Are there documented reports about Jews around the time of Jesus? And what did they say about the first christians?

Josephus, a Jewish scholar, and historian wrote Antiquities of the Jews, around 93–94 AD. In book 18 Chapter 3 verse 3(Jesus Christ) says:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

In Book 18 5:2 (John the Baptist)

Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were very greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise,) thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death. Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God's displeasure to him.

And in book 20 9:1 (Jesus Christ)

AND now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, (23) who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. (24) Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.

Tacitus a Roman historian wrote Annals in 116 AD in book 15 wrote (Jesus Christ)

Such indeed were the precautions of human wisdom. The next thing was to seek means of propitiating the gods, and recourse was had to the Sibylline books, by the direction of which prayers were offered to Vulcanus, Ceres, and Proserpina. Juno, too, was entreated by the matrons, first, in the Capitol, then on the nearest part of the coast, whence water was procured to sprinkle the fane and image of the goddess. And there were sacred banquets and nightly vigils celebrated by married women. But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.

Mara Bar-Serapion a philosopher in ~70 AD wrote to his son (Jesus Christ):

What are we to say, when the wise are dragged by force by the hands of tyrants, and their wisdom is deprived of its freedom by slander, and they are plundered for their superior intelligence, without the opportunity of making a defence? They are not wholly to be pitied. For what benefit did the Athenians obtain by putting Socrates to death, seeing that they received as retribution for it famine and pestilence? Or the people of Samos by the burning of Pythagoras, seeing that in one hour the. whole of their country was covered with sand? Or the Jews by the murder of their Wise King, seeing that from that very time their kingdom was driven away from them? For with justice did God grant a recompense to the wisdom of all three of them. For the Athenians died by famine; and the people of Samos were covered by the sea without remedy; and the Jews, brought to desolation and expelled from their kingdom, are driven away into Every land. Nay, Socrates did "not" die, because of Plato; nor yet Pythagoras, because of the statue of Hera; nor yet the Wise King, because of the new laws which he enacted.

Phlegon, a historian, wrote Contra Celsus Origen in about 140 AD. In book 2 chapter 14, 33, and 59 writes (Jesus Christ)

Celsus, however, accepting or granting that Jesus foreknew what would befall Him, might think to make light of the admission, as he did in the case of the miracles, when he alleged that they were wrought by means of sorcery; for he might say that many persons by means of divination, either by auspices, or auguries, or sacrifices, or nativities, have come to the knowledge of what was to happen. But this concession he would not make, as being too great a one; and although he somehow granted that Jesus worked miracles, he thought to weaken the force of this by the charge of sorcery. Now Phlegon, in the thirteenth or fourteenth book, I think, of his Chronicles, not only ascribed to Jesus a knowledge of future events (although falling into confusion about some things which refer to Peter, as if they referred to Jesus), but also testified that the result corresponded to His predictions. So that he also, by these very admissions regarding foreknowledge, as if against his will, expressed his opinion that the doctrines taught by the fathers of our system were not devoid of divine power.
But, continues Celsus, what great deeds did Jesus perform as being a God? Did he put his enemies to shame, or bring to a ridiculous conclusion what was designed against him? Now to this question, although we are able to show the striking and miraculous character of the events which befell Him, yet from what other source can we furnish an answer than from the Gospel narratives, which state that there was an earthquake, and that the rocks were split asunder, and the tombs opened, and the veil of the temple rent in two from top to bottom, and that darkness prevailed in the day-time, the sun failing to give light? But if Celsus believe the Gospel accounts when he thinks that he can find in them matter of charge against the Christians, and refuse to believe them when they establish the divinity of Jesus, our answer to him is: Sir, either disbelieve all the Gospel narratives, and then no longer imagine that you can found charges upon them; or, in yielding your belief to their statements, look in admiration on the Logos of God, who became incarnate, and who desired to confer benefits upon the whole human race. And this feature evinces the nobility of the work of Jesus, that, down to the present time, those whom God wills are healed by His name. And with regard to the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Cæsar, in whose reign Jesus appears to have been crucified, and the great earthquakes which then took place, Phlegon too, I think, has written in the thirteenth or fourteenth book of his Chronicles.
He imagines also that both the earthquake and the darkness were an invention; but regarding these, we have in the preceding pages, made our defence, according to our ability, adducing the testimony of Phlegon, who relates that these events took place at the time when our Saviour suffered. And he goes on to say, that Jesus, while alive, was of no assistance to himself, but that he arose after death, and exhibited the marks of his punishment, and showed how his hands had been pierced by nails. We ask him what he means by the expression, was of no assistance to himself? For if he means it to refer to want of virtue, we reply that He was of very great assistance. For He neither uttered nor committed anything that was improper, but was truly led as a sheep to the slaughter, and was dumb as a lamb before the shearer; and the Gospel testifies that He opened not His mouth. But if Celsus applies the expression to things indifferent and corporeal, (meaning that in such Jesus could render no help to Himself,) we say that we have proved from the Gospels that He went voluntarily to encounter His sufferings. Speaking next of the statements in the Gospels, that after His resurrection He showed the marks of His punishment, and how His hands had been pierced, he asks, Who beheld this? And discrediting the narrative of Mary Magdalene, who is related to have seen Him, he replies, A half-frantic woman, as you state. And because she is not the only one who is recorded to have seen the Saviour after His resurrection, but others also are mentioned, this Jew of Celsus calumniates these statements also in adding, And some one else of those engaged in the same system of deception!


Who represented "the Lord" in Exodus 4:24-26, and what's the deal with the foreskin?

To understand these verses it's helpful to read them in context. I'm using the King James Version, which seems a bit easier to understand (in particular the part about "touching" Moses' feet).

EXODUS 4:22-26 (KJV) And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD,
Israel is my son, even my firstborn: And I say unto thee, Let my son
go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I
will slay thy son, even thy firstborn. And it came to pass by the way
in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him. Then
Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and
cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me.
So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of
the circumcision.

Moses was on his way to tell Pharaoh that this time, if he didn't let Israel go, he would slay Pharaoh's firstborn. On the way, the Lord met Moses () to take his life for not fulfilling His commandment to Abraham to circumcise every male. The statement "the LORD met Moses" may have been spiritual: perhaps Moses suddenly became very sick and Zipporah discerned the cause. At any rate, the LORD was there to take Moses' life. (Note that the KJV renders LORD in all caps when referring to Jehovah, {God Above Us}, and Lord when referring to Adonai, {God With Us}).
As the King James Version reads, Zipporah cast the foreskin at Moses' feet because she was a bit of a fireball (in the best sense), and wasn't too happy with Moses at the moment. "A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision!"


How can a Wholly Good God Deliberately Create Evil?

The question I will try to answer is:

Can anyone please offer any explanation as to how a totally-good God can create evil deliberately and still remain holy and righteous?

I will attempt to explain this from the point of Original Sin. This is becuse I myself struggled to understand this for some time and found that this can be explained better from that point of time.

It is difficult to understand the mind of God and we as humans are definetly far short of knowing His wisdom. Over the time, God has made himself known to mankind in various ways and but it is through Jesus that He demostrated His Kindness and His love towards His creation.

From the very beginning, man held a special and unique place in God’s creation as he was created "in the image of God". In his own nature, man unites the spiritual and material worlds.

God’s gift of free will.

God created Adam and Eve with unique characteristics called free will and gave them a choice: to obey Him or disobey Him which is same as choosing good or evil.

God is a personal being and the greatest passion of personal beings is the desire for personal relationships with other personal beings. Therefore, God, as a personal being, created us in such a way that He could have a meaningful, personal, and loving relationship with us. Nevertheless, this had a severe price.

I cannot experience love from you unless you have the capacity to do otherwise. If you have the capacity to, not to love me, and you choose instead to love me, then that choice has validity and meaning. You cannot have a love relationship with a computer. It is pre-programmed to serve you. Without that choice, man would have been like puppets, able to do only what God wanted.

God therefore wanted to demonstrate his glory through humans, which had their own free will. When he receives the glory and obedience from humans in spite of having with them the free will, it is an immense satisfaction for Him. God expects that his most important creature would give greater glory to Him by remaining obedient, in spite of having free will with them.

But why God created evil?

God did not create evil as nothing evil can come from good God. Satan and other demons were at first good angels, created by God, but they became evil by their own doing. This "fall" also came from the free choice of these created spirits, who radically and irrevocably rejected God and his reign. Their aspiration was to become like God, which is reflected in the tempter's words to our first parents: "You will be like God." It is the irrevocable character of their choice, and not a defect in the infinite divine mercy that makes the angels' sin unforgivable. So we see that evil is a side effect of existence of free will and choice.

There is no repentance for the angels after their fall, just as there is no repentance for men after death.

The power of Satan is, nonetheless, not infinite. He is only a creature, powerful from the fact that he is pure spirit, but still a creature. He cannot prevent the building up of God's reign. Although Satan may act in the world out of hatred for God and his kingdom in Christ Jesus, and although his action may cause grave injuries - of a spiritual nature and, indirectly, even of a physical nature - to each man and to society, the action is permitted by divine providence which with strength and gentleness guides human and cosmic history. It is a great mystery that providence should permit diabolical activity, but "we know that in everything, God works for good with those who love him."

Why then did God do this when he knew in advance that the result of free will and evil would be so disastrous?

Many questions comes to mind at this stage. Questions like Did this God of love not care that war, murder, rape and so much senseless violence would be the result of his choice to give us free will?"

Why an all-powerful God did not eliminate evil? Since the implication is that the removal of all evil would permit a better, more loving world.

A truly loving God, would have desired and created such a world because it is clearly superior to the one we have.

Any God that did not follow this logic was not a God of love, but an evil tyrant.
Answer is bit difficule as I have mentioned at the begining as we do not have the intellect to understand the almighty God. But a simple story I read comes close to explaining this mystery:

Suppose a mother had three children and one of them died. If you could go back to the time before she had any children, with the knowledge that one of them would die this horrible death, would she attempt to have children?"

A mother would definitely say yes. Because, the love and the joy and the happiness that parents received from their children, far outweighs the pain, suffering and misery they experienced from the loss of that one child.

In this there is an incredible insight as to why God allows free will and evil to exist. A loving God can allow an evil state of affairs to exist, since in allowing it to occur, it brings about an even better state of affairs.

Because He is outside time and knows all things, He knew that there would be tremendous pain and suffering as a result of His decision to create a people with the capacity of choice and, consequently, the capacity to sin.

But God, like this mother, knew that the love He and his human creatures would experience, would outweigh the pain and suffering that would result from His decision to create us as He did. The consequences of God's decision were not unforeseen. They were foreknown!

The moment evil is taken out from this world you also remove the choice from the nature of human. The existence of evil is the "side effect" of creating a world with a thirst for love.

A world possessing both evil and love, is far superior to a world where neither is possible. For God to eliminate evil, He would have to eliminate our capacity of choice and thus our capacity to do both evil and good. And such a world is inferior to the one we have: one where love is possible, despite its inherent evil. What kind of God would do this? Only one kind. A God of love.

On the other hand, there is another question. Is God a "limiting God" and not omnipotent?

This is based on flawed logic. It's the same logic flaw atheists use when they say, "If God can do anything, can He create a rock so heavy He can't lift it?" There are logical impossibilities and there are things God cannot do. (Lie, be wrong, learn, sin)

Finally, we come to the first instance of Adam’s disobedience to His creator. What is The tree of the knowledge, and why does God put it in the garden?

It seems like putting your children in the backyard to play and saying, "By the way, don't jump in the pit with the spikes lining the bottom that I dug in the back corner by the swing set, okay?"
God was giving a simple message to man: "Evil" is the things that you're not supposed to do, "good" is the things that you should do. The only thing you need to know about "evil" is don't eat from that tree.

Adam was in the state of original holiness whence he was not able to differentiate between good and evil for he was yet to eat the fruit from the forbidden tree. Adam is not able to differentiate between good and evil for his nature was such that he was not in a position to recognise the difference. It is like a computer, which is unable to recognise a PDF format of a file unless an adobe reader is installed on it. The computer knows that PDF file exists but will not execute it, because it does not have that capacity to recognise it. Adam knew that evil exists but he is neither able to recognise it nor he was able to execute it. Under these circumstances, neither God wants that Adam should know about the good and evil by forbidding him from eating that fruit and continue in his present state.

For this, he has to only obey God’s commandment not to eat from the forbidden tree. But here also there is a glitch, because there was no way Adam could exercise his free will, in absence of his knowledge about good and evil and show his obedience to God. The only way God could know the obedience of Adam was to tell Adam not to eat from this tree, which would allow Him to know the free will choice of Adam about his obedience to Him.

As a consequence of free will, God kept the CD containing the programme “Adobe Reader” (tree of knowledge) in the garden which will enable Adam to recognise the PDF file format (good and evil) and also allow him to execute the file with PDF extension. There are two aspects here. First – till the time Adam obeys God’s command and do not eat from this tree, he will exercise his free will and be obedient to God. Till that time this programme was not installed on Adam, he would not be able to read and execute this file (evil). The moment Adam disobeys God, Adam will exercise his free will and this programme will be installed on Adam and will recognise the good and evil as well as able to execute it (evil) also.

Before the fall, they were having a nature that made them to do only the good and the power to do evil was beyond their area of understanding. This understanding and the change of their nature would come only when they disobey God and eat the fruit from forbidden tree. With this, one obedience Adam was supposed to live a life doing everything good and not knowing or doing evil.  The obedience would have kept him barricaded from being dying.

Sources: Many and few of them are
www.y-jesus.com/

www.gotquestions.org/

www.khouse.org/

www.newadvent.org/bible/

www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm
PS. My apologies for this answer being so lenghty but I could not make it any more shorter, though I tried.


The Greatest Commandment - Loving God with all our 1) heart, 2) soul, and 3) strength

Matthew 22:37-38 (NIV)
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and
with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first
and greatest commandment.

This is the first and greatest commandment. I think that it's pretty ironic that nobody can answer what this means, considering the biggest forgivable sin is probably breaking the first and most important commandment.

1 John 5:3 (NIV)
In fact, this is love for God: to keep his commands. And his commands
are not burdensome,

The Bible tells us that Love for God is obedience to Him.
With all your heart

Romans 2:15 (NIV)
They show that the requirements of the law are written on their
hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts
sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)

The commandments and laws of God are no longer obeyed by one nation, but instead these things are written on the individual believers hearts. So that each believer may be governed by the spirit and not by the flesh.
To love God with all of your heart is to allow all of His laws to govern you.

Matthew 5:28 (NIV)
But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already
committed adultery with her in his heart.

With all of your mind

Romans 8:6 (NIV)
The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the
Spirit is life and peace.

We are also told that we need to think about good things and not evil things. We are to focus our entire mind on the things that please God. Not planning evil against a brother or doing things in private.
With all of your Strength

1 John 3:18 (NIV)
Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions
and in truth.

God tells us that we need not just SAY that we are Christian, but actually BE Christian. The parable of the two farmers sons is the perfect example of this. Jesus gives two examples of Children that were told to go work in the field. On said ok but didn't go. The other said no, but then eventually went.
Jesus asks the people, Who actually obeyed? The one that DID or the one that DIDN'T? It's an obvious answer, the son that DID is the son that DID.
To love God with all of your strength is to DO as He has asked you to do.


These people are likely thinking of verses like these:

  John 15:18-20 (NIV)

      18 “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. 19 If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. 20 Remember what I told you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also.

  Matthew 5:10 (NIV)

  10 Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
     for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Rightousness and persecution are linked together in these two. However, there is a verse that makes the link explicit:

  2 Timothy 3:12 (NIV)

  12 In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted,

The verses you referenced talk about interaction between God and Christians, but if you say something like "following Christ's Gospel (being righteous) makes life easy", then people will assume you mean the interaction between Christians and the world, which is indeed not an easy life.


How does the "church" reconcile breaking the 2nd commandments religiously?

For that vast majority of Christians that do not prohibit images, this is an easy question to answer. The original wording of the 10 commandments did not prohibit all images - it was intended to prohibit the creation of idols for worship, i,e, man-made things that were used as Gods, which was the common practice of Israel's neighbours. That it ws not intended to prohibit the making of all likenesses of living beings can be seen from God's instructions for the creation of the Ark of the Covenant, which includes such likenesses.

It is fortunate for us that the creation of images is not completely forbidden, because that would also forbid all photography, movies, drawing etc. - for the commandments do not only apply in churches, they apply to all parts of life.

Images and likenesses in general are not then forbidden by the second commandment. What is forbidden is worshipping these images (or anything else). But Christians in such churches do not in fact worship such images. They are not intended to be worshipped. The images in churches are there to remind the worshipper of God, to focus their thoughts on God or a particular aspect of  him, just as a cross at the front of a church does. Many images illustrate aspects of the gospel, and older ones may date from a time before the majority of the congregation could read, and so pictures were necessary to remind them of the gospel. Assuming that the intentions are followed, there is no problem. It should also be said that many Protestant churches do keep their churches free of human likenesses, so as not to offend those who prefer not to run the risk of the meaning being misunderstood.

Most of the above is written from a Protestant point of view, but apply in general terms to Catholics and Orthodox. I have links above that will give you more details from a Catholic and Orthodox point of view.


First off... I think this is an excellent question, here's my try at an answer...

Romans 14:3, I believe, balances out both sides.

The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them.

I know a person who thinks celebrating holidays or birthdays is wrong, and putting up Christmas trees is wrong, etc. I am cool with him, and he doesn't try to ever prove that I am wrong if I celebrate these things. And what I do in return is make sure I don't throw a birthday party for him, because that's me being sensitive to his beliefs.

Also, I think it's key to denote the difference between offend and stumble. Because this scripture was used to make sure we don't flaunt our freedom to the point where it causes someone else to fall into sin... and it is sin for them because they may do it even though they think it is a sin. (But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin. Romans 14:23)

If a person clearly is NOT going to stumble, but is just being offended because they don't do something you do, then I am not so sure that "weaker brother" argument applies.

Here's an example that I think applies... if my friend (who doesn't celebrate stuff) says, "man when christmas comes I used to get so focused on the gifts, trees, etc, and I forgot about God, so I made a decision to remove it and not celebrate it." Then I would say... I understand Christmas became an idol to you, therefore it is good for you, if it helps you not to sin. Therefore, I can honor that. Basically, I am accommodating him, so that he won't stumble into sin.

I do believe that's our job as Christians is to accommodate the person who may be weaker in an area that you're strong in.

An example in scripture....

Looking at Acts 16:3 - Paul wanted to take him along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.

Paul here circumcised Timothy because of the Jews in that area, which really meant Paul didn't want them getting hung up on circumcision, because he wanted them to hear the Gospel without them being offended.

This is a choice made by Paul to "be all things to all men so that some may be saved" (1 Cor 9:22). Because Paul could have easily told them "in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love." Gal 5:6

(In the spirit of Galatians, I do think at times people's law driven beliefs can be sinful, hence why Paul rebukes the Galatians)

We don't have to live in a box because of someone else's beliefs, but at the same time we can't merely enjoy our freedoms without consideration for others' true weaknesses either.


How do you obtain spiritual gifts? (Overview)

Ask God.
So I say to you: Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.
For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened. Luke 11:9-10

The spiritual gifts are gifts of the Holy Spirit.
Indwelling of the Holy Spirit is something one asks God for.
And gifts have a purpose and direction in ministry.  By pursuing needs one finds God provides an answer.

All evangelical denominations have versions of this, some emphasising the more attribute gifts, of love, patience, endurance, joy, peace, while others say gifts of healing, prophecy, speaking in tongues is important.

All focus on dwelling more in God, in scripture, in seeking to help others.
Some emphasis holiness, and purity, while others listening to the right preachers and teaching.


Relationship between Mary/Elizabeth or Jesus/John?

The declaration in Luke 1:36 that Elizabeth is a relative of Mary comes from Gabriel.

From Gabriel's introduction of himself to Zacharias we know that he is God's messenger and stands in the presence of God .

Those who believe God's Word by faith will thus find a way to understand how Elizabeth is indeed an historical figure and is both a 'daughter of Aaron' as recorded by Luke, and a 'relative' of Mary, mother of Jesus, as declared by Garbriel.

A reasonable explanation is that Elizabeth and Mary were related through Elizabeth's mother and not through her father.  If Elizabeth's mother was of the Tribe of Judah but her father was of the Tribe of Levi she could be called a daughter of Aaron.  Mary's father was certainly of the Tribe of Judah, and so was her husband, Joseph.  Mary's mother could also have been of the Tribe of Judah.

This gives three possible ways in which Mary could be a relative of Elizabeth's, either by blood or by marriage.  The term 'relative' is most likely referring to a blood relationship, so it is reasonable to believe that they were related through Elizabeth's blood relationship to either Mary's father or mother in the Tribe of Judah.


Can you give air-kisses to icons in the Eastern Orthodox church instead of physical kisses?

Air kisses are totally fine. The purpose of the kiss is to show reverence to that which the icon portrays, whether it is of Christ, the Theotokos or a Saint. Depending on the ethnicity of the Church you attend, you may see people prostrate (bow fully and touch their hand to the floor), or kneel down and fully touch their head to the floor. Some do this multiple times.

It is important to remember the purpose of this is to give honor to the person portrayed in the icon, and is not, contrary to Protestant thought, to worship the person of the icon as a god.

Anyone may give reverence to an icon, whether through a bow, a kiss, or a nod; in fact there is nothing that a non-Orthodox can't do which an Orthodox can do in the church, except for receiving the mysteries of communion or the other sacraments (confession, marriage, etc.).

In regards to doing a physical kiss with lipstick or chapstick; I'm not positive but will get back to you on that. Here is my deduction for the moment-- if an icon drops to the ground, the Orthodox are instructed to burn it and not throw it away (although most just pick it up, give it a kiss and put it back). It would be pretty awkward to knock an icon off its stand onto the ground, as it would be considered disrespectful to whom the icon portrays. Because of this, I assume that it wouldn't be good to leave lipstick or chap-stick on the icon, but I could be wrong.


Mark 5 Jesus encounter with the demons: what is their relationship to Jesus?

Famed 4th century preacher John Chrysostom gives the best answer, in my view. He says the story illustrates the full malice of the demons and also the restraint that God placed on them to keep them from destroying the possessed man in the same way as they did the pigs.

After reading the story of the demoniac and the swine, he says:

  Thus do Demons govern; and yet to them the swine were of no particular
  account, but with you there is ever a warfare without a truce, and an
  implacable fight, and undying hatred. And if in the case of those with
  whom they had nothing in common they did not even endure that they
  should be allowed a brief breathing space of time: if they had gotten
  unto their power us their enemies who are perpetually stinging them
  what would they not have done? And what incurable mischief would they
  not have accomplished? For for this reason God let them fall upon the
  herd of swine, in order that in the case of the bodies of irrational
  animals you may learn their wickedness, and that they would have done
  to the possessed the things which they did to the swine, had not the
  demoniacs in their very madness experienced the providence of God, is
  evident to all: and now therefore when you see a man excited by a
  Demon, worship the Master. Learn the wickedness of the Demons. For it
  is possible to see both things in the case of these Demons, the
  lovingkindness of God, and the evil of the Demons. The evil of the
  Demons when they harass and disturb the soul of the demented: and the
  lovingkindness of God whenever he restrains and hinders so savage a
  Demon, who has taken up his abode within, and desires to hurl the man
  headlong, and does not allow him to use his own power to the full, but
  suffers him to exhibit just so much strength, as both to bring the man
  to his senses, and make his own wickedness apparent.

Three Homilies on the Devil by John Chrysostom


By what process did the miraculous conception of Jesus occur?

The official Catholic doctrine on the matter is in accord with a commonly held belief among nearly all Christians that Jesus was conceived within a virgin, and that the process by which this occurred was a mystery and a miracle. The heresies of the Psilanthropists and Adoptionists are notable early exceptions, and modern criticisms of the doctrine come nearly exclusively from non-Christian sources.

ReligiousTolerance.org says it nicely,

  The Anglican Communion, Eastern Orthodoxy, Protestant faith groups and Roman Catholicism have taught the "virgin birth," although the term "virgin conception" would be much more accurate. This has long been one of the Christianity's foundational beliefs, along with the inerrancy of the Bible; the God's inspiration of the authors of the Bible; the atonement, resurrection, and the anticipated second coming of Jesus, etc. All of the commonly used major ancient church creeds have also mentioned the virgin birth.

Specifically, the official doctrine of the Catholic Church is summarized in paragraph 497 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church,

  The Gospel accounts understand the virginal conception of Jesus as a divine work that surpasses all human understanding and possibility: "That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit", said the angel to Joseph about Mary his fiancee. The Church sees here the fulfillment of the divine promise given through the prophet Isaiah: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son."

The Catechism also gives the following in the third statement of the Apostle's Creed, in reference to Christ,

  He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.

Since the understanding of biological organisms and human reproduction did not include cellular phenomenon until the microscope was invented (the spermatozoid was first discovered in 1677 by Anton van Leeuwenhoek and the ovum in 1827 by embryologist Kart Ernst Von Baer) it is not possible for such a detailed  scientific description of the event to have been posited until long after the canonical doctrines were established.

Even so, possible mechanisms of the virgin birth have been discussed in a paper published in Science & Christian Belief  by R. J. Berry. The abstract from that paper states,

  The Bible describes Jesus as being born to Mary ‘by the power of the Holy
  Spirit’, implying (although not stating) that the Spirit was his father. This has been rejected by some as an unnecessary doctrine, separating Jesus from
  the rest of humankind and dependent on an intrinsically incredible miracle.
  Such an objection is wrong: some form of distinctiveness like a Virgin Birth
  is theologically required if Jesus is to be divine as well as human, and there
  are several mechanisms by which the virgin birth of a male child could
  occur. The reason for recognising these is not to suggest that God
  necessarily used any of them, but simply to point out that apparent
  scientific difficulty should not determine the acceptability of a theological
  concept.

The paper not only discusses hypothetical mechanisms of spontaneous development of male children in human females, but also gives a nice overview of the development of the doctrine in the church and a history of its opposition, mostly from outside of the Christian Church. I expect that reading that article will complement this answer to address your question more completely.


Will I get answers to all my questions when I die?

Before Jesus began preaching in Israel, there came a 'man sent from God' whose name was John. John the Baptist, we know him as.
When the people asked John what should they do, he gave very specific insructions.

If anyone is lacking in food or clothing, and we have more than we need, we are to give it to them.

Those who collect taxes for Government are only to collect what they are authorised to collect. They are not to over charge.

Soldiers who are paid to keep order in the nation are to do only that, without resorting to inappropriate brutality.

John also rebuked the King (Herod) for his inappropriate conduct regarding marriage. Marriage is important to the order of society and is not to be tampered with.

Some, receiving these instructions, desired more and those he baptised with water and they confessed their sins.
This is the background, immediately before Jesus 'came preaching'.
There is nothing difficult or grievous or mysterious about any of this.
You can see it in the bible, in Matthew, Mark and Luke. John is different, but John shows the spiritual reasons for it.
This is how we are to live . . . .
. . . .  until the day we die.

There is much, much more to learn, regarding Christianity.
But this is how we begin.


When did the Orthodox and Catholic Churches distinguish the manner in which the Sign of the Cross was to be made?

It seems to be down to an ambiguous instruction issued by Pope Innocent III around 1200.

The Catholic Encyclopedia has this [extract]:

  [In the eleventh century] the manner of making [the sign of the Cross] in the West seems to have been identical with that followed at present in the East, i.e. only three fingers were used, and the hand traveled from the right shoulder to the left. The point, it must be confessed, is not entirely clear ... Still, a rubric in a manuscript copy of the York Missal clearly requires the priest when signing himself with the paten to touch the left shoulder after the right.

This seems reasonable: up until the Great Schism in 1087, the entire Church was likely to have had a single custom which had built up over the previous seven hundred or more years. [The Use of York was celebrated in northern England until the Reformation in the sixteenth century].

Fr William Saunders appears to have done some research:

  The earliest formalized way of making the sign of the cross appeared about the 400s, during the Monophysite heresy which denied the two natures in the divine person of Christ and thereby the unity of the Holy Trinity. The sign of the cross was made from forehead to chest, and then from right shoulder to left shoulder with the right hand.

The use of two fingers to make a large gesture was a reaction to the heresy. The shape of the fingers and the hand was further formalised to indicate the Trinity (details in the article).

He continues:

  An instruction of Pope Innocent III (1198–1216) evidences the traditional practice but also indicates a shift in the Latin Rite practice of the Catholic Church: "The sign of the cross is made with three fingers, because the signing is done together with the invocation of the Trinity ... This is how it is done: from above to below, and from the right to the left, because Christ descended from the heavens to the earth, and from the Jews (right) He passed to the Gentiles (left)." While noting the custom of making the cross from the right to the left shoulder was for both the western and eastern Churches, Pope Innocent continued, "Others, however, make the sign of the cross from the left to the right, because from misery (left) we must cross over to glory (right), just as Christ crossed over from death to life, and from Hades to Paradise. [Some priests] do it this way so that they and the people will be signing themselves in the same way. You can easily verify this — picture the priest facing the people for the blessing — when we make the sign of the cross over the people, it is from left to right...." Therefore, about this time, the faithful began to imitate the priest imparting the blessing, going from the left shoulder to the right shoulder with an open hand. Eventually, this practice became the custom for the Western Church.

Even here, a thirteenth-century pope is specifying that clergy make the sign of the cross from the right to the left, but in order that they move the same way as the people (rather like a gym aerobics instructor) they may instead cross from  left to right. It would appear to be this ambiguous instruction which engendered the confusion, with some clergy going one way and some the other and the people copying them — either copying the direction of motion as they saw it, or copying the movement of the priest (that is, going in the opposite direction). Things got hopelessly confused and have settled down as left-to-right.

The decree of Innocent III would not have been recognised by the Eastern Church, and they have carried on just as they always did.


If Satan is unable to become incarnate will he possess and control the Antichrist

As Christ is manifest in His Body on earth (the Church) so will the created spirit (the entity known as Diabolos and Satan and Serpent) seek to be manifested, not in one human being, but in all of humanity on earth.
This is quite obvious in the book of the Revelation. The mark of the beast, none buying or selling without that mark, all being pressed upon to worship, and so forth, see all of Revelation chapter thirteen. This is global, it is all humanity.
And it is also clear in what Paul expresses in Thessalonians regarding :

Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.  [2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 KJV]

'Man' of sin is anthropos (not aner) and can be translated 'humanity' rather than an individual human (aner). Thus it is the manifestation of a spirit within all humanity that is in view. The 'humanity of sin' may be seen as all of the sons of Adam who are not in Christ by repentance and faith and a new birth in the Holy Spirit.
We see the desire of spirit to be embodied when the demons begged Jesus to be permitted to go into the swine, rather then be cast out into the abyss.
Spirit desires manifestation.

There are many who assume a degree, more or less, of 'messianic' pretension and there are always a few of them scattered around the earth. But I believe that is an actual distraction to the reality of 666 - humanity (the number 6) in a triune and conglomerate structure, as one : a global entity, motivated and energised by a single, diabolic, serpentine and draconian . . .. spirit, whose diverse power becomes more and more fluid within humanity with increasing electronic ability and decreasing barriers of nation, of human structure and of previously accepted rules and laws.


When did the Latin Catholic Church begin to generally require fasting only one hour prior to the Eucharist?

I attend the older Latin Rite and we still fast from the midnight before. It should be noted that, as a disciplinary measure, to humble the spirit and body, it does not comprise any intrinsic doctrine or 'Tradition'. The Pope could remove the fast altogether if he so chose. It is to remind you that you are to recieve the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. You must fast in order to enter that holy place and celebration where such takes place.
Water and medicine are the only exceptions.
This was modified on by Bl. Pope Paul VI on  November 21, 1964§, and are embodied in the canon (rule) you mentioned (919 [§1] of the New Code of Canon Law).

This practice is really quite ancient, though. It was not began by Pope Pius XII. For example, St. Thomas notes, even in the 12th century:

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, 3a Pars, Q80 a.8 Ad5
That this
sacrament ought to enter into the mouth of a Christian before any
other food must not be understood absolutely of all time, otherwise he
who had once eaten or drunk could never afterwards take this
sacrament: but it must be understood of the same day; and although the
beginning of the day varies according to different systems of
reckoning (for some begin their day at noon, some at sunset, others at
midnight, and others at sunrise), the Roman Church begins it at
midnight. Consequently, if any person takes anything by way of food or
drink after midnight, he may not receive this sacrament on that day;
but he can do so if the food was taken before midnight.

Augstine writes in a letter to Januarius, (Letter 54) ~A.D 400:

...for from that time [of the earliest Church] it pleased the Holy
Spirit to appoint, for the honour of so great a sacrament, that the
body of the Lord should take the precedence of all other food entering
the mouth of a Christian; and it is for this reason that the custom
referred to is universally observed.

§ Paul VI, “Concession, on the eucharistic fast,” announced at a public session of Vatican Council II, November 21, 1964: AAS 57 (1965), 186, DOL 272.
You may find this short article useful.

EDIT: The portion of Acta Apostolicae Sedis 57 in question (unfortunately only in Latin) is “Tempus Eucharistici Ieiunii  Servandi Reducitur”—the concession on the Eucharistic fast, and says:

In view of the difficulties felt in many countries concerning the
Eucharistic fast, the Supreme Pontiff, graciously acceding to the
petitions of the Bishops, grants that the fast from solid foods be
reduced to one hour before Communion, for both priests and the
faithful. In this grant is included also the use of alcoholic drinks,
observing, however, due moderation.


How was the Bible used to reduce modern slavery?

I think this could easily become an answer about American history and and politics unless we confine our answer to usage of the Bible. Flimsy is right in his comment above - the Bible does not condone slavery, but it does not officially abolish the institution (much like the US Constitution). What it does do is place Christ in the master-slave relationship, giving even slavery the possibility of redemption.

Colossians 4:1 (KJV)
1 "Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven."
Colossians 3:22 (KJV)
22 "Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God:"

These verses do not answer for using the Bible to abolish slavery, but they could justify a move to abolish it, since it has "become destructive of these [Christ-Centered] ends" and so it is their duty "to alter or abolish it." At least in the United States. In first-century Roman society, it wasn't written in the social framework to be able to reform slavery, or any institution for that matter. But Christians everywhere in all societies do what they can to proclaim Christ until He comes, as many abolitionists did in their efforts.


Does Roman Catholicism teach that man is body and soul (bipartite) or body, soul, and spirit (tripartite)?

Under II. "BODY AND SOUL BUT TRULY ONE", from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 365, the Church teaches that:

  365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the "form" of the body:1 i.e., it is
  because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a
  living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures
  united, but rather their union forms a single nature.

Therefore according to Catholic teaching, man's one nature is the union of spirit and matter, soul and body.

The section mentioned above continues

  367 Sometimes the soul is distinguished from the spirit: St. Paul for instance prays that God may sanctify his people "wholly", with
  "spirit and soul and body" kept sound and blameless at the Lord's
  coming.2 The Church teaches that this distinction does not
  introduce a duality into the soul.3 "Spirit" signifies that
  from creation man is ordered to a supernatural end and that his soul
  can gratuitously be raised beyond all it deserves to communion with
  God.4

Therefore the Church teaches that while the soul is sometimes distinguished from the spirit, the distinction does not introduce a duality into the soul.

1. Cf. Council of Vienne (1312): DS 902.
2. 1 Thess 5:23.
3. Cf. Council of Constantinople IV (870): DS 657.
4. Cf. Vatican Council I, Dei Filius: DS 3005; GS 22 § 5; Humani Generis: DS 3891.

Further reading:

The section The soul in Christian thought in the article Soul | New advent.

Addendum after reading @PeterTurner's answer.

  In the New Testament the word spirit and, perhaps, even the expression
  spirit of God signify at times the soul or man himself, inasmuch as he
  is under the influence of God and aspires to things above; more
  frequently, especially in St. Paul, they signify God acting in man[.]
  - Holy Ghost | New Advent.


How do Mormons interpret Phillipians 2:6?

Hmm, the LDS scriptures (the KJV) does not say that. It reads, speaking of Jesus:

6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

In this case, the Bible translation matters. These verses are about Jesus' condescension.
Mormons definitely believe that becoming like God is something to aspire to.


Can humans aquire 'infinite' joy when they are finite beings?

Before I get to the point, I'm going to start with how we understand Scripture, even though your question is not about an exact phrase found in Scripture, because it sets a principle for understanding literature that is common not just to Biblical studies, but to other texts as well.

Next, I'm going to preface this with an honest "We really don't know, we can just give our best guess".  We would have to ask the original author to know for sure, so I'm torn about whether to answer the question, or VTC as opinion-based.  I'm answering because I think the question has merit, and I think that most would agree with the assessment I'm about to give.

Typically, "infinite joy" isn't taken as literal, it's taken as a figure of speech.

As explained in my answer on  From a Fundamentalist standpoint, what does the phrase “Inspired, infallible, inerrant Word of God” mean?

  The doctrine of inerrancy does not imply hyper-literalism. As noted
  above, in the second possible mechanism for Biblical Inspiration, we
  believe that God allowed the writer's literary style to be used in the
  writing of Scripture. Hyperbole (the use of exaggeration as a figure
  of speech. Example, "I'm so hungry, I could eat a horse.") is allowed.

This is a principle applied to any form of textual criticism.  Determining the line between literal and allegorical can be summed up in a simple principle:

Dr. David L. Cooper, the founder of The Biblical Research Society out it much more simply.  Dr. Cooper is known for his “Golden Rule of Interpretation” which is as follows:

  When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense,seek no other
  sense;

  Therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal
  meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the
  light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths
  indicate clearly otherwise.

In this case, the question is, does it make sense that a finite being could experience infinite joy?  I don't think so, becuase infinite implies that there wouldbe no joy in existence that a person doesn't have.  I would have to have your joy, you'd have to have mine, and there would be in "individuals"  We'd all be One.  There's no corresponding Scripture to support the idea that we lose our individuality after death, so it just doesn't make sense.

It seems apparent that CS Lewis and the others who write of "infinite joy" are using hyperbole to express "a joy so great that we cannot imagine it" or perhaps "the most joy it is possible for a finite being to experience".


According to http://mormon.org/faq/belief-in-jesus-christ:

  Jesus Christ is the literal Son of God. His birth, life, death, and
  resurrection fulfilled the many prophecies contained in the scriptures
  concerning the coming of a Savior. He was the Creator, He is our
  Savior, and He will be our Judge (see Isaiah 9:6, 53:3-7; Psalms
  22:16-18).

I hope this clarifies your question.


Why does the Pope include himself among the sinners?

The doctrine of original sin says that every human being is a sinner.

Indeed, the Bible also says:

Romans 3:10

  As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one;

and

Isaiah 56:3

  All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

and Isaiah 64:6

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

Indeed, only Jesus escaped this sin - as Hebrews 4:15, in describing the uniqueness of Jesus writes:

  For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.

Here, the obvious implication is that even High Priests (and their modern counterparts) sin.

Indeed, even the canons of the church explicitly clarify this point:

  Trent-Justification Canon 1. "If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of the law, without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema."

With the possible exception of Pope Joan*, every Pope is man.  As man, he is subject to the same consideration.

The idea of total depravity and the universality of sin says that everyone (and that includes a Pope who knows his scripture well!) is both a sinner and under judgment.  Indeed, this idea gives birth to many popular sayings on the matter, such as:

A saint is just a sinner who falls down, and gets back up
Evangelism is just one beggar telling another where to find bread - D.T. Niles.

While it is tempting to chalk this up to humility the truth of the matter is that any priest worth his salt already knows this in his soul.

Oh, and finally, before you ask, yes, Pope Francis has his own confessor.

*The Pope Joan thing was a joke, in case you are wondering.


Yes, there are references to Mary in the Old Testament—vastly less than those to the Christ, Jesus, who is the entire focus of the Bible, but nonetheless, there are references.

I will be answering from a Catholic perspective.

The references to Mary in comparison to those of Christ being rather scant, however, says little as to the significance of Mary, as we know that the greatest prophet ever born (except Christ) was John the Baptist (and he is mentioned relatively less than many other prophets or other figures in the Bible):

  Luke 7:28

  For I say to you: Amongst those that are born of women, there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist. But he that is the lesser in the kingdom of God, is greater than he.

So even though mentioned relatively little, and even then only in terms of Christ, and not independantly, this does not indicate a lack of importance (Luke 7:26). So it is with Mary also. The Bible is about Christ, and Mary is not its focus. Nonetheless, we find references to Mary in both the Old and New Testaments, some of which are very significant indeed!

Kinds of Prophecy

First, it's helpful to distinguish the various kinds of references to future events or figures in the Old Testament. These generally fall under type or prophecy. Often they are merged into a typological, mystical prophecy involving many elements (most of them unconcerned with the chronology of the prophesied events or figures).

A type is an Old Testament figure or event which, while very much real, nonetheless also, ordered in God's inscrutable wisdom and providence, simultaneously foreshadowed things to come—something greater in the New Testament, superior to its shadow in the same way a shadow is to the one casting it (which is always the casewith types, by the way):

  Colossians 2:17

  These are a shadow of things to come, but the body [that casts it] is of Christ.

Examples of types are too many too count or recount, but a few are: 1 Peter 3:18-22 (the flood waters/waters of baptism); John 3:14/Numbers 21:8-9 (a sign to look unto to be saved/Christ looked to for salvation); *1 Corinthians 5:7 (the Paschal Lamb/Christ); Genesis 22:12,8; John 3:16 (an only son being sacrificed in obedience) etc.

And prophecy everyone is familiar with; but briefly, they can be either mystical/veiled, or more explicit. An example of a more explicit prophecy is Genesis 49:10 or Deuteronomy 18:15. An example of a more mystical prophecy is Zechariah 3:1-8.

Surprisingly to some, most 'prophecies' in the New Testament are actually of the 'type' kind—'look how God foreshadowed the New Covenant'. That is to say, direct, explicit prophecies are really quite rare in comparison to typological prophecy.

For example, "Out of Egypt I have called my son" originally referred to Israel, God's 'son'. Not Jesus. Instead of recognizing or even being aware fo the existence of typology, critics of the New Testament claim the writers in fact didn't know what they were quoting, and used quotes out of context. This is so utterly false, and obviously wrong. St. Matthew was able to read the first half of a sentence (Hosea 11:1). He using typology.

  Matthew 2:15

  That it might be fulfilled which the Lord spoke by the prophet, saying: Out of Egypt have I called my son.

It doesn't say it fulfilled any prediction or prophecy. He is saying it happened to be  a prophetic saying; and Israel had significance beyond the material—as a type of Christ. For example, Christ didn't think 'the Mosaic Law' was a prophecy predicting something with precise dates when He said what He said in Matthew 5:17. Inasmuch as He saw it, like many Old Testament events, to be something recorded so that we would relate to their fulfillment; and pointed to the fact that the Mosaic Law pointed to something outside itself, even the source of grace of which it was a mere channel,and an acquaintance with Christ who was that source, and His higher calling in the New Covenant.

So since the most common kind of prophecy in the New Testament is type, perhaps Mary has many types of her? Well, we'll see that she does, but first, the  prophecies.

Since these prophecies are so packed, though they are few, I can only include two, of the respective kinds, in this answer (even then, I will only be touching on them).

Prophecies about and Types of Mary

A New Adam and a New Woman for a New Creation: a Prophecy of Mary

2 Corinthians 5:17. Galatians 4:3-5. 1 Corinthians 15:22.

One of the earliest prophecies in all of Scripture, if not the first prophecy per se, is that of Genesis 3:15, often called the Proto-Gospel (or the first promise of hope since the Fall). After the Fall, when Eve gave into the devil in eating the forbidden fruit, and Adam likewise gave into his wife, God says the following to the serpent—a guise of the devil:

  I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her
  seed: [the woman/her seed] shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for [her/the seed's] heel.

Ignoring the latter part, and the translation issues related thereto, we see God promises that the manner in which the devil brought sin into the world (tempting a virgin to disobey God) would be the manner in which God would bring his defeat, crushing his pride (of which the crushing of the "head" is symbolic). Namely, through another 'woman'—a New 'Eve'. Eve gave in; the New Eve will markedly be the opposite. In this is the devil's defeat brought about. What, then, do we find about the Incarnation, the inital and principle fulfillment of this prophecy?

Not an evil or fallen angel causing a woman to disobey God and bring about the Fall, but a good angel, Gabriel, asking a woman to be obedient to His plan to bring about the Redemption. Even before we go further, her primary 'seed' Christ is then the prime candidate, without peeking at the New Testament yet, for a New Adam in this future 'new creation.' (We ultimately are proven to be correct. 1 Corinthians 15:22, 45; Romans 5:12,14,21 etc.)

  Luke 1:38

  And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

This woman appears again at enmity with the devil in the Book of Revelation, in which her seed is identified as Jesus Christ, but also His followers, His disciples, those who follow Him.

This time, she is inserted into a symbolic-narrative vision, yet it's clear that the woman of Genesis 3 is here in view, complete with enmity with a serpent, and her seed Revelation 12:

  And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman  ... and behold a great red dragon,  ...  and the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to be delivered; that, when she should be delivered, he might devour her son. And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with an iron rod [Jesus]: and her son was taken up to God, and to his throne [the Ascension].  ...  And there was a great battle in heaven, Michael and his angels fought with the dragon, and the dragon fought and his angels: ...  And they prevailed not, neither was their place found any more in heaven. And that great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, who seduceth the whole world; and he was cast unto the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him  ...  the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, knowing that he hath but a short time.  ...  And the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. ...

Not only is this Mary because her Son is so explicitly Jesus Christ, but because in John 19:27, Christ in His last moments gives His mother, Mary, to be the mystical "mother" of His beloved disciple John, who also wrote Revelation!

Mary's primary 'seed' is Christ, and "the rest of her seed" is His followers:  Mary is our spiritual mother (Judges 5:7), as Christ is our spiritual brother! Consider how the two respective 'Adams' treat the respective 'Woman':

  Genesis 3:20

  And Adam called the name of [the woman] Eve: because she was the mother of all the living.

  John 19:26

  When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son. After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own.

The similarity between Eve and the New Eve doesn't stop at their perogatives (as mother of fleshly and spiritual offspring, respectively), or how they were interacted with by angels to bring about the Fall and the Redemption, respectively, of the human race. We see even more parallels. Even in the very way the respective Adam's bring about the respective Fall and Redemption is very similar in connection with the respective 'Eves'.

Evil angel, Satan, tempts Eve to disobey God's decree; woman tempts Adam  with what will bring about the Fall; Adam knows but gives in.
Good angel, Gabriel, asks Mary to obey God's plan; Mary 'tempts' the New Adam to begin His ministry and thus the suffering of His Passion, and ultimately the Redemption; He knows, but gives in:

  John 2:1-5

  And the third day, there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee: and the mother of Jesus was there. And Jesus also was invited, and his disciples, to the marriage. And the wine failing, the mother of Jesus saith to him: They have no wine. And Jesus saith to her: Woman, what is that to me and to thee? my hour is not yet come. His mother saith to the waiters: Whatsoever he shall say to you, do ye.

A few things are to be noted here. Jesus gives in, even though His hour is not yet come. He knows the consequences of becoming enemy number one, suffering, being murdered, but 'gives in.' The words 'what to me to thee?' in the Greek are not to be taken for rebuke, since Mary goes on to act as though this means 'OK' (to simplify things). He knows what it entails, as Adam knew that he would "surely die", but nonetheless gave in to the New Eve.

Remarkable parallels! Even more striking, and even further proof that this parallel is what in fact is being conveyed, St. John in this early part of His book is calling to mind the beginning of Genesis throughout: "In the beginning..God...all things were made by him..on the first day...on the second day...on the third day..." etc. What is Jesus' first act of the 'New Creation'? He takes six water pots representing the six days of the first creation, and peforms His first (public?) miracle. He calls to mind, too, the fact that "Mary the mother of Jesus was there" first, and then Jesus. This is, I think, significant. He is definitely calling to mind something significant about Mary and Jesus in this scene.

The Ark of the Covenant : a Type of Mary

One of the most striking types of Mary is the Ark of the Covenant. Looking at this image, you might see why. Take a close look at what this sacred vessel was to built to contain.

  Hebrews 9:4

  ...the ark of the covenant covered about on every part with gold, in which was a golden pot that had manna [which fell from heaven], and the rod of Aaron [the highpriest, and the founder of Israel's priesthood], that had blossomed, and the tables of the testament [word of God on stone].

These were of course symbols of Christ: the true manna which came from heaven (John 6:25-42), the ultimate Highpriest (Hebrews 4:14-16) and the Word of God made flesh (John 1:14), instead of on stone tablets.

Who or what does the container made for Jesus symbolize, then?—it's the same woman "clothed with the sun," or here, gold. (Revlation 11;19; 12:1! cf. Ps 45:9; Mk 10:40; 1 Kings 2:19). Mary is the New Ark. Maybe that's why the old one had to give way to the new (Jeremiah 3:16).

Still not convinced? See how St. Luke quite deliberately, under inspiration of the Holy Ghost, records the similarities between the ark and Mary!

  Luke 1:39-56

  And Mary rising up in those days, went into the hill country with haste into a city of Judea. And she entered into the house of Zachariah, and saluted Elizabeth. And it came to pass, that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the infant leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For behold as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy. And blessed art thou that hast believed, because those things shall be accomplished that were spoken to thee by the Lord. ... And Mary abode with her about three months; and she returned to her own house.

Compare the striking parallels with what happens in regard to Mary, and what happens in regard to the Ark of the Covenant—not scattered through its history or Scripture, but in the one scene, even in the one chapter!

  2 Samuel 6:1-17

  And David again gathered together all the chosen men of Israel, thirty thousand. And David arose and went, with all the people that were with him of the men of Judea to fetch the ark of God, upon which the name of the Lord of hosts is invoked, who sitteth over it upon the cherubims. ... And when they had taken it out of the house of Abinadab, who was in Gabaa, Ahio having care of the ark of God went before the ark. But David and all Israel played before the Lord on all manner of instruments made of wood, on harps and lutes and timbrels and cornets and cymbals. And when they came to the floor of Nachon, Uzzah put forth his hand to the ark of God, and took hold of it: because the oxen kicked and made it lean aside. And the indignation of the Lord was enkindled against Uzzah, and he struck him for his rashness: and he died* there before the ark of God. ... And David was afraid of the Lord that day, saying: How shall the ark of the Lord come to me? And he would not have the ark of the Lord brought in to himself into the city of David: but he caused it to be carried into the house of Obededom the Gethite. And the ark of the Lord abode in the house of Obededom the Gethite three months: and the Lord blessed Obededom, and all his household. ... And David and all the house of Israel brought the ark of the of the Lord with joyful shouting, and with sound of trumpet. And when the ark of the Lord was come into the city of David, Michol the daughter of Saul, looking out through a window, saw king David leaping and dancing before the Lord...

* I've highlighted this to show how God regards His Ark, and how it is unseemly that any man would touch Mary sexually, who bore the Holy One and "God...made flesh," (John 1:1,14) and that she remained a virgin as Christians always taught: even though married to Joseph she asks Gabriel, "How shall this [conception] be, since I know not man?" (Luke 1:34) (a euphemism for 'do not have sexual intercourse').

One could develop this further. There are other strong types of Mary, and they are all linked. But these are a taster.

How about just one more...

Judith, proto-fulfillment of the Woman of Genesis 3—and type of Mary.

  Judith 13:14-26

  And it came to pass, when the men had heard her voice, that they called the ancients of the city. And all ran to meet her from the least to the greatest: for they now had no hopes that she would come. And lighting up lights they all gathered round about her: and she went up to a higher place, and commanded silence to be made. And when all had held their peace, Judith said: Praise ye the Lord our God, who hath not forsaken them that hope in him. And by me his handmaid he hath fulfilled his mercy, which he promised to the house of Israel: and he hath killed the enemy of his people by my hand this night. Then she brought forth the head of Holofernes out of the bag, and shewed it them, saying: Behold the head of Holofernes the general of the army of the Assyrians, and behold his canopy, wherein he lay in his drunkenness, where the Lord our God slew him by the hand of a woman. But as the same Lord liveth, his angel hath been my keeper both going hence, and abiding there, and returning from thence hither: and the Lord hath not suffered me his handmaid to be defiled, but hath brought me back to you without pollution of sin, rejoicing for his victory, for my escape, and for your deliverance. Give all of you glory to him, because he is good, because his mercy endureth for ever. And they all adored the Lord, and said to her: The Lord hath blessed thee by his power, because by thee he hath brought our enemies to nought. And Ozias the prince of the people of Israel, said to her: Blessed art thou, O daughter, by the Lord the most high God, above all women upon the earth. Blessed be the Lord who made heaven and earth, who hath directed thee to the cutting off the head of the prince of our enemies. Because he hath so magnified thy name this day, that thy praise shall not depart out of the mouth of men who shall be mindful of the power of the Lord for ever, for that thou hast not spared thy life, by reason of the distress and tribulation of thy people, but hast prevented our ruin in the presence of our God. And all the people said: So be it, so be it.

The typology is strong! Not only does this fulfill in a lesser more material sense Genesis 3:15 but again St. Luke ('Mary's Gospel') we see striking parallels between this and Luke 1 (26-55):

  And in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee, called Nazareth, To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be. And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God. Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever. And of his kingdom there shall be no end. And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man? And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy, which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God. And behold thy cousin Elizabeth, she also hath conceived a son in her old age; and this is the sixth month with her that is called barren: Because no word shall be impossible with God. And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

  And Mary rising up in those days, went into the hill country with haste into a city of Juda. And she entered into the house of Zachariah, and saluted Elizabeth. And it came to pass, that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the infant leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For behold as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy. And blessed art thou that hast believed, because those things shall be accomplished that were spoken to thee by the Lord. And Mary said:

  My soul doth magnify the Lord.
  And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
  Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid;
  for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
  Because he that is mighty, hath done great things to me;
  and holy is his name.
  And his mercy is from generation unto generations,
  to them that fear him.
  He hath shewed might in his arm:
  he hath scattered the proud in the conceit of their heart.
  He hath put down the mighty from their seat,
  and hath exalted the humble.
  He hath filled the hungry with good things;
  and the rich he hath sent empty away.
  He hath received Israel his servant,
  being mindful of his mercy:
  As he spoke to our fathers,
  to Abraham and to his seed for ever.

Mary has such enmity with the devil (as well as those redeemed by Christ as she herself was—"and the rest of her seed") because she was preserved from from ever being prey to original sin—to his snare and poison.

Hence all the types of Judith being 'undefiled' by the enemy and with 'sin', and the ark being made of 'pure gold' to be fit for the presence of the glory of God, being 'blessed of all women', and 'full of grace' before the Incarnation, in preparation for it, and because of its merits: the Redemption of Jesus Christ. This is why 'all generations call her blessed', as the New Eve who did not partake in the fallen creation inasmuch as she was the New Eve who was to be the beginning of the doing-away-with of it. This is perhaps—God knows—why shes says "He who is might has done great things to me." And why unlike anyone else ever, an angel greets a human in this way:

"Hail, full of grace! The Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women."

Maybe this is why he basically renames her, or addresses her as, kecharitomene (full of grace) and doesn't even call her by her name. Because she was the first to be reinstated with the original grace and justice Adam and Eve were made to have, as the New Eve.

There is much to be said (and speculated) about Mary, the mother of God the Word made flesh, but this is just a small taster.

Silent little Mary God has hidden as a kind of treasure in Scripture, and she is content to keep relatively silent and give all glory, as a model Christian and follower of Jesus, to her Son. Remaining in various (and many!) types and prefigurements and subtle prophecies throughout Scripture, of which you've seen but two touched upon.


Did the Catholic Church infallibly define that we can demonstrate with certainty the existence of God with the light of natural reason only?

God's existence and divinity can be demonstrated.
Vatican I
The First Vatican Council defined the dogma of the knowability of God from natural reason in Dei Filius II canon 1 on Revelation:

If any one shall say that the one true God, our Creator and Lord, cannot be certainly known by the natural light of human reason through created things: let him be anathema.[Cdl. Manning's transl. of:] Si quis dixerit, Deum unum et verum, Creatorem et Dominum nostrum, per ea, quæ facta sunt, naturali rationis humanæ lumine certo cognosci non posse: anathema sit

The beginning of ch. 2 on Revelation says:

The same holy Mother Church holds and teaches that God, the beginning and end of all things, may be certainly known by the natural light of human reason, by means of created things; "for the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made," [Rom. 1:20][Cdl. Manning's transl. of:] Eadem sancta mater Ecclesia tenet et docet, Deum, rerum omnium principium et finem, naturali humanæ rationis lumine e rebus creatis certo cognosci posse; invisibilia enim ipsius, a creatura mundi, per ea quæ facta sunt, intellecta, conspiciuntur

"the mind of the Council was in favor of [God's] demonstrability"
Sacræ Theologiæ Summa IIA: One & Triune God, "Thesis 2: The existence of God can be demonstrated scientifically and intellectually," p. 29:

Certainly Vatican I deliberately omitted the word “demonstration” in its definition. [CL 7.132] That would seem to be easily explained, as Lennerz [De Deo uno, 64] notes, from the intention of the Council of defining a certain principle against strict traditionalism [a kind of fideism] by which also the milder form would necessarily be included. But that the mind of the Council was in favor of demonstrability is sufficiently clear from the fact that it was concerned about “the widely circulated error that the existence of God cannot be proved with any certain arguments and therefore cannot be known by the power of reason,” and “the arguments that have always been highly regarded are not of such a nature as to be convincing.” [CL 7.79] Cardinal Gasser himself conceded that “in some measure, to know for certain and to demonstrate” are “one and the same thing.” [CL 7.132] Therefore, according to the mind of the Council demonstrability is closely connected with certain knowledge, and Pius XI rightly said that the oath prescribed by Pius X [quoted below] excellently interpreted Vatican I.

Magisterial documents explicitly using the word "demonstrate"
Leo XIII, encyclical Æterni Patris §§4,5 (1879):

certain truths which were either divinely proposed for belief, or were bound by the closest chains to the doctrine of faith, were discovered by pagan sages with nothing but their natural reason to guide them, were demonstrated and proved by becoming arguments. […] In the first place, then, this great and noble fruit is gathered from human reason, that it demonstrates that God is
[Latin:] quaedam vera, quae vel divinitus ad credendum proponuntur, vel cum doctrina fidei arctis quibusdam vinculis colligantur, ipsi ethnicorum sapientes, naturali tantum ratione praelucente, cognoverint, aptisque argumentis demonstraverint ac vindicaverint […] primo loco magnus hic et praeclarus ex humana ratione fructus capitur, quod illa Deum esse demonstret

St. Pius X, encyclical Iucunda sane §15 (1904):

Men even go so far as to impugn the arguments demonstrating the existence of God, denying with unparalleled audacity and against the first principles of reason the invincible force of the proof which from the effects ascends to their cause, that is God, and to the notion of His infinite attributes.
[Latin:] Impetuntur ipsa argumenta, quibus Deum esse demonstratur, atque incredibili temeritate, contra prima rationis indicia, repudiatur invicta illa argumentandi vis, qua ex effectibus causa colligitur, id est Deus eiusque attributa, nullis circumscripta limitibus.

Pius XI said that St. Pius X's Oath Against Modernism (Sacrorum antistitum, 1910) correctly interprets Vatican I's Dei Filius. Sacrorum antistitum (DZ 2145) says:

I profess that God, the beginning and end of all things, can be certainly known and thus can also be demonstrated by the natural light of reason "by the things that are made" [cf. Rom. 1:20], that is, by the visible works of creation, as the cause by the effects.
[Latin: DZ 3538:] Deum, rerum omnium principium et finem naturali rationis lumine 'per ea quae facta sunt' (cf. Rom 1, 20) , hoc est, per visibilia creationis opera, tamquam causam per effectus, certo cognosci, adeoque demonstrari etiam posse, profiteor.

source for these quotes: Sacræ Theologiæ Summa IIA: One & Triune God, "Thesis 2: The existence of God can be demonstrated scientifically and
intellectually," pp. 27-29.


How does Catholicism interpret Deuteronomy 13:1-11

From the Haydock Commentary on Deut. 13:

  Ver. 9. Presently put him to death. Not by killing him by private authority, but by informing the magistrate, and proceeding by order of justice. (Challoner) (Worthington) --- Philo seems to assert the contrary. But he perhaps speaks of those who publicly endeavoured to lead the people astray. Presently is not in Hebrew. Other criminals were allowed twenty-four hours after condemnation. No delay was granted to false prophets. No excuse was admitted. If he had even been once acquitted, he might be examined again. --- Thy hand. The accuser or witness first threw a stone, after the wretch had been conducted out of the city, chap. xvii. 5., and Acts vii. 57.

Addressing "Whether Christ's slayers knew who He was?", St. Thomas Aquinas writes (Summa Theologica III q. 47 a. 5 c.):

  Among the Jews some were elders [maiores]*, and others of lesser degree [minores]*. Now according to the author of De Qq. Nov. et Vet. Test., qu. lxvi, the elders, who were called "rulers, knew," as did also the devils, "that He was the Christ promised in the Law: for they saw all the signs in Him which the prophets said would come to pass: but they did not know the mystery of His Godhead." Consequently the Apostle says (1 Cor. 2:8): "If they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory." It must, however, be understood that their ignorance did not excuse them from crime, because it was, as it were, affected ignorance. For they saw manifest signs of His Godhead; yet they perverted them out of hatred and envy of Christ; neither would they believe His words, whereby He avowed that He was the Son of God. Hence He Himself says of them (Jn. 15:22): "If I had not come, and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin." And afterwards He adds (Jn. 15:24): "If I had not done among them the works that no other man hath done, they would not have sin." And so the expression employed by Job (21:14) can be accepted on their behalf: "(Who) said to God: depart from us, we desire not the knowledge of Thy ways."

  But those of lesser degree—namely, the common folk—who had not grasped the mysteries of the Scriptures, did not fully comprehend that He was the Christ or the Son of God. For although some of them believed in Him, yet the multitude did not; and if they doubted sometimes whether He was the Christ, on account of the manifold signs and force of His teaching, as is stated Jn. 7:31,41, nevertheless they were deceived afterwards by their rulers, so that they did not believe Him to be the Son of God or the Christ. Hence Peter said to them (Acts 3:17): "I know that you did it through ignorance, as did also your rulers"—namely, because they were seduced by the rulers.

*translated as "the learned" and "the simple," respectively, in my quote of Summa Theologica II-II q. 2 a. 8


What are some biblical basis for judging between a true and false prophet?

Deut 18:20-22 is the classic example from the old testament

  20 But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in My name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.’ 21 And if you say in your heart, ‘How shall we know the word which the Lord has not spoken?’— 22 when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him. (NKJV)

There are also some examples from the new testament. One such from the Lord Jesus Christ

  Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. (Matt 24:11)

Jesus says the false prophets will be deceivers. Well, the opposite of deception is truth, Jesus also said some things about the truth.

  Sanctify[i] them by Your truth. Your word is truth. (John 17:17).

speaking contrary too the Word of God is a great indicator that they are not in line with the truth, but rather are decievers or "False Prophets".

In addition, Jude speaks of these false teachers.

  Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. 4 For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord [b]God and our Lord Jesus Christ.

Notice Jude says the faith has been "Once for all delivered". We are not awaiting any major new revelations from a prophet. Also he talks about "who turn the grace of God into lewdness". If there message promotes lawlessness or sin in any way, contrary to what has been clearly taught in the Bible, that is a bad sign also.

In addition, the 2nd chapter of 2 Peter is all about false teachers, and would be a good resource for study also.

In conclusion, Paul warns against any "new gospels"

  But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be [b]accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.(galatians 1:6-8).

So the marks of a true prophet would be, speaking things that line up with God's word and promoting godliness.

Marks of a false prophet would be, new and strange teachings that don't line up with the bible, promoting ungodliness, or any type of prophecy that does not come true.


What is the Biblical basis for the idea that the 'quality of life' in hell is not the same for everyone?

is there a reason to believe that An existence in hell will be appreciably different in quality for each individual?

  Revelation 20:12  And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before
  God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is
  the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which
  were written in the books, according to their works.

Each is judged according to their works.

There is also a parable about proportionality;

  Luke 12:47-48  And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and
  prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be
  beaten with many stripes.  But he that knew not, and did commit things
  worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto
  whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom
  men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

God is just and his punishment is just.

God is also merciful.

  John 5:24  Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word,
  and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall
  not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.


There is no biblical argument against Papal succession.
The authority of Peter to govern the Church is based on the words of Christ in Matthew 16:18

You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. [NIV]

Other verses point to Christ's headship and the common work of all the apostles, as in 1 Corinthians 3:11, Ephesians 2:20, 1 Peter 2:4–6, Rev 21:14 [all NIV]:

For no-one can lay any foundation other the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.
...built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.
As you come to him, the living Stone — rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him — you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For in Scripture it says, "See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame."
The walls of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

These all point to the basis of the Church's faith being faith in Christ, and the contribution of all the apostles.
Nevertheless, the dominical words which set Peter up as the rock on which the earthly church stands, and who has the power and authority to bind and loose on earth what is bound and loosed in heaven, remain.
The Church Fathers, those Christians closest to the apostles in time, culture, and theological background, clearly understood that Jesus promised to build the Church on Peter, as shown by their writings[1]:

[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19] ... What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys. (Tertullian, Modesty 21:9–10, AD220)
Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church [Matt. 16:18]. And what does our Lord say to him? ‘Oh you of little faith,’ he says, ‘why do you doubt?’ [Matt. 14:31]. (Origen, Homilies on Exodus 5:4, AD248)
There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and thata one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering. (Cyprian of Carthage, Letters 43[40]:5, AD253)
You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. (Optatus, The Schism of the Donatists 2:2, AD367)
Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome], said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’. (Council of Ephesus, Acts of the Council, session 3, AD431)
Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod, together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, has stripped him [Dioscorus] of the episcopate. (Council of Chalcedon, Acts of the Council, session 3, AD451).

The last two quotes, from pre-Schism Ecumenical Councils, are significant. The New Testament canon was fixed between AD367 and 405[2], so the Councils in 431 and 451 would have been particularly aware of what was biblical and what was not.
Chalcedon calls Leo the Great "most holy and blessed, archbishop of the great and elder Rome," and lists no other members of the Council in that snippet; this puts the Pope in a position of authority. Ephesus arguably went further, agreeing that "Peter, head of the apostles, even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors."
Thus the early Church prior to the Great Schism agrees that Peter's authority subsists in his successors in Rome.
None of this denies the trouble which led to the Great Schism and the Reformation; it seeks to answer the question as stated, "What is the biblical argument against Papal Succession?" with "There is none."

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/origins-of-peter-as-pope
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon