Why is the Bible said to be twisted like a wax nose?

This was a common image from at least the eleventh century onwards, but it did not always
mean the same thing. In particular, Calvin is taking the least favourable possible
meaning, out of all those ever used by his opponents. I will now explain everything in tediously footnoted detail.

The root image of the wax nose comes from the use of wax to make prostheses.
Wax is cheap, malleable, and is not too different from the typical range of European skin colours.
This had been common since the classical era, and Petrarch (1303-1374) includes wax noses among the common
prosthetic devices of his time1.

In connection to the earliest usages of the
wax nose simile, it can be noted that a wax nose is a pretty low-class sort of prosthesis.
Although skin diseases were abundant in all strata of society, rich people might make
use of precious metals (as with the golden nose of Justinian II,
the original having been amputated after his deposition in 695). Even the less wealthy might
have noses of leather or wood. Loss of the nose might also be the result of
punishment for crime, including adultery. All of these factors suggest that
the possessor of the proverbial wax nose is likely to be of low status2.

We may distinguish two cases of wax-nose-twisting language:

Your wax nose is tweaked by somebody else - invariably a bad thing.
You twist your own nose however you want - which may be good or bad.

The earliest sense is the former, where the nose is meant to represent the law.
Our oldest citation is from the Chronica Boemorum by
Cosmas of Prague (c.1045-1125),
which describes how Henry III
(1017-1056) in the year 1040
tried to collect more tax from the Bohemians than the law seemed to permit;
when they protested, he apparently said:

  He who rules the laws is not ruled by them: for the law, as the common people say,
  has a nose of wax, while the king has an iron hand and a long one, so that he can twist
  it however he likes3.

In later Germanic usage, the wax nose of the law was a common image5.
An example is a Middle High German poem by
Oswald von Wolkenstein (1376-1445),
comparing the law to a wax nose that may be twisted about just as freely as a hound
runs to and fro7. But the most famous and influential occurrence was
in the Ship of Fools
(Das Narrenschiff or Stultifera Navis)
of Sebastian Brandt (1457-1521),
a political-religious satire; the law is compared to a wax nose in chapter 71 8.
We will shortly return to the
commentary by Johann Geiler von Keysersberg
(1445-1510),
which develops the theme and was an influence on Martin Luther and other key figures of the
Reformation and Counter-Reformation.

The second sense above - you get to reshape your own nose - is first attested in the
philosophical writing of Alain of Lille (1116-1202).
His De Fide Catholica includes two defenses of the immortality of the soul, the first of which
draws from the authority of Greek philosophers. In the linking passage, he asserts that
such authority has a nose of wax, and can be made to mean whatever we want, it must be strengthened
by the use of reason 9. It is possible that the wax, for him, is meant to be
analogous to the Platonic primordial matter of the Timaeus,
called ἐκμαγεῖον (a substance that can receive an image)
and μαλακῶν (a soft material) in 50c2, 50e8 respectively10.
The idea that wax can take any image is analogous to the way that anything can be written on paper;
these images were combined in a poem of Bruno von Schönebeck (fl. 1275).
The poem explicitly references Scripture, comparing it to a wax nose
because of the whitish-yellow colour of paper, and the fact that either one can take on any
image ("etslich bilde") one cares to impose11.
Boccaccio (1313-1375) also compares the
many possible sense of Scripture to the proverbial wax nose, in his commentary on the many senses of
Dante's Divine Comedy 12.
There are many other contemporary uses of the proverb, across Europe13, 14.

The usage of Boccaccio is an example of the "good" kind of twisting your own nose. The
so-called "four senses" of Scripture (literal, allegorical, moral, anagogical)
were greatly in vogue in popular preaching, and the Bible was presented as a sort of miraculous
treasure chest. A related metaphor is the egg, which may be cooked in many ways; or the
sheath which can contain any sword15. There is some suspicion about whether theologians
are justified in their wax-twisting, for example from
Erasmus (1466-1536) 16.
Geiler's commentary on the Ship of Fools contains a defense of his preaching against the
charge that he can twist too many meanings out of a single passage, as if he were twisting
a wax nose to suit himself 17. In another sermon, he endorses the "four senses"
to which Scripture may be turned, like a wax nose, whereas other writings are less fruitful 18.
But some of Geiler's sermons use the metaphor in a different way, to emphasize the danger of
private interpretation, absent the authority of the Church. This is the provocative
usage for the Reformers.

In the Reformation era, we see just about everyone, on all sides, using the wax nose
metaphor against their opponents. The Catholic usage follows that of Geiler (and indeed
Alain of Lille) in asserting Church authority to extract the correct meanings from the Bible - anyone
else can only read their own meaning into the text. Protestants were furious at
this apparent disrespect to Scripture, drawing on the original Germanic tradition
where the nose-twisting is due to unjust exercise of personal power over the law (sense 1 above, rather than the intended sense 2).
So Martin Luther writes,

  So we see how neatly the Romanists deal with the Scripture, making of it just what they want,
  as if it were a wax nose, that one can pull this way and that. 19

just as Calvin repeated in sermon after sermon20. On the other hand,
when Willem van der Lindt (1525-1588)
uses the wax nose metaphor, he accepts it as "true" that Scripture is malleable,
but blames Luther, Calvin, Bugenhagen et al. for their incorrect twisting21.

But in fact, there were comparatively few on the Catholic side who endorsed
Scripture as lacking any fixed structure at all.
Indeed, there is really just one person who was continually quoted,
Albertus Pighius (1490-1542).
For example,
John Jewel (1522-1571)
in his Apology of the Church of England rails against those who say
that Scripture is a dead letter, malleable, uncertain, useless, and worst of
all, a wax nose; and it's Pighius who is cited for these opinions22 -
specifically, his tract on ecclesiastical hierarchy23, though other
writings repeat the assertion in broadly the same terms.
This is the position against which Calvin was arguing, in the original question
which by now is long forgotten. The rhetorical culture of the controversialists of the time
allowed the nasal metaphor to be greatly exaggerated. In effect, even "harmless"
occurrences of the wax nose metaphor were tainted by its use in more extreme writings.

To summarize: not everyone who describes Scripture as a wax nose is being disrespectful. They may only mean that many true ideas can be drawn from it. They do not necessarily mean to endorse the tyrannical reinterpretation of the Bible, but only to warn against inexpert eisegesis, abandonment of traditional wisdom, or of the Church itself (outside of which they believed there to be no guarantee of wisdom). That doesn't mean that the Church gets to do whatever it likes, with impunity. Equally, the Protestant assertion isn't that every believer can legitimately twist the Bible to suit themselves - it's that the ability to draw correct conclusions from the Bible isn't limited to those who are endorsed by the ecclesiastical establishment.

1. In De remediis utriusque fortunae,
Petrarch writes in section 2.93, De tristitia et miseria:
"Denique modis sese omnibus adiuvat, attollitque, quin amissis artubus, pedes ligneos,
manus ferreas, nasos caereos, fabricari didicit, et fortunas casibus obstare."
2. Giorgio Sperati. Amputation of the nose throughout history. Acta Otorhinolaryngologica
Italica 29(1):44-50, February 2009.
3. Chronica Boemorum, book 2, chapter 8; p94, lines 11-14
of Monumenta Germaniae Historica,
Scriptores (Nova Series), vol. 2 (Berlin, 1923).
My translation of: "Nam qui regunt leges, non reguntur legibus, quia lex, ut aiunt vulgo,
cereum habet nasum et rex ferream manum et longam, ut eam flectere queat, quo sibi placet."
See also references 4-6 below.
4. J. H. Burns. The Cambridge History of Medieval Political Thought, c.350 - c.1450 (Cambridge University Press, 1988). Wax nose on p251.
5. Peter Dronke. A History of Twelfth-Century Western Philosophy (Cambridge University Press, 1988).
Wax nose on pages 7-8 and 442, further citing Shippey (6, below) and many of the other sources
I have listed.
6. Tom Shippey. London Review of Books, 27 October 1988, p16. Indicates the use by Cosmas of Prague.
7. Oswald von Wolkenstein. Mich frâgt ain Ritter ân gever. Lines 122-125 of the poem read:
"Das recht hat gar ain wãxe nas / Es lât sich piegen als der has, / sô in der hund pringt in den wangk / nur hin und her stêt sein gedanck." No. 26 of the "Historische Gedichte" in Beda Weber,
Die Gedichte Oswalds von Wolkenstein (Innsbruck, 1847) = No. 118 in Josef Schatz,
Die Gedichte Oswalds von Wolkenstein (Göttingen, 1904).
8. Sebastian Brandt. Das Narrenschiff (Basel, 1494).
The text in Johann Scheible's Das Kloster, weltlich und geistlich (Stuttgart, 1845), volume 1,
reads: "Verlossend sich, das sie das recht / Wol bugen, das es nit blib schlecht, / Als ob es wer eyn wachsin naß".
9. Alain of Lille. De Fide Catholica Contra Haereticos. Book 4, chapter 30. In Migne, Patrologia Latina
vol. 201, 305C-322A at 333C. "Sed quia auctoritas cereum habet nasum, id est diversum potest flecti
sensum, rationibus roborandum est."
10. Nikolaus Häring. Commentaries on Boethius by Thierry of Chartres and his school (Pontifical
Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1966), p76ff, quoting
Thierry's comparison of Plato's ylem to wax,
"for what exists in potentiality can be bent to this and to that".
11. Bruno von Schönebeck. Das Hohe Lied. Lines 960-967 (or 1063-1070 in the alternative numbering)
read: "von der schrift ist noch me gelesen: / di schrift hat eine wechsene nesen. /
daz wachs ist gel var und ouch wiz, / als daz wachs behende is mit vliz / zu nemen an sich etslich bilde, /
iz si ru zam adir wilde, / also nimpt di schrift an sich / itslich bilde daz sage ich".
12. Giovanni Boccaccio. Espozioni sopra la Commedia di Dante (1373). The commentary on Inferno 7,
in 2.172, says "Ora si suole interno a queste esposizioni spesse volte dire per i laici,
La Scrittura avere il naso di cera."
13. Thesaurus proverbiorum medii aevi (de Gruyter, 1999). Volume 8, p414ff.
14. Jakob and Wilhelm Grimm. Deutsches Wörterbuch. Citations under "Wachs".
15. For example, Francis Coster (1532-1619) in his
Enchiridion controversiarum praecipuarum nostri temporis de Religione (Cologne, 1585),
chapter 1, compares Scripture to a sheath that can contain swords of many possible materials, but
only the Church knows which one is the true sword.  "Illa vero cum scripta sit Spiritu Dei vivi,
in cordibus vivis Ecclesiae, truncari & torquerise non sinit, sed sui per omnia similis perseverat.
Proinde hoc est instar vaginae, quae quemlibet gladium admittit, non modo chalybeum, sed etiam
plumbeum, ligneum, aereum: patitur enim sequavis interpretatione trahi. Illa autem retinet in vagina
verum gladium, nimirum genuinum sensum scripturae in cortice literae, quia non in solis
characteribus, sed in sensu cernitur Dei verbum."
16. Erasmus of Rotterdam. Μωρίας Εγκώμιον / Laus stultitiae (1511).
"Iam illud quantae felicitatis esse putatis,
dum arcanas litteras, perinde quasi cereae sint, pro libidine formant ac reformant."
17. Commentary reproduced in Scheible (see reference 8). On Brandt's chapter 11, Geiler writes:
"Als da sein etlich, die sprechen,
lieber, was sagst mir vil von der Heiligen geschrifft, sie ist
gleich als ein wächsene naß, man mag sie auff alle ding
leiten unnd formieren, dann auff disen, dann auff jenen,
sie nennt doch niemandt mit dem nammen: was sagst vil,
die Pfaffen haben gut sagen daruon, sie haben alles was
sie wöllen von der Heiligen geschrift, es wirdt ihnen dardurch kisten und keller gefült."
18. Johann Geiler von Keysersberg. Predigt von den drei Marien. "Einer spricht, die heilige
geschrifft ist wie ein wechseni nas, man bügt es war man wil. Du sagst war, sie ist also
fruchtbar das vier sententz in ir erlüchten, das in andern geschrifften nit ist." See C. Schmidt,
Histoire littéraire de l'Alsace à la fin du XVe et au commencement du XVIe siècle
(1879), vol. 1, p423.
19. Martin Luther. Werke 1.343.28 (1520).
"Also sehen wir wie fein die Romanisten mit der schrifft handeln,
machen drauß was sie nur wollen, als were sie ein wechsern nasen,
die man hyn und her zihen mocht." My translation.
20. See many examples in Richard Stauffer, Dieu, la création et la Providence dans la
prédication de Calvin (Peter Lang, 1978). Vol. 33 of Basler und Berner Studien
zur historischen und systematischen Theologie.
21. William Damasus Lindanus (Willem van der Lindt). Panoplia evangelica (Cologne, 1560).
"Scripturae testimoniae (quae, ut vulgo videre est, ob facilem ipsius in varias sententiarum
formas flexum, recte naso fui aßilimata cereo)".
22. John Jewel. Apologia Ecclesiae Anglicanae (1562).
"Itaque sacrosanctas scripturas, quas Servator nostra Jesus Christus non
tantum in omni sermone usurpavit, sed etiam ad extremum sanguine suo
consignavit, quo populum ab illis, tanquam a re periculosa et noxia, minore
negotio abigant, solent literam frigidam, incertam, inutilem, mutam, occiden-
tem, mortuam appellare; quod nobis quidem perinde videtur esse ac si cas
omnino nullas esse dicerent. Sed addunt etiam simile quoddam non aptis-
simum; eas esse quodammodo nasum cereum, posse fingi flectique in omnes
modos, et omnium instituto inservire. An pontifex ista a suis dici nescit? aut
tales se habere patronos non intelligit?"
23. Albertus Pighius. Hierarchica Ecclesiastica (1538), 3.3.
"Sunt enim illae ut non minus vere quam festive dixit quidam,
velut nasus cereus, qui se horsum, illorsum, et in quam volueris partem trahi,
retrahi, fingique facile permittit, et tanquam plumbea quaedam Lesbiae aedificationis regula,
quam non sit difficile accommodare ad quidvis volueris."


Why did Justin Martyr speak so harshly about Christians who ate meat sacrificed to idols?

Justin Martyr (100–165), unfortunately, doesn't provide much additional insight into his position here or in his other writings.  However, his view was a common one in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, so we can better understand it by examining the writings of his contemporaries and immediately subsequent generations of church fathers.  Those holding this view include:

Irenaeus (?–202)
Tertullian (155–240)
Origen (184–254)

Irenaeus's treatment of this subject is similarly brief, but serves to demonstrate that Justin Martyr was not the only 2nd-century father who felt that eating meat sacrificed to idols was evidence of leaving the faith.  He writes:

Others [...] have introduced promiscuous intercourse and a plurality of wives, and are indifferent about eating meats sacrificed to idols, maintaining that God does not greatly regard such matters. But why continue? For it is an impracticable attempt to mention all those who, in one way or another, have fallen away from the truth.1

For the reasoning behind this view, we must turn to Tertullian and Origen.  The key passage they reference is 1 Corinthians 10; verses 19–21 being particularly relevant:

19 What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20 No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. [ESV]

Citing this passage, Tertullian argues that idolatry is demon worship and that therefore eating sacrificed meat is an example of eating from the table of demons:

the homage [idolators] render is to demons, who are the real occupants of these consecrated images, whether of dead men or (as they think) of gods. [...] We do not offer sacrifices to the gods, and we make no funeral oblations to the departed; nay, we do not partake of what is offered either in the one case or the other, for we cannot partake of God's feast and the feast of devils.2

Tertullian accepts 1 Corinthians 8:4, "not that an idol is anything," but understands the verse to refer only to the image itself, for "demons have abode in the images."2
Origen also uses the language of 1 Corinthians 10 to explain the apostolic prohibition on eating meat sacrificed to idols in Acts 15:28–29:

For that which is offered to idols is sacrificed to demons, and a man of God must not join the table of demons.3

Summary
Justin Martyr was not alone in strenuously objecting to the eating of meat sacrificed to idols.  The early fathers took the teaching of Acts 15 and 1 Corinthians 10 very seriously, and saw a close association between idols and demons.  As a result, they strongly opposed anyone who practiced or taught that eating meat sacrificed to idols was acceptable.

References:

Against Heresies, I.28.2
De Spectaculis, 12–13
Contra Celsus, VIII.30


This is what we know of "Hell".

It's a place of darkness

Jude 1:13 (NIV)

  They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame; wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever.

It's a place of torment

Luke 16:28 (NIV)

  for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’

It's a place of fire

Jesus says in Matthew 13:42 (NIV)

  They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

It is eternal

Mark 9:48 (NIV)

  where “‘the worms that eat them do not die, and the fire is not quenched.’

It is separation for God

Matthew 25:41 (NIV)

  “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

God does not want you to go to Hell

John 3:17 (NIV)

  For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

Those are the highlights.  There are many other places that support each one of those facts.  I just picked a nice representative of each verse.


What does "authentic magisterium" entail in Lumen Gentium?

Volume 3 (of 5) of the Exegetical Commentary on the [1983] Code of Canon Law (PDF pp. 3269-70) elucidates the "authentic magisterium" that appeared, from Lumen Gentium §25, in

1983 Code Can. 752Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will (religiosum tamen intellectus et voluntatis obsequium) must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium (magisterium authenticum), even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act*; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.

*cf. Pius XII, Humani Generis §20: "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: 'He who heareth you, heareth me' [Lk. 10:16]; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians."
saying:

1. Classification of acts of magisterium with formally negative wording
The first comment that would seem to be necessary for a correct understanding of this canon is that both the intrinsic disposition of persons receiving acts of magisterium as well as the acts of magisterium themselves mentioned in c. 752 are described in negative terms. This approach in phrasing the law (which is necessary in this case, as we shall see) does not imply or suggest an attitude of inattention or unawareness with re spect to either divine assistance with the acts of magisterium mentioned in this canon or religious submission with which these acts are to be received.
Canon 752, like cc. 749-750, refers to the authentic universal magisterium of the Supreme Pontiff or College of Bishops. The difference is that c. 752 deals with magisterial acts the subject matter of which does not attempt to define a doctrine by means of a decisive infallible act. Magisterial acts of the Roman Pontiff that are made with no indication of being definitions of dogma are also called non ex cathedra magisterium (LG 25) or non-infallible pontifical magisterium. Along this same line of distinction, these acts of magisterium, as opposed to the acts of magisterium described in cc. 7 49-750, are also known as simply authentic magisterium, or magisterium that does not have the highest authority.
The need to resort to classifications of these magisterial acts that are technically negative (non-infallible, non-definitive, non ex cathedra) is necessitated by the fact that there are no specific bodies or kinds of action that can be exclusively described as those of the universal magisterium, as discussed here, to differentiate them from statements of dogma that constitute infallible magisterium. In fact, the same bodies (the Roman Pontiff and the College of Bishops) impart both infallible magisterium and non-definitive magisterium. Further, no distinction can be drawn between these two types of magisterium by stating that a solemn act gives rise to an infallible magisterium, since many documents written by ecumenical councils do not claim to define doctrine dogmatically. On the contrary, an ordinary and universal magisterium exercised by the bishops, "dispersed throughout the world but maintaining the bond of union among themselves and with the successor of Peter" (c. 749 §2) may be infallible (c. 750).
Further, the efficacy of a magisterial act alone to formulate a definitive, infallible teaching must not be confused with the fact that the same magisterial act, even though it may not expressly state that it is definitive dogma (such as an encyclical of the Roman Pontiff), may contain infallible doctrines originating from earlier definitive acts whose efficacy is not diminished because magisterial acts of lower authority recalls doctrines defined earlier.


What is the distinction between Justification and Salvation? (Swedenborgian View)

In the theology of Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772), as in other Christian theologies, justification is seen as part of a process that results in our salvation. In a nod to the traditional Christian concept of the ordo salutis, Swedenborg lists justification as one among many elements of that process of salvation. For example, he writes:

The Divine power and activity meant by the Holy Spirit are, generally speaking, reformation and regeneration, which lead to renewal, quickening, sanctification and justification; and these lead to purification from evils and the forgiveness of sins, and ultimately to salvation. (True Christianity #138)

However, his view of justification, in particular, is significantly different from the Roman Catholic and Orthodox perspectives, and radically different from the Reformed perspective.
Salvation
The word "salvation" is so ubiquitous in Christianity that Swedenborg simply assumes that the reader knows what it means. He rarely offers anything like a concise definition of salvation. However, when he does define it, he equates it with eternal life. For example, in commenting on Ezekiel 3:18-21, Swedenborg writes:

Here "dying he shall die" is to perish in eternal death, which is damnation, for it is said of the wicked; and "living he shall live" is to enjoy eternal life, which is salvation, for it is said of those who repent, and of the righteous. (Apocalypse Explained #186:2, italics added)

And in the same work:

"Salvation and glory and honor and power unto the Lord our God" [Revelation 19:1] signifies because eternal life is from the Lord through the divine truth and the divine good from his divine omnipotence. This is evident from the signification of "salvation," as being eternal life; also from the signification of "glory and honor," as being the Lord's divine truth and divine good; also from the signification of "power," as being, in reference to the Lord, omnipotence. (Apocalypse Explained #1198, italics added)

So in Swedenborg's theology, "salvation" simply means gaining eternal life in heaven. He describes the nature of that life in detail in his best-known book, Heaven and Hell.
Swedenborg makes it clear that it is the Lord Jesus Christ alone who saves us. And yet, the Lord does not do this instantaneously, but through a lifelong process—a process that requires our willing receptivity and cooperation to succeed:

The people who are going to receive the powerful spiritual effects listed above are those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. He is salvation and eternal life. He is salvation because he is the Savior—this is the meaning of his name, Jesus. He is eternal life because those in whom he is and who are in him have eternal life. He is even called "eternal life" in 1 John 5:20.
Now, because the Lord is salvation and eternal life, it follows that he is also everything that enables us to gain salvation and eternal life. Therefore he is every part of reforming, regenerating, renewing, bringing to life, sanctifying, justifying, purifying from evils, and finally saving. The Lord is carrying out these processes in all of us, meaning that he is trying to have these effects on us; and when we adapt and modify ourselves to receive them, he actually carries them out in us. (Even the acts of adapting and modifying ourselves are actually from the Lord.) If we do not accept the Lord's processes with a willing spirit, he cannot carry them out in us, but his desire to do so remains constant. (True Christianity #150)

Justification
Justification is one of the elements Swedenborg lists as part of the process of salvation. And this is where Swedenborg departs radically from the Protestant (Lutheran) theology in which he grew up, and significantly from Catholic and Orthodox theology.
In fact, in order to appreciate Swedenborg's view of justification, it is necessary to understand that although he was conversant with the various Catholic and Protestant creeds and doctrinal statements, he skipped over them all, pushed them aside, and looked directly to the Bible itself to formulate his doctrines of justification and salvation.
To understand Swedenborg's theology of justification, then, it is necessary to understand the underlying meaning of the words commonly translated "justify" and "justification" in the Bible.
Justification in the Bible
Our English word "justification" is derived from the Latin word iustificationem. However, the use of this latinate term to translate the underlying Hebrew and Greek words in the Bible can make the Bible's meaning seem more abstract than it actually is.
In biblical Hebrew, the word צָדַק (tsadaq) has the root meaning of "to be right, straight." From this it derives its more common meaning of "to be just, upright, righteous." In its various forms it can also mean "to make just, righteous, innocent" and "to declare someone just, or innocent, to acquit."
In biblical Greek, the word δίκαιος (dikaios) has the basic meaning of "righteous; observing divine and human laws." In a broader sense it means "upright, righteous, virtuous, keeping the commands of God." Based on this it can also have the meaning of being declared righteous.
In both Hebrew and Greek, the biblical words for "just," and the forms derived from them, such as "justify" and "justification," are primarily speaking about the intrinsic quality of the person, as being a just, righteous, virtuous, and innocent person who keeps the commandments of God. The meaning of declaring a person just or righteous depends upon the person actually being just or righteous.
Justification in Swedenborg's theology
Swedenborg's view of justification, then, involves a person becoming righteous. Without this, it would be a violation of divine justice for a person to be declared righteous. God's judgments are always just and right, Swedenborg says, so God will not declare anything just or righteous unless it actually is just and righteous.
Because of Swedenborg's practical, biblical focus, it is usually more accurate to translate the words he uses for "justification" as "being made righteous"—which is exactly how most of the translations of his works do translate them.
Here is one of the earliest definitions of justification in Swedenborg's published theological works:

Those who have been purified from self-love and love of the world—both those inside the church and those outside of it—are made righteous by the Lord. (Arcana Coelestia ("Secrets of Heaven") #2114)

Here the distinctiveness of Swedenborg's theology of justification from Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant theology is already on display. By "the church," Swedenborg means Christianity. So by "people inside the church" he means Christians. And here, early in his theological works, he was already saying that both Christians and non-Christians are justified, or made righteous, by the Lord (Jesus Christ) when they are purified from self-love and love of the world.
This shows the practical nature of Swedenborg's doctrine of justification. It is not a mere theological or legal term and process. It is a process of changing a person so that he or she is no longer driven by selfish and worldly desires, but by love for God and love for the neighbor. And this is true no matter whether the person is a Christian or a non-Christian. In all cases—even among non-Christians—this is accomplished by the Lord Jesus Christ working in and through the person.
Swedenborg gives a fuller account of what it means for a person to be righteous in a commentary on Jesus' words in Matthew 25:31-46—a passage commonly called "The Sheep and the Goats" or "The Judgment of the Nations":

The expression "the righteous," used of those on the right in these statements,

The righteous will answer him, saying . . . [Matthew 25:37]

and

The righteous will go into eternal life [Matthew 25:46]

means that the Lord's righteousness dwells with them. All in whom the good of kindness [literally "charity"] is present are called "the righteous." Not that of themselves they are righteous but that they are made such by the Lord, whose righteousness they take to themselves.
Those who believe that of themselves they are righteous, or that they have been made righteous to such an extent that no evil at all is present in them any longer, are not among the righteous but among the unrighteous. For they attribute good to themselves and also make that good meritorious; and people like them cannot possibly possess true humility with which to worship the Lord.
Therefore in the Bible those people are called "righteous and holy" who know and acknowledge that all good comes from the Lord, and all evil from themselves, which means that their evil comes from hell. (Arcana Coelestia #5069)

In other words, in Swedenborg's theology, to be "righteous" or "justified" is to accept the righteousness of the Lord into ourselves willingly, while recognizing that it is not our own, but the Lord's in us. And as Swedenborg explains extensively elsewhere, this happens only by our repenting from our sins—which flow from our inborn selfishness and worldliness—and focusing our life on loving the Lord by loving the neighbor through practical service to our fellow human beings, as the Lord himself taught in Matthew 25:31-46 and in many other places.
Swedenborg was aware of the judicial sense of "justification" that is commonly used in traditional Christian, and especially Protestant, interpretations of "justification." See, for example, Arcana Coelestia #9264. However, for an extended statement on Swedenborg's view of justification, or becoming righteous, in contrast to traditional Christian perspectives, see Arcana Coelestia #9263.
In Swedenborg's theology, then, "justification" involves a person repenting from sins and living a new life of love for God and love and service to the neighbor. This, in Swedenborg's view, is not an instantaneous event, but rather a lifelong process. For more on what this process involves, see my article, "What does Jesus Mean when He Says we Must be Born Again?"
Summary and Conclusion
In Swedenborg's theology:

Salvation is attaining eternal life in heaven.
Justification is the process of becoming a good and righteous person through repentance from sins and living a life of love and kindness to the neighbor.

Justification, then, in Swedenborg's theology, is an integral part of the process of salvation. It is the process by which we become good, loving, thoughtful, and righteous people through the active presence of the Lord within us—which presence is the Holy Spirit working in us.
When we have gone through this process of "justification," or becoming good and righteous people (together with other things that the Lord accomplishes in our lives when we are willing and receptive), we are saved—which means that we will move on to eternal life in heaven when our life on this earth is finished.


Why aren't the Apostles called the Church Fathers?
The term Church Fathers was coined by unknown Christian authors to refer to ancient and influential Christian theologians and writers of the Patristic Era who established the intellectual and doctrinal foundations of Christianity.
The Church founded by Jesus Church is now some 2000 years. Churchmen have found it logical to divide this 2000 years in various ways in order to be able to understand various historical times of Church history.
For example, St. Augustine divided the world into six ages.

The Six Ages of the World Latin: (sex aetates mundi), also rarely Seven Ages of the World (Latin: septem aetates mundi), is a Christian historical periodization first written about by Augustine of Hippo circa AD 400.
It is based upon Christian religious events, from the creation of Adam to the events of Revelation. The six ages of history, with each age (Latin: aetas) lasting approximately 1,000 years, were widely believed and in use throughout the Middle Ages, and until the Enlightenment, the writing of history was mostly the filling out of all or some part of this outline.
The outline accounts for Seven Ages, just as there are seven days of the week, with the Seventh Age being eternal rest after the Final Judgement and End Times, just as the seventh day of the week is reserved for rest. It was normally called the Six Ages of the World because in Augustine's schema they were the ages of the world, of history, while the Seventh Age was not of this world but, as Bede later elaborated, ran parallel to the six ages of the world. Augustine's presentation deliberately counters chiliastic and millennial ideas that the Seventh Age, World to Come, would come after the sixth.
Six Ages
The Six Ages, as formulated by Augustine of Hippo, are defined in De catechizandis rudibus (On the catechizing of the uninstructed), Chapter 22:
The First Age "is from the beginning of the human race, that is, from Adam, who was the first man that was made, down to Noah, who constructed the ark at the time of the flood", i.e. the Antediluvian period.
The Second Age "extends from that period on to Abraham, who was called the father indeed of all nations".
The Third Age "extends from Abraham on to David the king".
The Fourth Age is "from David on to that captivity whereby the people of God passed over into Babylonia".
The Fifth Age is "from that transmigration down to the advent of our Lord Jesus Christ"
The Sixth Age: "With His [Jesus Christ's] coming the sixth age has entered on its process."
The Ages reflect the seven days of creation, of which the last day is the rest of Sabbath, illustrating the human journey to find eternal rest with God, a common Christian belief.

In a similar manner ecclesiastical history is divided up into different ages.
Early Christianity is generally reckoned by church historians to begin with the ministry of Jesus (c. 27–30) and end with the First Council of Nicaea (325). It is typically divided into two periods: the Apostolic Age (c. 30–100, when the first apostles were still alive) and the Ante-Nicene Period (c. 100–325).

Apostolic Age
The Apostolic Age is named after the Apostles and their missionary activities. It holds special significance in Christian tradition as the age of the direct apostles of Jesus. A primary source for the Apostolic Age is the Acts of the Apostles, but its historical accuracy is questionable and its coverage is partial, focusing especially from Acts 15:36 onwards on the ministry of Paul, and ending around 62 AD with Paul preaching in Rome under house arrest.
The earliest followers of Jesus were apocalyptic Jewish Christians. The early Christian groups were strictly Jewish, such as the Ebionites and the early Christian community in Jerusalem, led by James, the brother of Jesus. According to Acts 9:1–2, they described themselves as "disciples of the Lord" and [followers] "of the Way", and according to Acts 11:26 a settled community of disciples at Antioch were the first to be called "Christians". Some of the early Christian communities attracted gentile God-fearers, who already visited Jewish synagogues. The inclusion of gentiles posed a problem, as they could not fully observe the Halakha. Saul of Tarsus, commonly known as Paul the Apostle, persecuted the early Jewish Christians, then converted and started his mission among the gentiles. The main concern of Paul's letters is the inclusion of gentiles into God's New Covenant, deeming faith in Christ sufficient for righteousness. Because of this inclusion of gentiles, early Christianity changed its character and gradually grew apart from Judaism and Jewish Christianity during the first two centuries of the Christian Era.

The ante-Nicene period was the period following the Apostolic Age down to the First Council of Nicaea in 325. It saw the period now known as the Apostolic Fathers which in time was followed by the traditional known age of the Church Fathers.

The Apostolic Fathers
Christian writers of the first and second centuries who are known, or are considered, to have had personal relations with some of the Apostles, or to have been so influenced by them that their writings may be held as echoes of genuine Apostolic teaching. Though restricted by some to those who were actually disciples of the Apostles, the term applies by extension to certain writers who were previously believed to have been such, and virtually embraces all the remains of primitive Christian literature antedating the great apologies of the second century, and forming the link of tradition that binds these latter writings to those of the New Testament.
The name was apparently unknown in Christian literature before the end of the seventeenth century. The term Apostolic, however, was commonly used to qualify Churches, persons, writings, etc. from the early second century, when St. Ignatius, in the exordium of his Epistle to the Trallians, saluted their Church "after the Apostolic manner." In 1672 Jean Baptiste Cotelier (Cotelerius) published his "SS. Patrum qui temporibus apostolicis floruerunt opera", which title was abbreviated to "Bibliotheca Patrum Apostolicorum" by L. J. Ittig in his edition (Leipzig, 1699) of the same writings. Since then the term has been universally used.

The Church Fathers were ancient and influential Christian theologians and writers who established the intellectual and doctrinal foundations of Christianity. The historical period of the Patristic Era spans approximately the late 1st to mid 8th centuries.

Fathers of the Church
The word Father is used in the New Testament to mean a teacher of spiritual things, by whose means the soul of man is born again into the likeness of Christ: "For if you have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet not many fathers. For in Christ Jesus, by the Gospel, I have begotten you. Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ" (1 Corinthians 4:15, 16; cf. Galatians 4:19). The first teachers of Christianity seem to be collectively spoken of as "the Fathers" (2 Peter 3:4).
Thus St. Irenæus defines that a teacher is a father, and a disciple is a son (iv, 41,2), and so says Clement of Alexandria (Stromata I.1.1). A bishop is emphatically a "father in Christ", both because it was he, in early times, who baptized all his flock, and because he is the chief teacher of his church. But he is also regarded by the early Fathers, such as Hegesippus, Irenaeus, and Tertullian as the recipient of the tradition of his predecessors in the see, and consequently as the witness and representative of the faith of his Church before Catholicity and the world. Hence the expression "the Fathers" comes naturally to be applied to the holy bishops of a preceding age, whether of the last generation or further back, since they are the parents at whose knee the Church of today was taught her belief. It is also applicable in an eminent way to bishops sitting in council, "the Fathers of Nicaea", "the Fathers of Trent". Thus Fathers have learnt from Fathers, and in the last resort from the Apostles, who are sometimes called Fathers in this sense: "They are your Fathers", says St. Leo, of the Princes of the Apostles, speaking to the Romans; St. Hilary of Arles calls them sancti patres; Clement of Alexandria says that his teachers, from Greece, Ionia, Coele-Syria, Egypt, the Orient, Assyria, Palestine, respectively, had handed on to him the tradition of blessed teaching from Peter, and James, and John, and Paul, receiving it "as son from father".
It follows that, as our own Fathers are the predecessors who have taught us, so the Fathers of the whole Church are especially the earlier teachers, who instructed her in the teaching of the Apostles, during her infancy and first growth. It is difficult to define the first age of the Church, or the age of the Fathers. It is a common habit to stop the study of the early Church at the Council of Chalcedon in 451. "The Fathers" must undoubtedly include, in the West, St. Gregory the Great (d. 604), and in the East, St. John Damascene (d. about 754). It is frequently said that St. Bernard (d. 1153) was the last of the Fathers, and Migne's "Patrologia Latina" extends to Innocent III, halting only on the verge of the thirteenth century, while his "Patrologia Graeca" goes as far as the Council of Florence (1438-9). These limits are evidently too wide, It will be best to consider that the great merit of St. Bernard as a writer lies in his resemblance in style and matter to the greatest among the Fathers, in spite of the difference of period. St. Isidore of Seville (d. 636) and the Venerable Bede (d. 735) are to be classed among the Fathers, but they may be said to have been born out of due time, as St. Theodore the Studite was in the East.
Classification of patristic writings
In order to get a good view of the patristic period, the Fathers may be divided in various ways. One favourite method is by periods; the Ante-Nicene Fathers till 325; the Great Fathers of the fourth century and half the fifth (325-451); and the later Fathers. A more obvious division is into Easterns and Westerns, and the Easterns will comprise writers in Greek, Syriac, Armenian, and Coptic. A convenient division into smaller groups will be by periods, nationalities and character of writings; for in the East and West there were many races, and some of the ecclesiastical writers are apologists, some preachers, some historians, some commentators, and so forth.
A. After (1) the Apostolic Fathers come in the second century (2) the Greek apologists, followed by (3) the Western apologists somewhat later, (4) the Gnostic and Marcionite heretics with their apocryphal Scriptures, and (5) the Catholic replies to them.
B. The third century gives us (1) the Alexandrian writers of the catechetical school, (2) the writers of Asia Minor and (3) Palestine, and the first Western writers, (4) at Rome, Hippolytus (in Greek), and Novatian, (5) the great African writers, and a few others.
C. The fourth century opens with (1) the apologetic and the historical works of Eusebius of Caesarea, with whom we may class St. Cyril of Jerusalem and St. Epiphanius, (2) the Alexandrian writers Athanasius, Didymus, and others, (3) the Cappadocians, (4) the Antiochenes, (5) the Syriac writers. In the West we have (6) the opponents of Arianism, (7) the Italians, including Jerome, (8) the Africans, and (9) the Spanish and Gallic writers.
D. The fifth century gives us (1) the Nestorian controversy, (2) the Eutychian controversy, including the Western St. Leo; (3) the historians. In the West (4) the school of Lérins, (5) the letters of the popes.
E. The sixth century and the seventh give us less important names and they must be grouped in a more mechanical way.

Wikipedia explains the Church Fathers as follows:

The Church Fathers, Early Church Fathers, Christian Fathers, or Fathers of the Church were ancient and influential Christian theologians and writers who established the intellectual and doctrinal foundations of Christianity. The historical period of the Patristic Era spans approximately the late 1st to mid 8th centuries, with a flourishing during the 4th and 5th centuries, when Christianity was in the process of establishing itself as the state church of the Roman Empire.
In traditional dogmatic theology, authors considered Church Fathers are treated as authoritative, and a somewhat restrictive definition is used. The academic field of patristics, the study of the Church Fathers, has extended the scope of the term, and there is no definitive list.
Great Fathers
In the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church traditions there are four Fathers each who are called the "Great Church Fathers". In the Catholic Church, they are collectively called the "Eight Doctors of the Church",
Western Church
Ambrose (A.D. 340–397)
Jerome (347–420)
Augustine of Hippo (354–430)
Pope Gregory I (540–604)
Eastern Church
Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296 or 298 – 373)
Gregory of Nazianzus (329 – c. 390)
Basil of Caesarea (c. 330 – 379)
John Chrysostom (347–407)
In the Eastern Orthodox Church, three of them (Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus and John Chrysostom) are honored as the "Three Holy Hierarchs".
Apostolic Fathers
The Apostolic Fathers were Christian theologians who lived in the 1st and 2nd centuries AD, who are believed to have personally known some of the Twelve Apostles, or to have been significantly influenced by them. Their writings, though popular in Early Christianity, were ultimately not included in the canon of the New Testament once it reached its final form. Many of the writings derive from the same time period and geographical location as other works of early Christian literature that did come to be part of the New Testament, and some of the writings found among the Apostolic Fathers' seem to have been just as highly regarded as some of the writings that became the New Testament. The first three, Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp, are considered the chief ones.
Patristics
The study of the Church Fathers is known as patristics.
Works of fathers in early Christianity, prior to Nicene Christianity, were translated into English in a 19th-century collection Ante-Nicene Fathers. Those of the First Council of Nicaea and continuing through the Second Council of Nicea (787) are collected in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers.


Was Adam mortal before he partook of the tree of knowledge of good and evil?

First, we must understand that only God is inherently immortal. The apostle Paulos states that God "alone has immortality" (ὁ μόνος ἔχων ἀθανασίαν) (1 Tim. 6:16), for He alone is uncreated. Everything else that is not God is a creature, and thus, not inherently immortal. Now, although many creatures are not inherently immortal, God gives them immortality as He wills. This includes angels and Christians (John 10:28). (However, just as He gives immortality, He could also (potentially) take it away.)
As for Adam, we know for a fact that he was not inherently immortal, since only God is. Thus, the question we must ask is whether God ever gave immortality to Adam, before or after his transgression.
When Yahveh breathed into Adam's nostrils the "breath of life" (נִשְׁמַת חַיִּים), "Adam became a living creature" (וַיְהִי הָאָדָם לְנֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה) (Gen. 2:7). However, we do not know whether Adam was immortal or mortal at this point. Some time thereafter, Adam partook of the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 3:6). Afterwards, Yahveh declared (Gen. 3:22), "Behold, Adam became like one of us, to know good and evil, and now, lest he put forth his hand and also take of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever."
To "live forever" is undoubtedly synonymous with "be immortal." But, the scripture is clear that Adam would only live forever (be immortal) if he partook from the tree of life. The logical consequence is that Adam was not immortal - at least not after the fall - because he never partook from the tree of life. Yahveh obstructed Adam's access to the tree of life and banished him from Paradise (Gen. 3:24). Again, this only proves that Adam was not immortal after the fall.
However, there is a possibility, as Brilliant noted, that Adam was immortal prior to his fall, being made so by Yahveh. Then, by partaking of the fruit, he lost this immortality, and Yahveh prohibited Adam from regaining this immortality by impeding access to the tree of life.
But, we should note that, in his original state, Yahveh made trees in the garden that were "good for food" (טוֹב לְמַאֲכָל) (Gen. 2:9). While one may argue that the trees could have provided food for animals rather than Adam, Yahveh indeed informed Adam that he could eat from the trees (Gen. 2:16). Now, Jesus himself ate food after his resurrection (Luke 24:30; 24:43) despite having an incorruptible and immortal body. Therefore, the argument could be made that such trees in the garden, despite being "good for food," do not necessarily indicate that Adam required sustinence from the trees, just as Jesus did not necessarily require sustinence from the food he ate after his resurrection in his incorruptible and immortal body.
All that being said, I believe the apostle Paulos provides a definite answer in his first epistle to the Corinthians. In discussing the resurrection of the dead, he wrote,

1 Cor. 15:44-45

44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. 45 Likewise it is written, the first man "Adam became a living creature" (*or soul). The last Adam [became] a life-giving spirit.
44 σπείρεται σῶμα ψυχικόν ἐγείρεται σῶμα πνευματικόν ἔστιν σῶμα ψυχικόν καὶ ἔστιν σῶμα πνευματικόν 45 οὕτως καὶ γέγραπται Ἐγένετο ὁ πρῶτος ἄνθρωπος Ἀδὰμ εἰς ψυχὴν ζῶσαν ὁ ἔσχατος Ἀδὰμ εἰς πνεῦμα ζῳοποιοῦν

Now, it is important to note that in v. 44, the apostle Paulos is contrasting two bodies: the "natural body" (lit. "soulish body": σῶμα ψυχικόν) and the "spiritual body" (σῶμα πνευματικόν). Then in the very next verse, saying "likewise it is written," he establishes the proof of these two bodies, using as examples "the first man Adam" who "became a living soul" and "the last Adam," Jesus Christ, who became "a life-giving spirit."
By this, we can establish that Adam possessed the "natural body" (σῶμα ψυχικόν) at the very moment he "became a living soul." Since he became a living soul (Gen. 2:7) prior to his transgression and fall, then we could ascribe all the properties the apostle Paulos attributes to the "natural body" in 1 Cor. 15 to Adam himself prior to his fall. These would include:

corruption (φθορά) (1 Cor. 15:42)
dishonor (ἀτιμία) (1 Cor. 15:43)
weakness (ἀσθένεια) (1 Cor. 15:43)

More importantly, it would include mortality and corruptibility (1 Cor. 15:53-54). On the other hand, Jesus who became a life-giving spirit possessed the spiritual body with the attributes of immortality and incorruptibility.


Who did Christ first appear to after his resurection?

Peter was the first Apostle Jesus appeared to but Mary Magdalene was the first person to have seen Him after His resurrection.

Thank you. Hope this answer helps!


Why do Anglicans have the "give away" optional in Common Worship but obligatory in Anglican Book of Common Prayer?

According to its wikipedia article, the Anglican publication 'Common Worship: Services and Prayers for the Church of England' was launched in the year 2000 and was a successor to the Alternative Service Book (ASB) of 1980, which was an authorized alternative to the Book of Common Prayer of 1662.

The form of the wedding service in the first trial use volume of 1965 (of the ASB) retained the question by the Priest, "who giveth this woman &c." as did the 1977 publication of the marriage service. However, in 1977, The word "may" was added to the rubric (the instructions to the Priest printed in the book), so that while formerly it was obligatory to ask, in both options in A and B in the 1977 volume (and presumably the ASB in 1980, the asking "who giveth..." was at the discretion of the Priest.

It should be noted that although each of the independent Churches in the Anglican Communion are autonomous, and many (if not all) prepare their own version of the Book of Common Prayer. Tthe development of the various Books of Common Prayer of the various constituent bodies of the Anglican Communion does not take place in a vacuum, however. In the 1960's and 1970's, the development of the Book of Common Prayer of the US Episcopal Church led to the revision of 1979, in the marriage service of which there is a note after the declaration of consent (on p. 425) which provides that "If there is to be a presentation of a giving in marriage it takes place at this time. See p. 437. The additional directions there provide two options: that the woman may be given(presented) in marriage to the man, or that the woman and man may be presented to be married to each other.

While I have no direct knowledge that those who prepared the ASB were familiar with the US BCP, I would be astonished if they did not.

The reason for these changes, and others like them, was to adapt the forms of service to be an appropriate alternative (to the BCP) within a 20th (and later, 21st) century context (the BCP had not been revised for over 300 years, efforts to do so had been defeated 40 years earlier - source). In particular regard to the wedding service, the revision process accommodated a more modern understanding of life and marriage that would separate the cultural norms of patriarchal societies from eternal scriptural principles, particularly cognizant that: a daughter is not the property of her father until she is given over to become the property of her husband.  A judgment was made, that while the reverse of the latter statement is not necessarily anti-thetical to biblical principle, it is not necessitated by it either.

Another way of summarising this is to say that the Anglican Communion (in general and the Church of England in particular),  has been subject to the influence of Feminism.  Saying this is not to imply that all aspects of Feminism have been incorporated into Anglican polity - where this influence has been generally recognised and adopted, it is usually termed 'egalitarianism'.


Christian Position on the meaning of Faith

Faith is the conviction and acceptance of what God has revealed to you. Faith persists even when challenged or confronted with reasons to not accept what God has revealed to you.

The object of Christian faith is always God. Christian faith is not blind or baseless, rather it derives it's strength and endurance from it's source: God.

Since faith is based on God's revelation, it outweighs any other form of evidence that one may base a conclusion on.  It may coexist with doubt when doubt is caused by some evidence contrary to what God has revealed, but faith will always win out.


What was Paul's "revelation" (mentioned in Galatians 2:2)?

The revelation was most likely simply a directive from God to go up to Jerusalem to talk with the apostles. This is the most natural way to read the verse, and there would be nothing surprising about this conclusion on the basis of the rest of Paul's life, since he was an apostle.

An apostle had to be someone who had seen Christ directly with his eyes. This is evidenced in the choosing of a replacement for Judas. It is also shown in this chapter itself; Paul is arguing that he has apostolic authority on the basis of the fact that he has had a revelation of Jesus Christ (1:11-12). Thus, he is an apostle not because he was sent by men, nor even commissioned by (authorized) men on behalf of God (this is the usual interpretation of 1:1). See also 1:16. Thus Paul says of himself elsewhere, "Last of all, as though I had been born at the wrong time, I also saw him."

Other examples of specific revelations he received:

His conversion story, when he sees Christ face-to-face
His apparent reference to himself in the "I know a man who has caught up into third heaven" passage
His distinction in 1 Corinthians 7 between his own apostolic wisdom and the revelation he has directly from Jesus
The Spirit's revelation to him of his sufferings in Jerusalem
The Spirit's preventing him from going into Asia at one point (there may be a different interpretation of this)

Therefore, given that the Lord seems to have spoken to him not only at his conversion and not only to teach him doctrine, and given that the context is that he had been gone for fourteen years without seeing any need to go to Jerusalem (2:1), it seems extremely likely that the revelation was a specific direction that he ought to go up to Jerusalem and confer with the apostles, particularly James, Peter and John (2:9).


What is the difference between justification and sanctification?

Justification - being declared perfect, a single act of Grace by God to the repentant sinner
Sanctification - the process of being made perfect, a day by day activity of God and the Christian working in partnership
Glorification - becoming perfect, the moment when the struggle is over, heaven is entered and God completes his masterpiece: You.

Relevant Biblical verse:

Hebrews 12:2 emphasis mine
Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

author means He started and continued it
perfecter means He finished it


When did guitar led worship music become accepted?

The acoustic (non-electric) guitar is an instrument with a very soft dynamic range relative to most other instruments, such as the organ, or wind instruments, and is not effective in leading large assemblies in worship. The electric guitar was invented in 1931, but the electric signal from the guitar required amplifiers to increase the volume of the sound, s without amplification, the signal from the electric guitar has a low dynamic range, too. Guitars began to be used in church when amplifiers became small enough to be portable, and became inexpensive in the late 1960's. The use of guitars in worship services was also encouraged by the liturgical reform movement that enveloped many denominations in the early 1960's, perhaps partly a consequence of the social consciousness engendered by the folk movement of the late 1950's and 1960's, where such songs as "If I had a hammer", and "We shall overcome" bore witness to a sense of social justice that conformed with Jesus' teaching. The electric guitar came to be used in these settings, in part because by this time it, and the associated amplifiers and speakers were inexpensive, and relatively portable when compared to the organ, and was a close match in volume to an organ for accompanying a group of people.

Most of those building what are today known as mega-churches adopted the guitar, and other non-traditional accompaniment styles, probably in part because they wanted to differentiate themselves from congregations in traditions where the organ was still more or less widely used, because of the inflexibility imposed by the size and immobility of the organ, and I suspect, in part, because of the expense and lead time involved when purchasing an organ.


Besides St. Casimir, are any other saints portrayed with three hands in iconography?

There is some iconography (religious art) with three hands or an extra hand in them. There is one that concerns St. John of Damascus, but not St. John the Evangelist.

Icon of the Mother of God of “the Three Hands”

  In the eighth century during the time of the Iconoclasts, Saint John of Damascus (December 4) was zealous in his veneration of holy icons. Because of this, he was slandered by the emperor and iconoclast Leo III the Isaurian (717-740), who informed the Damascus caliph that Saint John was committing treasonous acts against him. The caliph gave orders to cut off the hand of the monk and take it to the marketplace. Towards evening Saint John, having asked the caliph for the cut-off hand, put it to its joint and fell to the ground before the icon of the Mother of God. The monk begged Our Lady to heal the hand, which had written in defense of Orthodoxy. After long prayer he fell asleep and saw in a dream that the All-Pure Mother of God had turned to him promising him quick healing.

  Before this the Mother of God bid him toil without fail with this hand. Having awakened from sleep, Saint John saw that his hand was unharmed. In thankfulness for this healing Saint John placed on the icon a hand fashioned of silver, from which the icon received its name “Of Three Hands.” (Some iconographers, in their ignorance, have mistakenly depicted the Most Holy Theotokos with three arms and three hands.) According to Tradition, Saint John wrote a hymn of thanksgiving to the Mother of God: “All of creation rejoices in You, O Full of Grace,” which appears in place of the hymn “It is Truly Meet” in the Liturgy of Saint Basil the Great.

  Saint John Damascene accepted monasticism at the monastery of Saint Sava the Sanctified and there bestowed his wonderworking icon. The Lavra presented the icon “Of Three Hands” in blessing to Saint Sava, Archbishop of Serbia (+ 1237, January 12). During the time of an invasion of Serbia by the Turks, some Christians who wanted to protect the icon, entrusted it to the safekeeping of the Mother of God Herself. They placed it upon a donkey, which without a driver proceeded to Athos and stopped in front of the Hilandar monastery. The monks put the icon in the monastery’s cathedral church (katholikon). During a time of discord over the choice of igumen, the Mother of God deigned to head the monastery Herself, and from that time Her holy icon has occupied the igumen’s place in the temple. At the Hilandar monastery there is chosen only a vicar, and from the holy icon the monks take a blessing for every obedience.

  In Slavic usage, this Icon is commemorated on July 12.

Related by not really answering the question is the fact that Leonardo da Vinci's famous fresco of The Last Supper has an extra hand in it. I have been aware of this particular fact long before Dan Brown's novel The Da Vinci Code made people's imagination run away with themselves in interpreting various modern meaning involved in this fresco. We were taught in the seminary that the extra hand in The Last Supper symbolized the fact that the Devil wanted to stir things up (mischief) especially with the Prince of the Apostles, St. Peter. The seminary which I attended had and still has a professor who is also a professional artist.

Leonardo da Vinci's The Last Supper

The hand with the knife can be seen between the third and fourth disciple on the left hand side of the image. It is not easy to see, but a better image may be seen here, although I find the commentator a little off with his wording. It could be noted that the Latin word for left-handed is sinister.


Are Jehovah's Witnesses particularly anti-violence?

Both. The article Why Don’t Jehovah’s Witnesses Go to War? on JW.org addresses this well.
On the one hand, they are "neutral" toward governments:

Jesus’ disciples obey his command to be “no part of the world” by remaining strictly neutral in political matters. (John 17:16) They do not protest against military actions or interfere with those who choose to serve in the armed forces.

From chapter 7 of their booklet Keep Yourselves in God's Love, entitled Value Life and Blood as God Does, they say:

Because Jesus’ followers are “no part of the world” but remain strictly neutral toward its politics and wars, they avoid personal and community bloodguilt. * (John 15:19; 17:16) And in imitation of Christ, they do not respond violently when others persecute them. Rather, they show love for their enemies, even praying for them.

You can read more about their rationale for political neutrality here.
And on the other hand, they abstain from violence out of a devotion to "the love ethic of Jesus" (quoting again from Why Don’t Jehovah’s Witnesses Go to War?):

Jesus commanded his disciples to “love one another.” (John 13:34, 35) They would thus form an international brotherhood in which no member would ever wage war against his brother or sister. ...
The Encyclopedia of Religion and War states: “The earliest followers of Jesus rejected war and military service,” recognizing those practices as “incompatible with the love ethic of Jesus and the injunction to love one’s enemies.” Likewise, German theologian Peter Meinhold said of those early disciples of Jesus: “Being a Christian and a soldier was considered irreconcilable.”

Similarly, in the Watchtower article "Is War Compatible with Christianity?" they say, "Is it reasonable to think that a Christian could love and pray for his enemies while waging war against them?" And it says in Value Life and Blood:

Those who value life as Jehovah does and who want to keep themselves in his love also avoid violence in all its forms. Says Psalm 11:5: “He hates anyone who loves violence.” That text is more than a statement about God’s personality; it is a guiding principle for life.

There are exceptions to their generally anti-violence stance. They believe that it is just for governments to administer capital punishment to murderers. They permit violent self-defense in the case of your life (or loved ones' lives) being threatened, though they oppose it if it's merely in defense of property.


What was the name of the Pharaoh during the time of Moses?

Nobody knows for sure but modern speculations and depictions have centered on Ramses the II, Aka Ramses the Great.   Here is an Egyptian news paper article on the subject.

http://thecairopost.youm7.com/news/142273/culture/ramses-ii-pharaoh-of-exodus-researcher-says

"In the Bible it never mentions Pharaoh's name but every other king/queen is mentioned by name. Did I miss it? Whats his name?"

I believe that you are mixing up genres.   In the Later books of the Bible, the names of Kings, Pharaohs, and Emperors are named specifically.    In Genesis, however only The Canaanite Kings are named, and none of the Pharaohs that the patriarchs met are named.   So no it's not really surprising that the Pharaoh was not specifically named since that was not the custom of the original oral tradition of the time (That was eventually recorded by Moses).


A.W. Pink and the Tripartite Theory of Man

Other places Pink mentions his tripartite view of man are:

Gleanings in Genesis, p. 107

"Is it not clear then that the ark divided into three stories more than hints at our threefold salvation in Christ? The salvation which we have in Christ is a threefold one, and that in a double sense. It is a salvation which embraces each part of our threefold constitution, making provision for the redemption of our spirit, and soul, and body (1 Thes. 5:23); and further, our salvation is a three tense salvation—we have been saved from the penalty of sin, are being saved from the power of sin, we shall yet be saved from the presence of sin."

The Great Change

“Man was created a tripartite being, composed of “spirit and soul and body” (I Thess. v, 23). That is unmistakably implied in the Divine account of his creation: “God said, Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness” (Gen. i, 26); the Triune God made man a trinity in unity! And when man fell, he continued to be a tripartite being: no part of his being was extinguished, no faculty was lost when he apostatized from God. It cannot be insisted upon too strongly that no essential element of man’s original constitution was forfeited, no component part of his complex makeup was annihilated at the Fall, for multitudes are seeking to hide behind a misconception at this very point. They would fain believe that man lost some vital part of his nature when Adam ate of the forbidden fruit, and that it is the absence of this part in his descendants which explains (and excuses!) all their failures.”


Why was Thanksgiving in the US traditionally the last Thursday before Advent?

The Short answer is: There seems to be no connection between Thanksgiving Day and the First Sunday of Advent. However, the number of shopping days after Thanksgiving influenced the move from the Last Thursday of November (1863) to the Fourth Thursday of November (1939).

In fact the First Thanksgiving was held by the Pilgrims in October 1621.

  The event that Americans commonly call the "First Thanksgiving" was celebrated by the Pilgrims after their first harvest in the New World in October 1621. This feast lasted three days, and—as accounted by attendee Edward Winslow — it was attended by 90 Native Americans and 53 Pilgrims. The New England colonists were accustomed to regularly celebrating "thanksgivings"—days of prayer thanking God for blessings such as military victory or the end of a drought. - Thanksgiving (United States)

While turkey is today the bird of choice for Thanksgiving dinners across the United States, this was not always the case: according to History.com, for the first ever Thanksgiving in 1621 the Indians killed five deer as a gift for the colonists, meaning venison would most likely have been the dish of the day.

  Thanksgiving is a national holiday in the United States, celebrated on the fourth Thursday of November. It originated as a harvest festival. Thanksgiving has been celebrated nationally on and off since 1789, with a proclamation by George Washington after a request by Congress. Thomas Jefferson chose not to observe the holiday, and its celebration was intermittent until the presidency of Abraham Lincoln, when Thanksgiving became a federal holiday in 1863, during the American Civil War. Lincoln proclaimed a national day of "Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens," to be celebrated on the last Thursday in November. Under President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the date was changed to the fourth Thursday in November, an innovation that endures to this day. Together with Christmas and the New Year, Thanksgiving is a part of the broader fall–winter holiday season in the U.S. Thanksgivng (United States)

President Abraham Lincoln chose that the Last Thursday of November to be that of Thanksgiving because of the decisive victory the Union Army had at Gettysburg.

  On this day (October 3) in 1863, expressing gratitude for a pivotal Union Army victory at Gettysburg, President Abraham Lincoln announces that the nation will celebrate an official Thanksgiving holiday on November 26, 1863. - Lincoln proclaims official Thanksgiving holiday

The final change from the Last Thursday of November to the Fourth Thursday of November was not influenced by the First Sunday of Advent but by the number of shopping days left before Christmas.

At the beginning of Franklin Roosevelt's presidency, Thanksgiving was not a fixed holiday; it was up to the President to issue a Thanksgiving Proclamation to announce what date the holiday would fall on. However, Thanksgiving was always the last Thursday in November because that was the day President Abraham Lincoln observed the holiday when he declared Thanksgiving a national holiday in 1863. Franklin Roosevelt continued that tradition, but he soon found that tradition was difficult to keep in extreme circumstances such as the Great Depression. His first Thanksgiving in office, 1933, fell on November 30th, the last day of the month, because November had five Thursdays that year. Since statistics showed that most people did not do their Christmas shopping until after Thanksgiving, business leaders feared they would lose money, especially during the Depression, because there were only 24 shopping days between Thanksgiving and Christmas. They asked Franklin Roosevelt to make Thanksgiving one week earlier. President Roosevelt ignored those concerns in 1933, but when Thanksgiving once again threatened to fall on the last day of November in 1939, FDR reconsidered the request and moved the date of Thanksgiving up one week. Thanksgiving 1939 would be held, President Roosevelt proclaimed, on November 23rd and not November 30th.

  The fourth Thursday of November remained the annual day of Thanksgiving from 1863 until 1939. Then, at the tail-end of the Depression, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, hoping to boost the economy by providing shoppers and merchants a few extra days to conduct business between the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays, moved Thanksgiving to November’s third Thursday. In 1941, however, Roosevelt bowed to Congress’ insistence that the fourth Thursday of November be re-set permanently, without alteration, as the official Thanksgiving holiday. - Lincoln proclaims official Thanksgiving holiday


Were the Old Testament prophets married?

Were the Old Testament Prophets Elijah, Isaiah,  Jeremiah and Ezekiel married?

The short answer is yes and no.

As for the Prophet Elijah, the answer is we simply do not know.

The Scriptures do not mention one way or another if the Prophet Elijah was married or not.

The Prophet Isaiah was certainly married.

  Isaiah was the 8th-century BCE Israelite prophet after whom the Book of Isaiah is named.

  Within the text of the Book of Isaiah, Isaiah himself is referred to as "the prophet", but the exact relationship between the Book of Isaiah and any such historical Isaiah is complicated. The traditional view is that all 66 chapters of the book of Isaiah were written by one man, Isaiah, possibly in two periods between 740 BC and c. 686 BC, separated by approximately 15 years, and includes dramatic prophetic declarations of Cyrus the Great in the Bible, acting to restore the nation of Israel from Babylonian captivity. Another widely held view is that parts of the first half of the book (chapters 1–39) originated with the historical prophet, interspersed with prose commentaries written in the time of King Josiah a hundred years later, and that the remainder of the book dates from immediately before and immediately after the end of the exile in Babylon, almost two centuries after the time of the historical prophet.

  The first verse of the Book of Isaiah states that Isaiah prophesied during the reigns of Uzziah (or Azariah), Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, the kings of Judah (Isaiah 1:1). Uzziah's reign was 52 years in the middle of the 8th century BC, and Isaiah must have begun his ministry a few years before Uzziah's death, probably in the 740s BC. Isaiah lived until the fourteenth year of Hezekiah's reign (who died 698 BC). He may have been contemporary for some years with Manasseh. Thus Isaiah may have prophesied for as long as 64 years.

  According to some modern interpretations, Isaiah's wife was called "the prophetess" (Isaiah 8:3), either because she was endowed with the prophetic gift, like Deborah (Judges 4:4) and Huldah (2 Kings 22:14–20), or simply because she was the "wife of the prophet". They had three sons, naming the eldest Shear-jashub, meaning "A remnant shall return" (Isaiah 7:3), the next Immanuel, meaning "God with us" (Isaiah 7:14), and the youngest, Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz, meaning, "Spoil quickly, plunder speedily" (Isaiah 8:3).

The Prophet Jeremiah was forbidden to marry.

  Jeremiah Forbidden to Marry

  16 The Lord gave me another message. He said, 2 “Do not get married or have children in this place. 3 For this is what the Lord says about the children born here in this city and about their mothers and fathers: 4 They will die from terrible diseases. No one will mourn for them or bury them, and they will lie scattered on the ground like manure. They will die from war and famine, and their bodies will be food for the vultures and wild animals.”

The Prophet Ezekiel was equally married.

  What is known of Ezekiel is derived solely from the book that bears his name. He was among the Jews exiled to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar in 597 b.c., and there among the exiles he received his call to become a prophet (see 1:1–3). He was married (see 24:15–18), lived in a house of his own (see 3:24; 8:1) and along with his fellow exiles, though confined to Babylonia, had a relatively free existence there.

  He was of a priestly family (see NIV text note on 1:3) and therefore was eligible to serve as a priest. As a priest-prophet called to minister to the exiles (separated from the temple of the Lord with its symbolism, sacrifices, priestly ministrations and worship rituals), his message had much to do with the temple (see especially chs. 8–11; 40–48) and its ceremonies.

  Ezekiel was obviously a man of broad knowledge, not only of his own national traditions but also of international affairs and history. His acquaintance with general matters of culture, from shipbuilding to literature, is equally amazing. He was gifted with a powerful intellect and was capable of grasping large issues and of dealing with them in grand and compelling images. His style is often detached, but in places it is passionate and earthy (see chs. 16; 23).

  More than any other prophet (more even than Hosea and Jeremiah) he was directed to involve himself personally in the divine word by acting it out in prophetic symbolism. - Ezekiel


What is the LDS line of authority should a Bishop be unavailable?

The policy for who presides at sacrament meeting is found in Handbook 2, 18.2*:

  The bishop oversees ward meetings. He presides at these meetings
  unless a member of the stake presidency, an Area Seventy, or a General
  Authority attends. His counselors may conduct ward meetings and may
  preside if he is absent. Presiding authorities and visiting high
  councilors should be invited to sit on the stand. High councilors do
  not preside when attending ward meetings.

  If the bishop and his counselors are all absent, the stake president
  designates who presides at sacrament meeting. Normally he designates
  the elders quorum president, but he could authorize another
  priesthood holder instead.

So, if the bishop is absent, his counselors preside. In practice, this usually means the first counselor, and if he is absent, it is the second counselor. If neither the bishopric nor his counselors are present, whoever the stake president designates will preside.

If the entire bishopric is unexpectedly gone and the stake presidency is unreachable to designate who will preside, then circumstances are extraordinary and chances are that a normal sacrament meeting would not be held.

The sacrament can only be administered with authorization from the bishop (who holds priesthood keys for ordinances like baptism and the sacrament within his ward boundaries), or the stake president, who holds similar keys within his stake. The bishop may authorize a priesthood holder to administer the sacrament in his ward boundaries, outside of a formal sacrament meeting. Nobody presides per se at these informal sacrament services, but the person who the bishop designates conducts (see 18.2.2 in the Handbook chapter linked above).

*Prior to April 2019, when this answer was originally written, the quote from Handbook 2 referenced the "high priests group leader" instead of the elders quorum president. The high priests group leader position no longer exists as of April 2018, so the quote has been updated to reflect the newer wording in Handbook 2.


I think that the best answer here is that the Scriptures are not entirely clear on how original sin is transmitted.  One thing that we do know (or believe the scriptures to teach) is:

The sin nature is passed on to us from our fathers and not our mothers

Sin entered the world through Adam - Romans 5:12 - not Eve who sinned first.
More directly taught in Heb 7:9-10
Christ Who did not have an earthly father did not have original sin passed to Him.

That is about all that we know (and even this view is heavily disputed.)

Other good questions:
Is it genetic (I doubt it) or spiritual (much more likely)?  What would happen if we used two women's DNA to clone a new person, if the new creation had a soul would it be sinless?


What is the Biblical Basis for saying that we "go to heaven"?

This is actually the dominant view of Christianity: the doctrine of an intermediate state after death and before the resurrection. "Going to heaven" means being with God in a non-bodied but conscious spiritual way after we die, before we experience resurrected bodily life in the New Heavens and New Earth. The main alternative view is that of Christian mortalism, often called "soul sleep", which says that we will not experience the time between our deaths and resurrections.

Many verses can be seen as indicating this view of the afterlife, including these:

Jesus now dwells in heaven:

  Acts 1:11: “Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.”

  Ephesians 1:19-20: ... That power is the same as the mighty strength he exerted when he raised Christ from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms,

  Hebrews 8:1-2: Now the main point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by a mere human being.

Jesus says to one of the criminals crucified with him that he will join him:

  Luke 23:43: Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”

Paul teaches that the alternative to this earthly life is to be with Christ:

  2 Corinthians 5:6-8: Therefore we are always confident and know that as long as we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord. For we live by faith, not by sight. We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord.

  Philippians 1:21-24:  For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain. If I am to go on living in the body, this will mean fruitful labor for me. Yet what shall I choose? I do not know! I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far; but it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body.

From Revelation, the people of God serve him before his heavenly throne:

  Revelation 7:9, 15: After this I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands. ... “they are before the throne of God
      and serve him day and night in his temple;
  and he who sits on the throne
      will shelter them with his presence.

And some verses suggest that when Jesus does come again to initiate his kingdom in the New Heavens and New Earth, that Christians who have died with come with him:

  Colossians 3:4: When Christ, who is your life, appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.

  1 Thessalonians 3:13: May he strengthen your hearts so that you will be blameless and holy in the presence of our God and Father when our Lord Jesus comes with all his holy ones.

  1 Thessalonians 4:14: For we believe that Jesus died and rose again, and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him.

But I think most Christians who teach this view would agree that saying that salvation is about "going to heaven" is incomplete and unhelpful, and that it could lead to misunderstanding that humans being with Christ out of our bodies is natural rather than temporary and unnatural, and that our great hope is to go to heaven rather than to live with Christ in resurrected bodies on a restored and perfected earth. So it's not wrong, but it can be unhelpful.

There could be one another way in which people talking about "going to heaven" - having visions of heaven in this life. After several recent and unfortunately popular books this has been coined "Heaven Tourism" by its critics who consider it dangerous false teaching or false prophecy.


Why don't Christians celebrate the feast of tabernacles?

The prophecy has yet come to pass. I wouldn't say the current period is anomalous at all. Up until now, the feast has been celebrated by Jews only (ok, a few Christians). That's a very small minority of people. The prophecy talks about all nations, which is something very different from history.

You mention Jesus going to the feast in John 7, but notice what Jesus says about the feast:

  John 7:8 (ESV)
   8 You go up to the feast. I am not going up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come."

Granted, Jesus eventually went in secret. But it doesn't seem to bother anyone that Jesus would not go. If it wasn't necessary for even Jesus to go, why should we, gentiles?


Would a JW be disfellowshipped if they join a military (and are unrepentant about it)?

For one of Jehovah's Witnesses to be disfellowshipped, there must be evidence of two things:

They have committed a serious sin (1 Cor. 6:9, 10; Gal. 5:19-21)
They are unrepentant about it (Acts 26:20; Deut. 21:20, 21)

In the case of joining the military, the person would be putting themselves in a situation where they're much more likely to commit the serious sin of manslaughter or even murder, as well as the serious sins of "hostility," "brazen conduct," or "strife."
However, there's a much bigger issue with joining the military. It's a direct violation of the vow which all Jehovah's Witnesses make before baptism to give exclusive devotion to God's Kingdom (Deut. 6:15), not any of mankind's kingdoms. (Luke 4:5-8)
A person who chooses to join the military would be betraying God's Kingdom, and therefore it would be a resignation as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. This person would be considered "disassociated" rather than disfellowshipped, and at this point must be shunned by the congregation for the benefit of everyone. (1 Cor. 5:11; 1 John 2:19)
The reason that joining the military is such a big issue is because the military has objectives that are contrary to Bible teachings. These are the Bible teachings which apply most:

John 17:16 (NWT)
They are no part of the world, just as I am no part of the world.

Isaiah 2:4 (NWT)
4 He will render judgment among the nations
And set matters straight respecting many peoples.
They will beat their swords into plowshares
And their spears into pruning shears.
Nation will not lift up sword against nation,
Nor will they learn war anymore.

Revelation 19:17-21 (NWT)
17 I saw also an angel standing in the sun, and he cried out with a loud voice and said to all the birds that fly in midheaven: “Come here, be gathered together to the great evening meal of God, 18 so that you may eat the flesh of kings and the flesh of military commanders and the flesh of strong men and the flesh of horses and of those seated on them, and the flesh of all, of freemen as well as of slaves and of small ones and great.”
19 And I saw the wild beast and the kings of the earth and their armies gathered together to wage war against the one seated on the horse and against his army. 20 And the wild beast was caught, and along with it the false prophet that performed in front of it the signs with which he misled those who received the mark of the wild beast and those who worship its image. While still alive, they both were hurled into the fiery lake that burns with sulfur. 21 But the rest were killed off with the long sword that proceeded out of the mouth of the one seated on the horse. And all the birds were filled with their flesh.


The explanation that I'm familiar with would indicate that this is referring to the division of cultures and tongues at the time of the Tower of Babel.

I can't take credit for the answer on my own.  The explanation that makes the most sense to me is the one found here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v22/n1/peleg

  Four generations after Noah, Genesis 10:25 records the birth of Peleg
  (meaning division) ‘for in his days was the earth divided’. Some
  suggest the continents of the earth were divided at this time.
  However, this seems unlikely, as such a process would have had to
  occur within a very confined time period. The resultant geological
  violence would be overwhelmingly catastrophic—like another Noahic
  Flood all over again. Any continental separation thus likely occurred
  during the Flood. 1

  The traditional interpretation, which seems more reasonable, relates
  this verse to the division of people/nations at the Tower of Babel
  event in Genesis 11. (Just like the English ‘earth’ can have a variety
  of meanings, the Hebrew erets can also mean nation(s)—thus erets
  Yisrael, the land (nation, people) of Israel.) According to the
  biblical chronology as deduced by Archbishop Ussher, the Flood
  occurred in 2349–2348 BC, and Peleg was born in 2247 BC about a
  hundred years later. Do ancient writers shed any light on when this
  happened? The answer is a resounding yes.

(Much more follows - visit the link for the full article).


Why were early Mormon leaders so critical of traditional Christianity?

The central piece of theology that all these revolve around can be found in the third statement cited:

  Nothing less than a complete apostasy from the Christian religion would warrant the establishment of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

This is one of the core points of LDS theology: that the apostasy spoken of by Paul, the "famine of hearing the words of the Lord" that Amos prophesied, has already occurred.  With intense persecution bringing about death of the Apostles faster than they could organize to choose new ones, eventually the unbroken line of authority was lost, and the Church began to lose its grip on the doctrine.  The historical record suggests that this happened alarmingly quickly: the second-century Christian author Iranaeus wrote a series of five books to refute the teachings of multiple different Gnostic sects that were beginning to take strong root within the church already!

Wherever the Great Apostasy began, it's hard to look at the history of the Church without seeing evidence that it was complete at some point around the conversion of Constantine, if not before it then very soon afterwards.  With the high honors the State heaped upon the Christian religion, with authority in the Church becoming one of the fastest and surest routes to political power, it's hard to say with a straight face that the organization of schemers that emerged in this period was the same one set up by He who said "my kingdom is not of this world"!  ("Where shall we look for the true order or authority of God? It cannot be found in any nation of Christendom.")

This puts another quote by Brigham Young in perspective, by the way:

  The worst fear that I have about this people is that they will get rich in this country, forget God and his people, wax fat, and kick themselves out of the Church and go to hell. This people will stand mobbing, robbing, poverty, and all manner of persecution, and be true. But my greater fear for them is that they cannot stand wealth.

  -- Brigham Young: The Man and His Work, 4th ed., p.126-129

By the sixth century, the Athanasian Creed had emerged in common worship, which defined the "necessary" faith as believing in the Trinity, "the Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible."  If we take John 17:3, which equates eternal life with knowing God and Jesus Christ, at face value, a disturbing contradiction emerges: the Church had somehow come around to a position in which it dogmatically defined as necessary for the salvation of all believers to hold a belief that would in fact disqualify them from salvation!  ("What is it that inspires professors of Christianity generally with a hope of salvation? It is that smooth, sophisticated influence of the devil, by which he deceives the whole world")

With the true Church in apostasy, many reformers attempted to use their knowledge and scholarship to piece together the true principles of the Gospel, but without the lost line of authority, their answers could only get so far.  None of the Reformers even managed to set up the organization described by Paul in Ephesians chapter 4, and the problems he spoke of in the same passage are quite instructive:

  11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

  12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

  13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

  14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

There could really only be one solution.  If we turn the quote from Joseph Smith around, it implies what that solution is:  A complete apostasy from the Christian religion would require the establishment of the Church again, by restoration rather than reformation, which is the central message of Mormonism: that original Christianity was restored by revelation and authority from God, as it was originally founded by revelation and authority from God, with apostles and prophets to lead it as in ancient days.  The basic meaning of all the quotations cited in the question above is simply this: that the fulness of the restored gospel can only be found in one place, and that any other religion, no matter how sincere or how hard they may genuinely try to get the Gospel and the requirements for salvation right, is missing necessary details, the absence of which will hold their adherents back.


Complete list of versification differences in the Tanakh

I have been working on some software which converts between different versification systems. As part of that, I have a file listing the various differences: transformations.data. There is no single "Jewish" translation, but I currently have included the NJPS. The JPS or Masoretic text probably have some differences elsewhere.

There is also a long JSON file detailing all the versification differences I'm aware of. I believe that "he_wlc" is the Leningrad codex, the source text of the standard BHS edition.

See also my page on Versification systems resources.


Who were the Galileans whose blood Pilate mingled with their sacrifices?

There is no  Scripture which I can find which sheds any light on this. However, there are several commentaries which do give an explanation. However, we have no way of knowing where they found their information. I have quoted them here for your consideration:

Barnes:

  Whose blood Pilate had mingled ... — That is, while they were sacrificing at Jerusalem, Pilate came suddenly upon them and killed them, and “their” blood was mingled with the blood of the animals that they were slaying for sacrifice.

Clark

  Whose blood Pilate had mingled — This piece of history is not recorded (as far as I can find) by Josephus: however, he states that the Galileans were the most seditious people in the land: they belonged properly to Herod’s jurisdiction; but, as they kept the great feasts at Jerusalem, they probably, by their tumultuous behavior at some one of them, gave Pilate, who was a mortal enemy to Herod, a pretext to fall upon and slay many of them; and thus, perhaps, sacrifice the people to the resentment he had against the prince. Archelaus is represented by Josephus as sending his soldiers into the temple, and slaying 3000 men while they were employed in offering sacrifices.

Guzik

  The Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices: We don’t have a record in secular history about the specific incident mentioned here. But there is a similar incident before the ministry of Jesus, Pilate wanted to build an aqueduct from the Pools of Solomon to the city of Jerusalem. To pay for it, he demanded money from the temple treasury, money that had been dedicated to God — and this outraged the people. When the Jews sent a delegation to beg for their money back, Pilate sent into the crowd soldiers dressed as common people, and at a certain signal they took out daggers and attacked the people  asking for the money.

  This doesn’t seem to be the same incident mentioned here, but it shows how completely consistent it was with the character of Pilate to slaughter some Galilean Jews on their way to sacrifice to the Lord in Jerusalem.