It is not by accident that against his Roman Catholic opponents he sings, “Look and be saved by grace alone/Be justified by faith.”
“With the introduction of the word “every” Charles arguably fires the first shot in a battle against Calvinism that will rage for the rest of his life.  Along with the second hymn in the Collection and at least forty-three additional hymns in this volume, Charles wrote a thirty-six stanza poem, and published two volumes entitled “Hymns on God’s Everlasting Love” with forty-six more songs to combat what he calls “the poison of Calvin.”
“As we have seen, one of the topics which most exercised him was the concept that the atonement of Christ might benefit only a small portion of humanity. This idea he battled through arguments made from scripture, reason, and experience. Because his arguments are made in song, none of them can be fully developed or defended from all caviling. At least one, it must be admitted, depends upon a misunderstanding of the scriptural text. But when carefully examined, as we have done for two of the most-widely-known hymns on the topic, it becomes clear that the force of Wesley’s argument for the universal scope of the atonement is like the force of a landslide. While travelers may be able to dodge any individual rock, the sheer volume and weight of the whole phenomenon will overwhelm them.”

Part of an article (third link below) says this about Charles Wesley’s hymn “The Horrible Decree”:

“Charles Wesley was a prolific hymnist, with approximately 9000 hymns and sacred poems to his name. Among my favorites are “And Can It Be?” and “O, for a Thousand Tongues to Sing!” Welsey–along with his brother John–were also a theological polemicist, however, who wrote his polemics into his songs. One of his most blunt anti-Calvinist hymns is “The Horrible Decree,” which refers to the Calvinist doctrine of limited atonement.”

John Starke, pastor of preaching at Apostles Church in New York City and co-editor of ‘One God in Three Persons’ (Crossway, 2015), had this comment to make (fourth link below):

“For these reasons, it took me some time to come around to see the Wesleyan-Arminian theological perspective as something worth claiming. But I eventually did so. The sermons of John Wesley and the hymns of Charles Wesley were major factors for me. These are simply excellent, and gradually they drew me to the conviction that these Wesley brothers must have had a grasp of something important if they could keep producing things like that. The Wesleys teach a form of evangelical Protestantism that goes straight to the heart and changes lives. That's what drew me in to the Wesleyan way of thinking.”

A final thought from Jeff Robinson (PhD, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) who is a senior editor for The Gospel Coalition (fifth link below):

“The fact so many Calvinists love to sing the gospel-rich hymns of Charles Wesley, which John loved and printed and commended and sang, shows what Wesley meant when he said he was within a “hair’s breadth” of Calvinism.”

[1] https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/charles-wesleys-and-can-it-be-background-and-scriptural-allusions/
[2] http://evangelicalarminians.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/White.-Charles-Wesleys-Response-to-the-Doctrine-of-Limited-Atonement.pdf
[3] https://georgepwood.com/2009/07/10/the-horrible-decree-by-charles-wesley/
[4] https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/youre-a-calvinist-right/
[5] https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/meet-a-reformed-arminian/


"3. Many people never heard the gospel." Among them are people who don't want to hear about spiritual matters; they are satisfied with this life. Paul the apostle preached the gospel to the hardened Pharisees and they would not listen. They were not thirsty; they wanted life to remain as is. They heard and did not want to change. So it is with many who are satisfied with life as they know it.

So I posit another line to add your list: 4. Among those who never heard the gospel, God reaches out to those who genuinely hunger for something more than this life. Cornelius is a prime example (Acts 10); this story specifically addresses the charge people have that you raise here. I've read writings by missionary organizations about natives coming to God this way -- that God approaches quietly, one-by-one, those who are thirsty for more, and direct them to the missionaries or the missionaries to them.

You wrote: "These people had NO CHANCE to hear the gospel. Yet the above verses all show that God desires all to be saved. Doesn't that logically imply that people can be saved without coming to believe in the Gospel?"

Those verses logically imply that people can be saved without coming to believe in the gospel. But you did not include another verse, John 14:6, which states that no one goes to the Father but through Jesus. That's why #2 is correct.

With the addition of John 14:6, the logical conclusion changes. God desires all men to be saved. God chooses to save those who believe in Him through Jesus during and after His ministry, and possibly through faith in Himself beforehand. All three points are correct and without contradiction.

You don't state it, but it appears that your real question is one that has been asked thousands of times: "What about those who have never heard the Gospel? Isn't it unfair that they would go to  @#!*%  when they did not have the chance to hear the gospel and be saved?" If this is your question, you should ask it.

You wrote: "If God desires salvation for all, how come many people died without hearing the gospel?"

There are many answers to this as there are people. God doesn't force His will on His hearers. It's their choice whether they will accept the message, whether through preaching or, if they never heard, through a guilty conscience to seek relief, which God can use to draw to Himself (as I mentioned with the missionaries earlier).


How do Arminians interpret God's reserving of a remnant in Romans 11:4?

You've mentioned one of the big points of disagreement between Arminians and Calvinists regarding the interpretation of Romans 9–11 – are nations or individuals in view?  Romans 9:6–24 is a crucial text in this regard.  Another related point of contention is who exactly is Israel in various places, culminating in Romans 11:26 – a Jewish remnant only, the church as a whole, or a future mass conversion of Jewish people (see this overview of interpretations for more).
Turning to Romans 11:4 in particular, then, we would expect that Arminians would not see this as a reference to the individual election of seven thousand men, but to God's preserving those who are faithful to him.  And this is what we found when we look at Arminian commentators like Adam Clarke, Jack Cottrell, and R. C. H. Lenski.
Clarke focuses on God's physical preservation of his people who faced persecution:

These [seven thousand] had continued faithful to God; but, because of Jezebel's persecution, they were obliged to conceal their attachment to the true religion; and God, in his providence, preserved them from her sanguinary rage. (Commentary)

Jack Cottrell focuses more on God's spiritual fellowship with this remnant, but unlike the Calvinist, he sees this as a result of their faithfulness to him.  Quoting him at length:

God's statement, "I have reserved for myself," uses the verb [kataleipō], another "remnant" term (see v. 3).  Its usual meaning is "to leave." Those with Calvinist leanings see an oblique reference to unconditional predestination in this world.
But this is not the point.  Certainly this is an act of God regarding these men, but God's act is conditioned on the fact that they "have not bowed the knee to Baal."  God is telling Elijah, "There are more than just you who have remained faithful.  Indeed, I have identified and singled out from the great majority of Israelites a group of seven thousand true worshipers.  I have separated them from the rest; in my sight they are a different group, a remnant.  These are the ones I have kept in my saving grace and in close fellowship with myself."
They are the ones, God says, "I have reserved for myself."  They are "his people" in a special, spiritual sense.  In this spiritual sense only these seven thousand belonged to God; the rest were Baal's.  This remnant alone was the true Israel of 9:6b. (Romans, 395–96)

But what about the use of the word "election" in the next verse (KJV)?  R. C. H. Lenski argues that the sovereignty and grace described by Calvinists does not exist.  Instead,

Grace makes an election in accord with its nature by taking for itself all those whom it wins for faith and for the acceptance of this gift of God's righteousness. (Interpretation of Romans 8–16, 683)

So here too, the "election" of these seven thousand is conditioned on their faithfulness – those won by grace are thereby "elected," whereas the Calvinist would reverse the order, with election leading to conversion and faithfulness.


As also born again Christian, I can offer you some insight, although I'm not sure this will be a suitable question for this website format overall.

Does Bible translation matter? Yes and no.

Bibles tend to be weighed according to two different qualities. Each translation is a mixture of the two. They are "Word for word" and "Thought for Thought".

A pure word for word translation of the greek/hebrew would be basically unreadable, because they do not use the same grammar, and all their words do not match 100% to english words. This makes pure word for word translations pretty uncommon, and not super helpful to the average reader. The best example of this you can probably get is what they call "interlinear" bibles, where they have the greek, and also a rough english translation side by side for each line.

The second is "thought for thought". This is the idea that the translator will read the greek text, and then capture the "thought" or "meaning" and translate it into english for you. This is a great idea, but runs the risk of the translator mixing his personal interpretation into the actual text. One of the more extreme examples of this would be a "version" like "The Message". Where the author has taken the liberty of drastically expanding most verses, in a way which makes them very readable, but adds considerably to the actual text.

The key to finding a good translation, is being convinced of the "accuracy" or mostly word for word comformity, while also being presented in English that is practical for actual reading.

for example, you could just stare at the original greek all day, and avoid translations, but if you don't understand greek thats not very helpful.

I first read the entire Bible doing a "reading plan" in the 'NLT' or "New Living Translation".

This Bible translation falls more under the "Thought for Thought" category than many evangelical Christians are comfortable with. At the time, I didn't know anything about this, but I can say that I really learned a lot from reading this version of the bible.

One small downside, is you are rarely familiar with commonly quoted Bible verses, because people usually use older more familiar phrasings such as found in the KJV. While the ideas are (hopefully) the same, the phraseology will be different.

I later fell in with a crowd which rather religiously uses the NKJV "New King James Version". Its a touch up of the king james version from the 80's. Its much more readable than the KJV, but less readable than the NLT.

I benefitted greatly from studying the NKJV, which is a more "word for word" translation, after having fallen in love with the NLT. Personally, I find it more fitting for closer reading and study, while less approachable for fast reading and overview.

The key, as mentioned in the comments to check various translations. You will find that in general, There are a handful of good translations that mostly agree on everything. The differences are mainly stylistic, and not much else. (NKJV, ESV, NASB, NIV , etc).

If you download the bible app for your phone, you can compare multiple translations instantly. If ever I have a question about a certain verse, this is always my first check.


I have always wondered if in the afterlife humans can decide to become
  angels

No.  Angels are entirely different than humans, created for a different purpose.

  what is the difference between an archangel and an angel

Archangels are simply angels with a higher rank.


Reading through Ephesians 5 - is there any record of what Paul is quoting?

My copy of "The Comprehensive New Testament" (Edited by T E & J Clontz, published by Cornerstone) lists a number of cross-references for Eph 5:14.

Isa 26:19, 51:17, 52;1, 60:1
4 Ezra 2:31
Odes of Solomon 15:2
Sibylline Oracles 1.371
Archelaus, Disputation with Manes 43
Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Heathen 11
Hippolytus, Refutation of all Heresies Book V.2; Treatise on Christ and Antichrist 65
Nag Hammadi - Gospel of Truth 33

Note that these do not mean that all these are sources for Eph 5:14, far from it.  The OT references are probably the sources.  It simply means that all these references have similar wording or ideas.  This means that some of the later references could be quoting or alluding to Ephesians; or, they could both be quoting from a common (now lost) sources.  We cannot be sure.


Identify this story about the end times from the Desert Fathers

The story appears in the alphabetical collection of The Sayings of the Desert Fathers, translated by Benedicta Ward.  It relates to a saying of the 3rd century Egyptian monk (and martyr), Ischyrion.

  The Holy Fathers were making predictions about the last generation.  They said, "What have we ourselves done?"  One of them, the great Abba Ischyrion replied, "We ourselves have fulfilled the commandments of God."  The others replied, "And those who come after us, what will they do?"  He said, "They will struggle to achieve half our works."  They said, "And those who come after them, what will happen?"  He said, "The men of that generation will not accomplish any works at all and temptation will come upon them; and those who will be approved in that day will be greater than either us or our fathers."


How did John Calvin reconcile killing followers of opposing religious views with the New Testament?

See this article (A Recipe for Intolerance: A Study of the Reasons Behind John Calvin's Approval of Punishment for Heresy) for one researcher's opinion.

The gist is that:

1) Calvin generally agreed that Old Testament laws were not binding on Christians, but contradicted himself by appealing to them to defend the punishment of heretics, in a way that was similar to Augustine.

2) This combined with an ancient legal tradition that originally sprang from Scripture (the Constitutio Criminalis Carolina) but then developed on its own to form the basis of civil law. This cultural tradition permitted the execution of heretics.

3) A group he called the "Libertines" used Servetus as a test case to embarrass and discredit Calvin as a powerplay. It was a setup to sour his reputation and assume power. The defense attorney, Berthelier, was the leader of this group. The Libertines had written scathing attacks against Calvin's Institutes, making it a personal matter.


Is there any historical evidence that the early church believed in the doctrine of intercession of saints during the 1st and 2nd centuries AD?

The Revelation in the New Testament by St. John is a good start to be considered about the early Church belief in the doctrine of intercession of the Saints. With this vision of St. John, it foreshadow the new Jerusalem temple where in the Catholic mass, the Priest make an offering of incense for prayers and worship to God.
Pope Clement of Rome and Saint Policarp says with reference from:

The Ante-Nicene-Fathers Vol.1, The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyrs & Irenaeus by Philip Schabb

The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians337, A.D 65-100-155

Chapter XII.—Exhortation to various graces.
For I trust that ye are well versed in the Sacred Scriptures, and that nothing is hid from you; but to me this privilege is not yet granted.404 It is declared then in these Scriptures, “Be ye angry, and sin not,”405 and, “Let not the sun go down upon your wrath.”406 Happy is he who remembers407 this, which I believe to be the case with you. But may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ Himself, who is the Son of God, and our everlasting High Priest, build you up in faith and truth, and in all meekness, gentleness, patience, long-suffering, forbearance, and purity; and may He bestow on you a lot and portion among His saints, and on us with you, and on all that are under heaven, who shall believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, and in His Father, who “raised Him from the dead.”408 Pray for all the saints. Pray also for kings,409 and potentates, and princes, and for
36 those that persecute and hate you,410 and for the enemies of the cross, that your fruit may be manifest to all, and that ye may be perfect in Him. It

ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus Philip Schaff

The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, A.D. 30-100

Chapter LVI.—Let us admonish and correct one another.
Let us then also pray for those who have fallen into any sin, that meekness and humility may be given to them, so that they may submit, not unto us, but to the will of God. For in this way they shall secure a fruitful and perfect remembrance from us, with sympathy for them, both in our prayers to God, and our mention of them to the saints.247 Let us receive correction, beloved, on account of which no one should feel displeased. Those exhortations by which we admonish one another are both good [in themselves] and highly profitable, for they tend to unite248 us to the will of God.

Please see below bible verses and the corresponding commentaries.

Revelation 5:8

8 And when he had opened the book, the four living creatures and the four and twenty ancients fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.

Commentary: Irenaeus of Lyons A.D. 202

Since, therefore, the name of the Son belongs to the Father, and since in the omnipotent God the Church makes offerings through Jesus Christ, He says well on both these grounds, "And in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure sacrifice. "Now John, in the Apocalypse, declares that the "incense "is "the prayers of the saints."

Revelation 8:3 RHE

3 And another angel came and stood before the altar, having a golden censer: and there was given to him much incense, that he should offer of the prayers of all saints, upon the golden altar which is before the throne of God.

Revelation 8:4 RHE

4 And the smoke of the incense of the prayers of the saints ascended up before God from the hand of the angel.

Commentary: George Leo Haydock A.D. 1849
Stood before the altar, having a golden censer. In the visions is an allusion to the tabernacle and its parts. The altar of perfumes was in the sanctum, and here the golden altar is said to be before the throne of God. The incense from the censer is said to be the prayers of all the Saints, which the Angel offered up. The altar seems to signify our Saviour Christ, as the prayers of all the faithful are always made through the merits of Christ, our only chief Mediator or Redeemer. By the fire cast upon the earth, (ver. 5.) is signified the fire of divine charity, now to be exercised by the ways of justice, to draw persons to their conversion by punishments. (Witham)
We may observe both in this and other places of the Apocalypse, that St. John makes continual allusions to what was done in the temple of Jerusalem, for which he gives us symbolical reasons. Thus on the present occasion, the incense which was offered morning and evening in the temple, on the golden altar, is represented as done here in heaven. (Calmet)

1 Timothy 2:1 RHE

1 I desire therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions and thanksgivings be made for all men:

Commentary: George Haydock

Intercessions, as in the Protestant translation. If men's intercessions to God in favour of others, are no injury to Christ, as our mediator, how can it be any injury to Christ for the Angels and saints in heaven to pray or intercede to God for us? (Witham)
St. Augustine writes thus on this verse: By supplications are meant what are said before the consecration. By prayers, are what are said in and after the consecration and communion, at mass, including the Pater Noster; which St. Jerome also says, our Lord taught his apostles to recite at the daily sacrifice of his body. (lib. iii. contra Pelag. chap. 5) By intercessions, what are said after the communion: and by thanksgivings, what both the priest and people give to God for so great a mystery then offered and received. (ep. 50. ad Paulin.) See St. Chrysostom on this place.

As the following passages show, the early Church Fathers not only clearly recognized the biblical teaching that those in heaven can and do intercede for us, but they also applied this teaching in their own daily prayer life.

Hermas
“[The Shepherd said:] ‘But those who are weak and slothful in prayer, hesitate to ask anything from the Lord; but the Lord is full of compassion, and gives without fail to all who ask him. But you, [Hermas,] having been strengthened by the holy angel [you saw], and having obtained from him such intercession, and not being slothful, why do not you ask of the Lord understanding, and receive it from him?’” (The Shepherd 3:5:4 [A.D. 80]).

Clement of Alexandria
“In this way is he [the true Christian] always pure for prayer. He also prays in the society of angels, as being already of angelic rank, and he is never out of their holy keeping; and though he pray alone, he has the choir of the saints standing with him [in prayer]” (Miscellanies 7:12 [A.D. 208]).

Origen
“But not the high priest [Christ] alone prays for those who pray sincerely, but also the angels . . . as also the souls of the saints who have already fallen asleep” (Prayer 11 [A.D. 233]).

Cyprian of Carthage
“Let us remember one another in concord and unanimity. Let us on both sides [of death] always pray for one another. Let us relieve burdens and afflictions by mutual love, that if one of us, by the swiftness of divine condescension, shall go hence first, our love may continue in the presence of the Lord, and our prayers for our brethren and sisters not cease in the presence of the Father’s mercy” (Letters 56[60]:5 [A.D. 253]).

Anonymous
“Atticus, sleep in peace, secure in your safety, and pray anxiously for our sins” (funerary inscription near St. Sabina’s in Rome [A.D. 300]).

“Pray for your parents, Matronata Matrona. She lived one year, fifty-two days” (ibid.).

“Mother of God, [listen to] my petitions; do not disregard us in adversity, but rescue us from danger” (Rylands Papyrus 3 [A.D. 350]).

Methodius
“Hail to you for ever, Virgin Mother of God, our unceasing joy, for to you do I turn again. . . . Hail, you treasure of the love of God. Hail, you fount of the Son’s love for man” (Oration on Simeon and Anna 14 [A.D. 305]).

“Therefore, we pray [ask] you, the most excellent among women, who glories in the confidence of your maternal honors, that you would unceasingly keep us in remembrance. O holy Mother of God, remember us, I say, who make our boast in you, and who in august hymns celebrate the memory, which will ever live, and never fade away” (ibid.).

“And you also, O honored and venerable Simeon, you earliest host of our holy religion, and teacher of the resurrection of the faithful, do be our patron and advocate with that Savior God, whom you were deemed worthy to receive into your arms. We, together with you, sing our praises to Christ, who has the power of life and death, saying, ‘You are the true Light, proceeding from the true Light; the true God, begotten of the true God’” (ibid.).

Cyril of Jerusalem
“Then [during the Eucharistic prayer] we make mention also of those who have already fallen asleep: first, the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, and martyrs, that through their prayers and supplications God would receive our petition” (Catechetical Lectures 23:9 [A.D. 350]).

Hilary of Poitiers
“To those who wish to stand [in God’s grace], neither the guardianship of saints nor the defenses of angels are wanting” (Commentary on the Psalms 124:5:6 [A.D. 365]).

Ephraim the Syrian
“You victorious martyrs who endured torments gladly for the sake of the God and Savior, you who have boldness of speech toward the Lord himself, you saints, intercede for us who are timid and sinful men, full of sloth, that the grace of Christ may come upon us, and enlighten the hearts of all of us so that we may love him” (Commentary on Mark [A.D. 370]).

“Remember me, you heirs of God, you brethren of Christ; supplicate the Savior earnestly for me, that I may be freed through Christ from him that fights against me day by day” (The Fear at the End of Life [A.D. 370]).

The Liturgy of St. Basil
“By the command of your only-begotten Son we communicate with the memory of your saints . . . by whose prayers and supplications have mercy upon us all, and deliver us for the sake of your holy name” (Liturgy of St. Basil [A.D. 373]).

Pectorius
“Aschandius, my father, dearly beloved of my heart, with my sweet mother and my brethren, remember your Pectorius in the peace of the Fish [Christ]” (Epitaph of Pectorius [A.D. 375]).

Gregory of Nazianz
“May you [Cyprian] look down from above propitiously upon us, and guide our word and life; and shepherd this sacred flock . . . gladden the Holy Trinity, before which you stand” (Orations 17[24] [A.D. 380]).

“Yes, I am well assured that [my father’s] intercession is of more avail now than was his instruction in former days, since he is closer to God, now that he has shaken off his bodily fetters, and freed his mind from the clay that obscured it, and holds conversation naked with the nakedness of the prime and purest mind” (ibid., 18:4).

Gregory of Nyssa
“[Ephraim], you who are standing at the divine altar [in heaven] . . . bear us all in remembrance, petitioning for us the remission of sins, and the fruition of an everlasting kingdom” (Sermon on Ephraim the Syrian [A.D. 380]).

John Chrysostom
“He that wears the purple [i.e., a royal man] . . . stands begging of the saints to be his patrons with God, and he that wears a diadem begs the tentmaker [Paul] and the fisherman [Peter] as patrons, even though they be dead” (Homilies on Second Corinthians 26 [A.D. 392]).

“When you perceive that God is chastening you, fly not to his enemies . . . but to his friends, the martyrs, the saints, and those who were pleasing to him, and who have great power [in God]” (Orations 8:6 [A.D. 396]).

Ambrose of Milan
“May Peter, who wept so efficaciously for himself, weep for us and turn towards us Christ’s benign countenance” (The Six Days Work 5:25:90 [A.D. 393]).

Jerome
“You say in your book that while we live we are able to pray for each other, but afterwards when we have died, the prayer of no person for another can be heard. . . . But if the apostles and martyrs while still in the body can pray for others, at a time when they ought still be solicitous about themselves, how much more will they do so after their crowns, victories, and triumphs?” (Against Vigilantius 6 [A.D. 406]).

Augustine
“A Christian people celebrates together in religious solemnity the memorials of the martyrs, both to encourage their being imitated and so that it can share in their merits and be aided by their prayers” (Against Faustus the Manichean [A.D. 400]).

“At the Lord’s table we do not commemorate martyrs in the same way that we do others who rest in peace so as to pray for them, but rather that they may pray for us that we may follow in their footsteps” (Homilies on John 84 [A.D. 416]).

“Neither are the souls of the pious dead separated from the Church which even now is the kingdom of Christ. Otherwise there would be no remembrance of them at the altar of God in the communication of the Body of Christ” (The City of God 20:9:2 [A.D. 419]).

Reference:

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004


What does it mean that John's Gospel does not have an account of the institution of the Eucharist?

John's Gospel does not contain many of the things recorded in the Synoptics, including the Sermon on the Mount, the Transfiguration, the virgin birth, the Great Commission, and the Ascension.  In fact, the only miracle outside of the Resurrection that appears in both the Synoptic gospels and John's gospel is the feeding of the 5,000.

This doesn't mean that John considered these things as unimportant at all.  If John were, in fact, written much later than the other gospels, then perhaps John did not feel the need to replicate material that was already well established.

John writes for a very specific purpose, asserting that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing we may have life in His name. (John 20:30-31)  So, the material he selects is done so for the purpose of supporting that premise.  All the miracles and all the teachings center around that premise.  The Eucharist appears to have not fit into that selection criteria for him, since it doesn't appear in the book.


How to answer "Why do evil and suffering exist?"

This is called the problem of theodicy. The assumptions usually made in the problem statement are, with a little variance:

God is almighty and all-knowing
God does not want evil in the world
God is good

The problem goes on to state the fact that there is evil in the world, and claims a contradiction between the assumptions and this observation.

I see really no problem here. If just (1) was true, God could certainly do anything.
If (1) and (2) were true, there certainly would be no evil in the world. But if (3) were true, God would do only things that are good, regardless of whether He could.

Now we have (1), (2) and (3). God could do anything, but since He is good he will not do just anything. There's no contradiction. God could remove all evil, but that would not be good.

Up to that point it's all just logic. The reason that removing evil would not be good is more a matter of speculation. I suspect it has to do with free will: people are allowed to choose between good and evil, and removing the choice would be worse than the evil that ensues. This is just my speculation. God surely has His reasons.

Goodness doesn't always mean doing what is the most convenient to me. Quoting C.S. Lewis in A Grief Observed,

  What do people mean when they say, "I am not afraid of God because I know He is good"? Have they never even been to a dentist?


How will Satan rage in the hearts of the children of men? (LDS perspective)

The Book of Mormon Student Manual quotes the following from a discourse by Richard C Edgley of the Presiding Bishopric. This is the best quote I've found that answers your question succinctly:

We have … had very specific warnings regarding Satan’s power, influence, and determination. Nephi prophesied more than twenty-five hundred years ago of the trials and turbulence that you would face. You all know the scripture. It is found in the 28th chapter of 2 Nephi:
[Quotes verses 20-21]
I believe this scripture is true. I believe the time is now. And I believe the target is you. For the most part, Satan has made great strides in establishing and selling his value system... ‘Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die’ (2 Nephi 28:7) and ‘There is no hell’ (2 Nephi 28:22). His is a value system based upon selfishness, self-indulgence, and immediate gratification... We see cultures infested with drugs, sex, alcohol, pornography, laziness, and many other spiritually devastating practices.

I think the main answer to your question is in those last few sentences. Those seem to be a few of the specific manifestations you are looking for.
You may also want to check out this BYU website. It lets you look up all of the General Conference addresses that reference a particular scripture. Just look up the verses and you'll get a list of discourses that you can study that pertain to those verses. You may be able to find more information there, scattered across different talks.


What are the R numbers in the eSword NASB?

Found an answer from a forum question (post #2 by Bradley S. Cobb): NASB + marking's what are they for

  the N stands for footnote. the R stands for cross-reference. the notes/references are in the NASB commentary file.


First of all, you must know what death means.

According with the above definition (courtesy of St. Gregory Palamas), you will see that there are two deaths.

Perhaps we must stress here, before answering, that both Angels and Demons in your text are ...Angels, because Devil is not a definition of species but a definition of behavior.

Because angels (good and bad) are incorporeal they are not subject of the first death.

So, since devils are good by nature but evil in intention, they are the only ones from the angels which suffer the second death.

Bonus point #1: Any intelligent entity (angel, human soul) is eternal by God's grace. It will not cease to exist.

Bonus point #2: Humans are the only ones which are subjects to the first death (all of us) and, possibly, subjects of the second death (God forbid!).


What is the Jehovah's Witness official viewpoint of 12-step programs like AA?

An article entitled “Breaking the Chains of Alcohol Abuse” in a 2005 Awake article
gives some excellent advice to those struggling to overcome alcoholism.
In it, we find an acknowledgment that many will need professional help to get well.

Then we read what is an official statement about organizations that offer help:

  There are many treatment centers, hospitals, and recovery programs that can provide help. Jehovah’s Witnesses do not endorse any particular treatment. Care must be exercised so that one does not become involved in activities that would compromise Scriptural principles. In the final analysis, however, each will have to decide for himself what type of treatment is needed.

A similar statement is made  in a 2010 Watchtower article entitled “Keeping Alcohol in its Place”


Do any Christian denominations believe in a "duality" rather than a trinity?

Historically, there was a group of persons who claimed to be Christians, but denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit. They were derided by orthodox Christians as Pneumatomachoi (literally, “those who fight the Spirit”) or Macedonians (after the proponent of this idea, named Macedonius—no relation to the geographical region by that name).

The Macedonians were apparently “homoiousians”: those who affirmed that the nature of the Son is “similar” to that of the Father (a position that Athanasius discovered was actually nearly orthodox, at least as regards the divinity of the Son).

Hence, this sect could be said to have been “binitarian” or “dualitarian.”


What is the general Christian view on fantasy works such as Tolkien's Silmarillion?

Some time after I had read The Lord of the Rings I bought a copy of Tolkien’s The Silmarillion.  I recognised the cover of the book as shown in the Wikipedia article above [1].

Unlike The Lord of the Rings, which I thoroughly enjoyed, I never did get to the end of the Silmarillion.  In fact, I don’t recall reading beyond the first chapter.  Another book I enjoyed was C.S. Lewis’ The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe.  Tolkien was at one time a close friend of C. S. Lewis.  They met while Lewis was teaching at Magdalen College. [2]

Tolkien reputedly said “All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us.”  He also wrote that “the chief purpose of life, for any one of us, is to increase according to our capacity our knowledge of God by all the means we have, and to be moved by it to praise and thanks." [3]

I have taken that advice to heart, and since I became a Christian, I have given up on mythical characters and fantastic plots.  I realise this is the personal opinion of one Christian, but I was quite unable to find any Christian sources that mentioned The Silmarillion – which speaks volumes.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Silmarillion

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._R._R._Tolkien

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._R._R._Tolkien#Religion


Did Lactantius ever say why it was good for Christians to be ruled by a Christian emperor?

Edward Gibbon tells us, in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, (D.M. Low abridgement page 290), as soon as the defeat of Licinius had invested Constantine with total dominion of the Roman world, he immediately, by circular letters, exhorted all his subjects to imitate, without delay, the example of their sovereign, and to embrace the divine truth of Christianity. Lactantius was very possibly being pragmatic taking on the role of eulogist for an emperor who gave favours to those who became Christians.

Anders Cullhed says, in The Shadow of Creusa: Negotiating Fictionality in Late Antique Latin Literature (ebook) Lactantius saw an opportunity for covert, albeit legitimate Christian indoctrination. Cullhed says Lactantius considered it downright legitimate to treat truth as a contraband of sorts, concealing it by means of a lie. The siginificance of this is that we can never know whether Lactantius sincerely believed anything he said in support of any position he took. He knew that Constantine looked favourably on work that progressed the Christian cause in his empire and did not need any reason to do the emperor's bidding and would naturally say it was good for Christians to live under a Christian government.


According to mainstream Christianity, what happens after one dies?

The Athanasian Creed, which is accepted by most christian, (esp. catholic, orthodox, anglican, Lutheran, etc.) reads thus:

  ...He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of the God the Father Almighty, from whence he will come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men will rise again with their bodies; And shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire. This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved.

But then, also, in Luke, Jesus says quite clearly:

  Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."

  Luke 23:14

Jesus doesn't imply any form of waiting here. (though there is an interesting discrepancy here because Jesus descends into the place of the dead, and rises again on the third day).

Anyways, most christians hold that:

Sin causes separation: Man from God, will from actuation (we must work, and strive to survive cf. Gen 3:17-19), and Body from Soul
Jesus's sacrifice 'tears the Vail' between us and God (bridges the separation) (cf Matthew 27:51) and allows us to enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Because of bullet 2, at the end of our earthly lives (or, in catholic doctrine, after the refining of our souls in purgatory, the souls of the faithful go to heaven where they await the coming of the end of time, where they will 'give an account for their own works', and see God create 'a new Heaven, and new Earth..."

  "Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea." (Rev 21:1)


What is the baptism requirement for becoming a Mennonite?

A few things based on my own experience in the Ontario Conference of Mennonite Brethren.

It is a matter of doctrine that only those baptized 'of the age of accountability' are considered validly baptized. Baptisms of infants are not considered valid.

However individual churches are, I believe, able to set their own rules about whether baptism is required, and for what. The norm is that baptism is required for membership; but in many Mennonite churches people can be very active participants for a long time, even serve in leadership positions, without becoming formal members, and thus without being baptized (i.e. without being rebaptized if you were baptized as an infant). That was certainly true in my case.

So in short: if you were baptized as an infant you are considered not baptized: however that may not be much of a restriction.


Can the Holy Spirit take control of a person completely?

Whether or not it is technically possible, it would contradict the nature of God to do so.

To overwhelm a person dispenses with free will, and most Christians view God as granting mankind the ability to choose him freely.  As illustrated in Hosea

  “Therefore I am now going to allure her;
      I will lead her into the wilderness
      and speak tenderly to her. (Hosea 2:14)

and Isaiah

  “I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me;
      I was found by those who did not seek me.
  To a nation that did not call on my name,
      I said, ‘Here am I, here am I.’
  2 All day long I have held out my hands
      to an obstinate people,
  who walk in ways not good,
      pursuing their own imaginations —
  3 a people who continually provoke me
      to my very face,
  offering sacrifices in gardens
      and burning incense on altars of brick; (Isaiah 65:1-3)

God's nature is one of patience and long suffering towards his people.  A formulation that occurs throughout the old testament testifies to his longsuffering as well:

  I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity  (Jonah 4:2)

In short, the nature of God is to woo, not whelm.

It is much like the old saw "Can God make a rock so big that he can't lift it?"  In truth, God cannot, not because he lacks adequate strength, but rather because doing so would violate his own attributes. In the case of the rock, God is all-powerful. His omnipotence constrains him to be all-powerful.  In the case of not overriding free will, his love constrains his action. Because God is all-loving, his attributes constrain him from overwhelming those he loves.

The Holy Spirit definitely compels people to act in accordance with the will of God (e.g. Acts 20:22)

  "And now, compelled by the Spirit, I am going to Jerusalem, not knowing what will happen to me there.

But, that is a far cry from a demon possession like experience.


Are there examples of "successful" celibate homosexuals, according to the Catholic Church?

I'm sure there are tons of examples, but if you want one notable one, there's Andy Warhol, who the Catholic Herald did a write-up about a few years ago:

Religion kept Warhol from going over the brink. He attended Mass almost daily. Other days he would just slip into St Vincent Ferrer on Lexington Avenue, drop into the back pew and pray. He spent his Thanksgivings, Christmases and Easters volunteering at a soup kitchen, and befriended the homeless and poor whom he served. He put his nephew through seminary. Though openly gay, he endeavoured to remain celibate throughout his life. When he refused to support the gay rights movement, many of his friends blamed his faith.
He lived with his mother until she died, and every morning they would pray together in Old Slavonic before he left for the Factory. He always carried a rosary and a small missal in his pocket.

Lifesitenews occasionally publishes articles from people with homosexual desires who don't act on them.  The whole point of chastity is to live according to your conscience, not follow your passions - it's how we were intended to live whether you're married, single - gay or straight.

“To love is to will the good of another.” All other affections have their source in this first movement of the human heart toward the good. Only the good can be loved. Passions “are evil if love is evil and good if it is good.”
CCC 1766


What event does Revelation 17:16, 17 refer to according to Mormons?

Depperm pointed you to the student manual in the other question. Here it is again:

https://www.lds.org/manual/new-testament-student-manual/revelation/chapter-56-revelation-17-22?lang=eng

I don't suppose you were satisfied with what is written there.

Mormons really don't take official positions on such questions very much, as a church.

The general teaching of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is to believe in Jesus Christ, to repent, etc.

Beyond that is pretty much up to the individual to learn through study and prayer.

If one individual member finds some parallel between the ten horns and the harlot being made desolate, and certain events in history, that member should pray for further understanding and instruction. The instruction received should be treated as sacred, not as doctrine to show off or try to convince others that they should believe, because it was given to an individual.

In other words, there really isn't an answer that a Mormon could give you and say, "This is what Mormons believe."

(afterthought:)
This is a little bit about the general approach to prophecies in Mormon thought.

I noticed a related question that had been closed for being a bit too controversial, apparently trying to tie recent events to apocalyptic revelation, and someone pointed out that seven-of-three-of-a-committee sorts of events can be seen in many of the organizations of the world.

Many of the prophecies are considered by Mormons more as patterns than as specific fore-tellings. 1 Nephi 19: 23, 24 might help with this concept. And there is a Church magazine article ( The Ensign, March 2009, Likening the Scriptures to Our Personal Lives ) that talks about the idea in more depth.

And there is a reference page on signs that sort of speaks to the idea that signs are less about making people believe and more about helping believers figure out what to do next.

Sorry that I didn't think to bring this to the table in my first try at an answer.
(end-afterthought)

So, if a well-known Mormon some eighty or so years ago gave it as his opinion that verses 16 and 17 indicated historical events many centuries ago, it would not preclude a repeat of similar circumstances in our time.

I could tell you what I used to think about the woman and the ten horns, and that would be an opinion I used to sort of think might be the case, but I've since seen other interpretations that work as well, so I'll just say, if it's important to you, ask God.

Sorry.


According to Pentecostalism, what is the impact of the sin nature, hormones, and the Holy Spirit on libido?

This is a very provocative question and with many unspoken layers. It’s hard not to assume certain things into the question that were not explicitly asked. For instance, “peak hormones” in teenagers doesn’t seem to refer to acne, pubic hair and height increase but rather to emotional stability, sexual self gratification and pornography. This is not an exhaustive list, merely an example and obviously I could be way off. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

This can be a very controversial topic because it is very personal, and in some cases the person in question is experiencing a thought that is not their own.

  “But he turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of G-d, but on the things of man."”
  Matthew 16:23 ESV

Peter is clearly talking but in fact it was satan who had planted the thought into Peter’s head and Peter having no discernment owned the idea and criticized Jesus. Here is another example

  “During supper, when the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him,”
  John 13:2 ESV

“Put into the heart”, it when further than the head, it is now at the heart level. A thought that rooted itself deeper.

Often times, bad thinking about G-d can give opportunity to satan and his daimons(demons) to influence someone into certain decisions and even convince them about certain things that are not true. If you don’t have a solid understanding of what G-d actually said, like Eve, you may be tempted to rationalize yourself into a mistake and consequently a sin, which ripples into other people’s lives.

We are body, soul and spirit. The body (flesh) wars against the spirit and the spirit against the flesh.

  “For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit(spirit), and the desires of the Spirit(spirit) are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do.
  Galatians 5:17 ESV

When someone is born against they are born again (either that means their spirit is quickened/made alive or they are given a brand new spirit as per Ezekiel) and this spirit cannot sin. It is perfect born of incorruptible seed. The human spirit has access to the Holy Spirit and communes with the Holy Spirit, the hidden things of G-d. However your spirit cannot act directly on the body without going through the soul (will, mind and emotions). There is one except where the spirit bypasses the soul and acts on the body directly, and that is speaking in tongues

  “For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful (or doesn’t understand).”
  1 Corinthians 14:14 ESV

This bypass of the mind prevents the soul from interfering with the message. But for the most part the soul is involved. Now due to sin nature, the flesh has conspired with the soul against the spirit. And that’s why the flesh generally wins against what the spirit wants to do.

  “For I delight in the law of G-d, in my inner being(spirit or inner man), but I see in my members(flesh) another law waging war against the law of my mind(soul) and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members(flesh).”
  Romans 7:22-23 ESV

If the issue is not very deep then it is a matter of changing or renewing one’s mind so that the flesh cannot conspire with the mind aganst their spirit.

  “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of G-d, what is good and acceptable and perfect.”
  Romans 12:2 ESV

Some people struggle with pornography because they have a wrong thinking. For instance, they don’t believe G-d loves them. When that thinking is addressed and corrected their addiction stops.

Others have left an open door and given opportunity to the devil through wrong information. They don’t know a door needs to be shut because they don’t know something like oral sex is persimissble or not. Because they don’t take a stance on the issue they have an open door. Oral sex is wrong as defined by Scripture but recently the words have been translated to exclude the parent definition and it has caused ambiguity.

  Sodomy definition anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex.

Sodomy is not limited to homosexual but also includes heterosexual copulation and it’s not merely anal but also oral sex. When someone  doesn’t shut a door, like in this case, they can’t take a stance against oral sex, the door stsys open and they can be influenced in their mind to commit actions in your flesh. It doesn’t start in their flesh, the command comes from the mind and then the hormones change accordingly.

  “And the peace of G-d, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.”
  Philippians 4:7 ESV

Guarding of the heart and mind or one’s soul is more important than balancing hormones with pharmaceuticals. Not saying that in some cases as a last resort pharmaceuticals may be needed but it’s not a first resort for a healthy person.

Now there are other factors that can affect the flesh. The flesh can be attacked from the outside or from the inside. From the inside it is most effective, imagine taking a city from outside its walls or from within its walls, the effort is far smaller from within the walks. If someone has opened themselves up to or someone else has opened them up to daimons(demons) then the aforementioned renewing of the mind will not work because there is a deeper issue.

Usually it is a curse. Which is essentially a legal right to exploit. These can come in different ways, rebellion, dabbling in the occult, persistent habitual sin just to name a few. Sometimes a parent or even several generations earlier can have an ongoing curse like alcoholism or adultery. These legal contracts until they are broken will be exploited by the enemy.

And although when you are born again all curses are broken, unless you specifically address the curse these demons that exploit this legal “loop hole” will squat and trespass onto your property. They need to be kicked out. That’s why some things that are stronger like masturbation, homosexual tendencies, eating disorders, phobias, drug/alcohol addictions may need a curse to be broken and those that exploit the curse (daimons) need to be removed from the premises.

I would highly recommend Derek Prince on breaking the curse, just go to YouTube and listen to his sermon, check it with Scripture and then release yourself by praying the prayer at the end.

Don’t go straight to breaking curses and don’t  escalate immediately. Start by renewing your mind, feed yourself with the Scripture get a good understanding of the Word, build the walls of your soul up, so that when the curse is broken and the eviction takes place (if it is necessary) you can maintain the victory and the walls are impenetrable.

If someone cannot donthis for themselves or struggle to get freedom in extreme situations then they will need deliverance by a minister who has this calling on their life and is experience in deliverance. But again, it’s not necessary to escalate to this for people who function normal lives other than their addiction or personal struggle.

Please let me know if this is the angle you were asking your question in or whether I went on a totally different tangent. Thank you and be blessed of G-d. I would add a denomination but although this is somewhat of a Charismatic Pentecostal teaching it isn’t limited to and it has started to be accepted by others too.

If you want to downvote that’s fine, I’m not here for points, I would really like a reason why you think I’m wrong and if you have more questions please ask.


Are some people pursued by the "enemy" relatively more than others?

Much, nearly all, of the inner workings of the angelic and demonic beings are not disclosed in scripture. However, on this subject there are some things that indicate each individual is not always 'pursued' to the same degree, which by inference must make us conclude each person compared is not 'pursued' equally. The attacks seem proportionate to our faith but weak faith incurs the greater failure under our attacks, so the result of the battle is no indication of its intensity.
I prefer to use the word 'tempted' over 'pursued' as the second could imply running away (but I know that's not what you meant). There are many examples in scripture to prove we are not 'tempted' by the Devil equally every day, but their is an 'evil day' which we must be on guard for in order to 'resist' the Devil, so he will 'flee'.

Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. (Ephesians 6:13, NIV)
Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. (James 4:7, NIV)

On these evil days it is not unreasonable to assume more powerful temptations, more powerful demons, will be used in the attack. Naturally the stronger faith of the believer the greater the temptation that is required to establish an assault not so easily shrugged off.  We can see this in the life of Christ. The Devil did not send just some weaker demon to tempt him, the Devil personally tempted Christ and took great interest in his every move. He was also interested in the twelve, wanting personally to 'sift' Peter (Luke 22:21) and 'posses' Judas. (John 13:27)
However in this conclusion we must not think, 'those poor strong Christians have a bigger fight' and therefore can engage in excuses for their failures and have a self-pity party as though others are not equally struggling. For since each God is infinite in power the Devil can't lift a finger against anyone without a kind of permission so that God ensures:

No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it. (1 Corinthians 10:13, NIV)

Also since we are only drawn into sin because of our own lusts under any given temptation, if we fall the failures is ours and ours alone.
Since God determines what measure of temptation is best for the refining of our faith and increasing of our strength (Col 1:11, Rom 5:4), in some ways the Devil's depth of 'temptation' becomes irrelevant and we may not notice his attacks have gained in strength because God is making us stronger from our previous vexing and struggles.


Meaning of end of chapter 3 of the 2nd Helvetic Confession

Let's start with the end of this sentence—the list of heresies. These can actually be classified under one or another of the descriptions you've highlighted.
A greater or a less
Arianism used the text of John 14:28, "The Father is greater than I", to argue that the Son of God was not truly God, but a lesser being who was begotten after God the Father. His belief was pronounced heretical by the First Council of Constantinople in 381.
Something corporeal or corporeally conceived
In this area go the Anthropomorphites, who appear to have believed based on Genesis 1:27 that God had a literal human form, a physical body. In addition, this group includes some of the Monarchians. Monarchianism generally is the belief that God is one ruler, not three; it is opposed to Trinitarianism. Some Monarchians apparently believed in a variant of Adoptionism, stating that Jesus was born a human being, but was granted divinity later in his life.
Note: "Patripassian" appears to have been a name given to certain Monarchians in virtue of their belief that God is one and not three. Trinitarians argued that by this line of reasoning it was the Father (Latin pater) and not the Son who had suffered (Latin passus) on the cross.
Something different with respect to character or will
One could put Arianism here, believing that the Son was "something different" from the father. In addition, under this head go the followers of Aëtius of Antioch, who believed that the Son is "of similar substance", but not "of the same substance" (in Greek, homoiousios but not homoousios) as the Father. Finally, the followers of Macedonius I of Constantinople appear to have believed that the Holy Spirit was a servant of the Father, created by the Son, but not divine himself.
Something mixed or solitary
The Arians, Macedonians, and Aetians could all be considered as believing that God was "mixed or solitary"—in their case "mixed", in the sense that they all believed that the Son or the Holy Spirit was not "one with", that is "of the same substance as", the Father.
The Monarchians (among whom are included Paul of Samosata, Praxeas and Sabellius), on the other hand, believed that God was "solitary"; that is, that God was One but not Three.
The only ones left are the Novatians. I took a look on Wikipedia, because I hadn't heard of them before. Apparently their primary heretical belief was that Christians who, for fear of persecution by the Romans, had renounced their belief or sacrificed to pagan gods, should not be accepted back into Christianity. I don't see that belief fitting into any of these categories; I'm not certain why they are included in this list.
Summary
Chapter III of the Second Helvetic Confession is intended to declare a belief in God as Unity in Trinity:

the same immense, one and indivisible God is ... distinguished as Father, Son and Holy Spirit so, as the Father has begotten the Son from eternity, the Son is begotten by an ineffable generation, and the holy Spirit truly proceeds from them both, and the same from eternity and is to be worshipped with both. ... there are not three gods, but three persons, cosubstantial [sic], coeternal, and coequal; distinct with respect to hypostases, and with respect to order, the one preceding the other yet without any inequality.

This list of heresies names people and groups who (generally in the second to fourth century, as the Church was refining its teachings on who and what God was) had other ideas later declared heretical; and the list of characteristics you've pointed out simply describes more or less what those ideas were.


What term is used to mean a prophetic message has a present and future application?

The term you're looking for is dual fulfillment. The best known example is the prophecy in Isaiah 7, which is taken by many Christians to refer both to an event contemporary with the prophecy, and to the birth of Jesus many centuries later.


Is it possible to reconcile Owen's trilemma with salvation by faith?

It is a fact, which is experienced and observed, that the unbelief of some does not exclude them from salvation, but their unbelief is overcome and they are saved from it :

  Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart. [Mark 16:14, KJV.]

It is a fact, which is experienced and observed, that some do not believe and they are left to themselves and they perish in their sins :

  And he [Judas] cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.[Matthew 27:5, KJV.]

Thus it appears to be a fact, witnessed by observation and by experience, that salvation is of the Lord (Psalm 3:8, Psalm 62:1, Jonah 2:9) and that Jesus Christ died for the sins of a great multitude (bearing them in his own body on the tree, I Peter 2:24) - a multitude whom no man can number, Revelation 7:9, there being nothing at all 'limited' about this breath-taking atonement.

Thus it is also clear that salvation is by faith and clear that this faith is not derived from the self - it is God-given :

  For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God. [Ephesians 2:9, KJV.]

So it becomes clear, by observation, by experience, by divine revelation and by irrefutable logic, that the difference between the two aforesaid types of persons above, is not in and of themselves, but lies within the eternal Deity.

  So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.. [Romans 9:16, KJV.]

Which clear and plain truth is expressed by Dr Owen in his book 'The Death of Death in the Death of Christ' originally published in 1647.


What is the Protestant interpretation of Philippians 3:12?

Paul is explaining that yes we are saved by grace through faith because of Christ's faithfulness (Phil 3:9), but goes on to emphasize continuing in that (Phil 3:12).  He's not contradicting himself.

He's already explained that works righteousness is dung to him.  But in Christ we are perfect, yet because we live in this world not yet perfect.  We continue to strive upward.

The reality is that people, being the knuckleheads that we are, would take our liberty, our righteousness in Christ, and use it as an excuse to sin.

  Romans 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?

Recall with Thessalonica how some brothers interpreted their salvation to sit by in idle.

  2 Thess. 3:6, 11 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us. ... For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies.

Or recall the messes at Corinth and elsewhere.

It's a fine line to know you have no righteousness but in Christ's and to work at that, rather than be what you were or take advantage of that.

PS  As regards the tri-theology of justification, sanctification, and washing, Paul is applying the same idea in Philippians as he did in Corinthians.  Bold my emphasis.

  1 Cor. 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

Justified is "to be made right or righteous".  Passive voice.  It is done to you.

Sanctified is "to be made holy or set aside".  Passive voice.  It is done to you.

Washed is "your visible testimony to the internal spiritual change (born-again as justified and sanctified)".  Middle voice.  Something you do and continue to do.

So again, the idea is simply that you are saved by grace in Christ's righteousness, not your own, but your appearance matters also.  It's like a bath and being a zillionaire.  Just because one is rich doesn't mean one should ignore his outward appearance and its influence.

As an aside to try to explain what happened, I'd suggest that somewhere along the line the idea of water baptism (washing) as salvific became like justification, as a one-time occurrence; thus rendering the necessity of your working for sanctification.  Instead, one was a sinner, but upon salvation one is justified and is sanctified (done to you), but you must still walk the earth, not quite finished and thus not requiring your washing yourself with the word, Spirit, etc.


What action would Christian ethics guide this missionary to do?

Firstly, the situation is not entirely hypothetical - these circumstances have occurred in reality before with varying outcomes and a more generalized case involving similar issues is something that is actually on the radar of missionary trainers and supporters (cf. this on-line article).

The Biblical issues that I see at play in a situation like this are:

Contextualisation - the Biblical models for this principal are the incarnation of Christ (cf. Philippians 2:1-11) and the missiological methodology of the Apostle Paul (cf. 1 Corinthians 9:19-23). Close observation of this principle will encourage the missionary to adopt as much of the tribe's culture that can possibly be harmonized with the following two points.
The Biblical framework of marriage (cf. Matthew 19:3-12, 1 Corinthians 7, 1 Timothy 3:2, 2 Corinthians 6:14-15) - In summary, it is good to be married (it is also good to be single, so each one should determine what is the best state for them), but marriage is for life and should be with only one 'equally yoked' partner.
Personal Conviction (cf. Romans 14:5,23) - A Christian is not an ethical automaton: principles are not legal requirements, and a missionary should only attempt enacting those principles which he can willingly and in faith embrace without reservation.

The relative importance of these principles and how they would play out in a real-world scenario would not only vary from denomination to denomination, but almost certainly from individual to individual - to attempt anything more perscriptive would be a pharisaical extreme.


Does Catholic Church acknowledge St. Paul the Apostle as consecrated Bishop during Apostolic times?

The short answer is yes.

The Catholic Encyclopedia states that St. Paul actually consecrated Timothy a Bishop by St. Paul himself thus St. Paul had to have been a bishop.

  From Scripture we learn that the Apostles appointed others by an external rite (imposition of hands), conferring inward grace. The fact that grace is ascribed immediately to the external rite, shows that Christ must have thus ordained. The fact that cheirontonein, cheirotonia, which meant electing by show of hands, had acquired the technical meaning of ordination by imposition of hands before the middle of the third century, shows that appointment to the various orders was made by that external rite. We read of the deacons, how the Apostles "praying, imposed hands upon them" (Acts 6:6). In 2 Timothy 1:6 St. Paul reminds Timothy that he was made a bishop by the imposition of St. Paul's hands (cf. 1 Timothy 4:4), and Timothy is exhorted to appoint presbyters by the same rite (1 Timothy 5:22; cf. Acts 13:3; 14:22). In the Third Clementine Homily (73), we read of the appointment of Zachæus as bishop by the imposition of Peter's hands. The word is used in its technical meaning by Clement of Alexandria (Stromata VI.13, 106; cf. Apostolic Consitutions II.32). "A priest lays on hands, but does not ordain" (cheirothetei ou cheirotonei) "Didasc. Syr.", IV; III, 10, 11, 20; Cornelius, "Ad Fabianum" in Eusebius, Church History VI.43.

  The ordinary minister of the sacrament [of holy orders] is the bishop, who alone has this power in virtue of his ordination. Holy Scripture attributed the power to the Apostles and their successors (Acts 6:6; 16:22; 1 Timothy 5:22; 2 Timothy 1:6; Titus 1:5), and the Fathers and councils ascribe the power to the bishop exclusively. First Council of Nicaea (Canon 4) and Apostolic Constitutions VIII.28 — "A bishop lays on hands, ordains. . .a presbyter lays on hands, but does not ordain." - Holy Orders

To see more that the  Church believes that St. Paul was a bishop can be seen in the Apostolic Constitutions (Book VII) that St. Paul is believed to have ordained several men.

  Who Were They that the Holy Apostles Sent and Ordained?

  XLVI. Now concerning those bishops which have been ordained in our lifetime, we let you know that they are these:— James the bishop of Jerusalem, the brother of our Lord; upon whose death the second was Simeon the son of Cleopas; after whom the third was Judas the son of James. Of Cæsarea of Palestine, the first was Zacchæus, who was once a publican; after whom was Cornelius, and the third Theophilus. Of Antioch, Euodius, ordained by me Peter; and Ignatius by Paul. Of Alexandria, Annianus was the first, ordained by Mark the evangelist; the second Avilius by Luke, who was also an evangelist. Of the church of Rome, Linus the son of Claudia was the first, ordained by Paul; 2 Timothy 4:21 and Clemens, after Linus' death, the second, ordained by me Peter. Of Ephesus, Timotheus, ordained by Paul; and John, by me John. Of Smyrna, Aristo the first; after whom Stratæas the son of Lois; 2 Timothy 1:5 and the third Aristo. Of Pergamus, Gaius. Of Philadelphia, Demetrius, by me. Of Cenchrea, Lucius, by Paul. Of Crete, Titus. Of Athens, Dionysius. Of Tripoli in Phœnicia, Marathones. Of Laodicea in Phrygia, Archippus. Of Colossæ, Philemon. Of Borea in Macedonia, Onesimus, once the servant of Philemon. Of the churches of Galatia, Crescens. Of the parishes of Asia, Aquila and Nicetas. Of the church of Æginæ, Crispus. These are the bishops who are entrusted by us with the parishes in the Lord; whose doctrine keep always in mind, and observe our words. And may the Lord be with you now, and to endless ages, as Himself said to us when He was about to be taken up to His own God and Father. For says He, Lo, I am with you all the days, until the end of the world. Amen. Matthew 28:20 - Enumeration Ordained by Apostles


Did Mary desire to be the Mother of the prophesied Messiah?

St. Alphonsus of Liguori argues in Glories of Mary p. 484 that she valued her virginity more than being a mother, but she valued doing God's will above all:

  An author* says, that so much did the Blessed Virgin love this virtue [of virginity], that, to preserve it, she would have been willing to have renounced even the Dignity of Mother of God. This we may conclude from her answer to the archangel [St. Gabriel], "How shall this be done, because I know not man?" [Lk. 1:34] and from the words she afterwards added, "Be it done to me according to thy word," signifying that she gave her consent on the condition that as the angel had assured her, she should become a Mother only by the overshadowing of the Holy Ghost.

*Thought to be "the author of Oratio in natalem Christi (possibly Gregory of Nyssa); PG, 46, 1140", according to Philip J. Donnelly, S.J., S.T.D., on p. 241n59 of his "The Perpetual Virginity of the Mother of God" in Carol, Juniper B., O.F.M.'s Mariology (vol. 2)

Philip J. Donnelly, S.J., argues against this view (ibid. p. 241):

  This, however, by no means implies, as some ancient Greek ecclesiastical writers asserted,59 that Mary set her virginity absolutely above the incomparable privilege of her divine maternity, and that she equivalently laid down to God the following condition: "I shall become the Mother of God, only if I may remain a virgin." Such a view is not to Mary's honor; it is in reality a denigration of her sanctity; it minimizes the dignity of matrimony as a divinely instituted and holy manner of life; it leaves out of consideration the supreme dominion of God, who could command any human being to make use of matrimony without any loss of sanctity.60 Rather, Mary was prepared to submit herself completely to the manifest will of God, even to the use of matrimony; she merely wished to be certain that the renunciation of her resolution, made initially under the inspiration of grace would be conformed to God's will; this explains very probably why she used the present (ou gignosko, "since I do not know man" [Lk. 1:34]) rather than the future [tense].61

Appendix 4 of Scheeben's Mariology (vol. 1), pp. 249-252, argues that before St. Gabriel explained how she could be both a mother and a virgin, she thought he was asking her if she would be the mother "of an eminent earthly king", not the mother of God. Certainly, she knew the prophesy that the promised Messiah would be born of a virgin (Is. 7:14), so it's conceivable she didn't yet know he was asking her to be the Mother of God.

In any case, she valued doing God's will the most, and He wanted her to become His Mother.


How much of the deuterocanonical books are true?
All deuterocanonical books are considered inspired biblical texts by the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Assyrian Church of the East to be canonical books of the Old Testament but which are considered non-canonical by Protestant denominations and thus considered Apocrypha by Protestant. Each individual Church has it own particular list of deuterocanonical books which may vary only slightly between the major denominations which have these books listed in their proper biblical canons.

The deuterocanonical books (from the Greek meaning "belonging to the second canon") are books and passages considered by the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Assyrian Church of the East to be canonical books of the Old Testament but which are considered non-canonical by Protestant denominations. They date from the period 300 BC–AD 100 approximately (mostly from 200 BC–AD 70, i.e. before the definite separation of the Church from Judaism). While the New Testament never quotes from or ascribes canonical authority to these books, some say there is a correspondence of thought, while others see texts from these books being paraphrased, referred or alluded to many times in the New Testament, particularly in the Pauline Epistles depending in large measure on what is counted as a reference.
Deuterocanonical is a term coined in 1566 by the theologian Sixtus of Siena, who had converted to Catholicism from Judaism, to describe scriptural texts considered canonical by the Catholic Church, but which recognition was considered "secondary". For Sixtus, this term included portions of both Old and New Testaments (Sixtus considers the final chapter of the Gospel of Mark as 'deuterocanonical'); and he also applies the term to the Book of Esther from the canon of the Hebrew Bible. The term was then taken up by other writers to apply specifically to those books of the Old Testament which had been recognised as canonical by the Councils of Rome (AD 382) of Hippo (AD 393), Carthage (AD 397 and AD 419), Council of Florence (AD 1442) and Council of Trent (AD 1546), but which were not in the Hebrew canon.
Forms of the term "deuterocanonical" were adopted after the 16th century by the Eastern Orthodox Church to denote canonical books of the Septuagint not in the Hebrew Bible (a wider selection than that adopted by the Council of Trent), and also by the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church to apply to works believed to be of Jewish origin translated in the Old Testament of the Ethiopic Bible; a wider selection still. - Deuterocanonical books

The deuterocanonical books were added to the Catholic Canon well before the Council of Trent (1546).

But the seven deuterocanonical books were added at the Council of Trent (1546) in order to justify Catholic doctrinal inventions.
This is a myth that always comes up but is simple to answer. At the Council of Rome in 382, the Church decided upon a canon of 46 Old Testament books and 27 in the New Testament. This decision was ratified by the councils at Hippo (393), Carthage (397, 419), II Nicea (787), Florence (1442), and Trent (1546).
Further, if Catholics added the deuterocanonical books in 1546, then Martin Luther beat us to the punch: He included them in his first German translation, published the Council of Trent. They can also be found in the first King James Version (1611) and in the first Bible ever printed, the Gutenberg Bible (a century before Trent). In fact, these books were included in almost every Bible until the Edinburgh Committee of the British Foreign Bible Society excised them in 1825. Until then, they had been included at least in an appendix of Protestant Bibles. It is historically demonstrable that Catholics did not add the books, Protestants took them out.
Luther had a tendency to grade the Bible according to his preferences. In his writings on the New Testament, he noted that the books of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation were inferior to the rest, and they followed “the certain, main books of the New Testament.” In 1519, this same attitude fueled his debate against Johannes Eck on the topic of purgatory. Luther undermined Eck’s proof text of 2 Maccabees 12 by devaluing the deuterocanonical books as a whole. He argued that the New Testament authors had never quoted from the seven books, so they were in a different class than the rest of the Bible.

To be able to see which books are considered part of a particular Christian Tradition’s Biblical Canon please check the chart here


According to Catholic exorcists, does the Devil hate Catholic Church prayers said in Latin?

There are no biblical references as to why Catholic exorcists say that Latin is hated by the Devil. Many Catholic priests who are exorcists have made this claim (statement). But I imagine that exorcists in the Eastern Rite Churches (Catholic or otherwise), have the Devil saying the same about their traditional liturgical languages also.

Here is what one article has to say on this subject:

  I wanted to pass on one little comment that he made almost in passing. I do not know where he stands liturgically in regard to the Mass - there was nothing in what he said that led me to believe that he celebrates the Latin Mass, for example. However, he did explain that the Rite of Exorcism is only said in Latin. One reason is practical - there is no approved translation in English as yet. He gave another reason why he was so strongly in favor of the use of Latin in the Rite of Exorcism: “The Devil hates Latin, it is the universal language of the Church.” I asked him about this afterwards, and he repeated it, saying that his personal experiences as an exorcist who has performed many, many exorcisms have convinced him of this. He told me he had heard from exorcists who did exorcisms in Italian, Spanish and Portuguese (the only approved vernaculars for this Rite) that Latin was the most effective language. - The Devil Hates Latin, Says Exorcist

Until very recently (2014), an English translation of the rite of exorcism had not been approved by the Church. While the Vatican has approved translations of the rite in multiple languages, Latin seems to be the most effective during the course of exorcism. Thus Satan's hatred of Latin language.

Catholic exorcists are guarded in what they reveal about their exorcisms because as we all know that Satan is a liar from the beginning. Even in exorcisms, the priest will not readily believe the adversary and must not divulge too freely what was said in order to protect the identity of the victim.

  And it came to pass, when the evil spirit from God was upon Saul, that David took an harp, and played with his hand: so Saul was refreshed, and was well, and the evil spirit departed from him. - 1 Samuel 16:23

The famous exorcist for the diocese of Rome, Fr. Gabriele Amorth, stated in one of his books that as David liberated the soul of Saul from the Evil Spirit of Melancholy, so to the power of Gregorian Chant has a great help in liberating the demon from persons and homes.

As Satan hates Latin, so too he hates the Sacred Music of the Roman Rite. Gregorian Chant is sung uniquely in the language of the Church: Latin.

  Suffice to say, there is no sacred music in Hell.

  This is why the devil hates sacred music so much. It reaches the depths of our soul and raises us up to the Heaven. It should be no surprise to us when a parish’s sacred music program is single-handedly dismantled. He will do all he can to prevent us from hearing the Divine Voice of God. - Why the Devil Hates Sacred Music

Although there is no biblical references for to support this claim (in question), there have been some cases where the Devil has made like statements during the course of an exorcism to a Catholic priest (exorcist). But we must always remember the Devil is a liar. I have heard this from several exorcists. Thus it is more than just an old notion


What percentage of self-identifying Christians believe Jesus was not God, and instead was a messenger of God?

A.) less than 2.2 percent of Christians belong to sects professing to believe that Jesus is not God.

                     Do            Don't         N/A        (in billions)
Catholicism          1.2
Protestantism        0.801
Eastern Orthodoxy    0.230
Oriental Orthodoxy   0.082
Restorationism                      0.045*
Unitarian Universalism                           0.006
Nestorianism                        0.006**
                     2.313          0.051        0.006

Demographics wikipedianot the table

*There are quite a few who would disagree with the assessment of these two groups, including myself, but for the sake of simplicity, if you're going to go looking for groups that deny the Divinity of Christ, start here.

**I was just reading about the hypostatic union, and apparently Nestorian's think it was just luck or something.

B.) The answer is too subjective and contentious to possibly answer without inciting a holy war.   The reasons are probably:

They have different or changed scriptures. (Jehovah's Witnesses)
They were founded by people who called themselves prophets and wanted to essentially start a new religion.
They were founded on enlightenment ideals wherein Jesus could not be God because that would mean God exists in a real and profound way in human history. (Deists and Unitarians probably don't believe this)
They exist to fulfill some desire to project a certain idea about God that others don't share. Like dualism (meaning the body is bad and the soul is good), they'd say that Jesus, couldn't have been God since He inhabited a body. (Christian Scientists and older heretics like the Manichean's) or they think that the Body was inhabited by God, but the Body was not God (Nestorians)