Did Samuel act as a priest on top of being a prophet?

Pay close attention to the words and what they are referring to here:
1 Samuel 1:1

There was a certain man of Ramathaim-zophim of the hill country of Ephraim whose name was Elkanah the son of Jeroham, son of Elihu, son of Tohu, son of Zuph, an Ephrathite.

Samuel,  and even his father,  were not Ephrathites, for Ephrathites were generally Judahites. Zuph was the Ephrathite. Samuel is neither Ephrathite nor Ephraimite, though he did live in the hill country of Ephraim.
Samuel was a Levite.
1 Chronicles 6:27,28

27 Eliab his son, Jeroham his son, Elkanah his son.
28 The sons of Samuel: Joel his firstborn, the second Abijah

Being a Levite explains why he was in Ephraim since the Levites lived throughout Israel. Also,  if we read further back in Samuel's heritage we see he is a Kohathite. Which ties it all together:
Joshua 21:5

5 And the rest of the Kohathites received by lot from the clans of the tribe of Ephraim, from the tribe of Dan and the half-tribe of Manasseh, ten cities.

So we see that Samuel is a Kohathite, of the tribe of Levi,  living in a Levite city in the hill country of Ephraim.
But what is an Ephrathite?
Caleb,  of the tribe of Judah, had a son who apparently settled Ephratha.
1 Chronicles 2:50

50 These were the descendants of Caleb. The sonsfn of Hur the firstborn of Ephrathah: Shobal the father of Kiriath-jearim,

Ephratha is also synonymous with Bethlehem,  though it is usually used more in the sense of the region around Bethlehem.
Micah 5:2

2 But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah,
who are too little to be among the clans of Judah

It is probably in this sense that Zuph was an Ephrathite,  that is,  he simply lived in that region. Like one who lives in New York is a New Yorker even if they are African American or Italian.
So was Samuel a priest?
Absolutely yes, or at least,  he could have been. He was to be a priest first,  trained by Eli. But when God spoke to him and delivered a prophecy against Eli and his family,  then Samuel became a prophet.
He could not be the high priest at the Tabernacle or the Ark of the Covenant, which was at Shiloh,  since he was not of Aaronic lineage, but he could be a lesser priest.
However,  the Ark was taken at the same time that Eli and his sons died and when it was returned it was put under the control of the descendants of Eleazar.  So Samuel never was put in that role.
It is possible he was seen as adopted by Eli. This, combined with his Levite heritage, would have settled any questions regarding offering sacrifices.
Samuel took the role of Judge after the return of the Ark as well.  So while he was qualified to sacrifice and was given prophecies at times,  his other role was as a Judge.
1 Samuel 7:17

17 Then he would return to Ramah, for his home was there, and there also he judged Israel. And he built there an altar to the LORD.

Ramah is in the hill country of Ephraim.
There are many cases of non-priests making sacrifices and offerings on altars. They are usually at least prophets, such as Elijah,  or Judges,  such as Gideon. But some are neither,  such as Samson's parents, though they did it at the behest of an angel.
The rules for only Aaronic priests were specific to the Sanctuary and the Ark
Numbers 18:1,2

1 So the LORD said to Aaron, “You and your sons and your father’s house with you shall bear iniquity connected with the sanctuary, and you and your sons with you shall bear iniquity connected with your priesthood.
2 And with you bring your brothers also, the tribe of Levi, the tribe of your father, that they may join you and minister to you while you and your sons with you are before the tent of the testimony.

This chart and the site it is from has a lot of great info on the Levites:


Have there been such an attempt made to make the comprehensive list of all New Testament scrolls ever found?

For the New Testament, yes. Though Wikipedia may not be a "scholarly" source I find it good for this sort of thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript#Listings

Also, in at least the UBS and NA, there is a list of manuscripts used to compile the "Greek New Testament." I think that the BHS contains something somewhat similar for the Hebrew Bible.


How do Southern Baptists who believe in the immortality of the soul explain what death means in scripture

The Southern Baptist position is that we will be resurrected with physical bodies, as they state in The Baptist Faith and Message:

X. Last Things
God, in His own time and in His own way, will bring the world to its appropriate end. According to His promise, Jesus Christ will return personally and visibly in glory to the earth; the dead will be raised; and Christ will judge all men in righteousness. The unrighteous will be consigned to Hell, the place of everlasting punishment. The righteous in their resurrected and glorified bodies will receive their reward and will dwell forever in Heaven with the Lord.

I would not phrase the destination of our resurrection "Heaven", because it does suggest a mode of living far different from what we know now, but they do at least give Revelation 20-21 in the references supporting this position, which teaches the "new heaven and a new earth". Perhaps the lack of clarity here represents a lack of consensus as to whether the new earth should be understood as a renewal, a transformation, a purging, a destruction and recreation, or somewhere else on that spectrum. (To be fair, I doubt that there are many other denominations of comparable size that also wouldn't have a lot of disagreement over the origin of the new earth.) But in any case, it is clear that, whatever a "glorified" body is, our destiny is not to change from a physical to a spiritual being, as the question suggests.


This question has already been answered before. You just have to read the Catholic Encyclopedia. Below, I have extracted out and rearranged parts from the encyclopedic entry in order to provide a concise answer for this question. I've also dug into some material that explains the reason for singing the Psalms, hymns, and spiritual canticles (Col 3:16): the reason is that Apostle Paul says so.

Colossians 3:16 (New International Version)

  Let the message of Christ dwell among you richly as you teach and
  admonish one another with all wisdom through psalms, hymns, and songs
  from the Spirit, singing to God with gratitude in your hearts.

The History of the Offertory

The use of bread and wine is supported by St. Justin Martyr, an early Church Father, who said: "Then bread and a cup of water and wine are brought to the president of the brethren" (I Apol., lxv, cf, lxvii). The bread and wine alone were offerings to God by the laypeople, but soon they were accompanied by a silent prayer (presumed with certain to be the Offertory prayer, because originally the only Roman Offertory prayers were the Secrets and said silently) that God should accept these gifts, sanctify them, change them into the Body and Blood of his Son, and give Christians the grace of Communion in return. The Offertory was carried out during the Mass of the Faithful by the clergymen, while the laypeople in the congregation sang a psalm (the Offertory chant, or Offertorium), which was part of the Proper of the Mass. The Offertorium was once a whole psalm with an antiphon. By the time of the Gregorian Antiphonary, the psalm had been reduced to a few verses only, which caused much controversy and lamentation. Now, only the antiphon was sung, except at requiems. It's taken from the psalter, or other book of the Bible, or oftentimes, not a Biblical text. It refers in some way to the feast or occasion of the Mass, never to the offering of bread and wine. Only the requiem has preserved a longer offertory with one verse and the repetition of the last part of the antiphon (the text is not Biblical). In the Middle Ages, the public presentation of the gifts (bread and wine) by the people had disappeared. The medieval Offertory prayers varied considerably, and were established at Rome by the fourteenth century (Ordo Rom. XIV., 53, P.L. LXXVIII, 1165). The present Roman prayers were compiled from various sources, Gallican or Mozarabic. Since then, the prayers that modern-day Catholics may know form part of the Roman Mass.

Why sing?

According to this source, singing is the sign of the heart’s joy (Acts 2:46-47). Thus, St. Augustine says rightly, “Singing is for one who loves,” and there is also an ancient proverb: “Whoever sings well prays twice over.” Since the Offertory used to be a whole psalm and antiphon, it would make sense to sing or chant the Offertory, because singing is a way to express love for God and communication with God.

Acts 2:46-47 (New International Version)

  Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They
  broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere
  hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the
  Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.


What is the difference between Eastern Orthodox doctrine of deification and the "little g" god doctrine of the Word of Faith movement?

[NOTE: At the time I answered this question, where the title and third paragraph now refer to "Eastern Orthodox", they formerly specified "orthodox protestantism", and my answer was tailored to the question as it then stood (that is, after the first revision of the question by Flimzy. Bruisedreed's claim in his explanation for his editing the question subsequent to my answer is made with no support of the assertion that the reference to protestantism was an error by the original poster.]

The difference is that orthodox Protestant doctrine is that there is one God, who is manifested in three persons, and that humans, through baptism, are made part of what Paul calls the Body of Christ (cf. Romans 12:12, 1 Corinthians 12:12, and other places) not that each person is a separate "little god".

One of the proponents of the "Word of Faith" movement, Kenneth Hagin, wrote (in Zoe: The God-Kind of Life (Kenneth Hagin Ministries, Inc., 1989) that God "made us in the same class of being that he is himself," and that the believer is "called Christ" because "that's who we are, we're Christ!", and earlier, in the article, "The Virgin Birth" (Word of Faith Magazine, December 1977) that by being "born again", the believer becomes "as much an incarnation as Jesus of Nazareth".
An orthodox protestant view denies that God made humans in the same class as himself. And while orthodox protestantism accepts that the company of believers is the "body of Christ", and therefore individual believers are members of that body, this is not the same as saying that the company is Christ, since the body without the head is not the same as the head.

The "body of Christ" is not an incarnation in the sense that Jesus of Nazareth was an incarnation, "begotten of his father before all worlds".


Can a Pope elevate a non-heretical yet minority opinion to the level of dogma?

The Arian controversy was dealt with at a time when the doctrine of papal infallibility was not yet established. Although it was an ecumenical council which authoritatively declared Trinitarian Orthodoxy, belief was actually mandated by Emperor Theodosius. I doubt whether, during the fourth century, there was ever a time when almost no one in the Church agreed with Trinitarianism or even that it was definitely a minority view. Nevertheless, I think I understand the scenario you see as possible.

Papal infallibility has only ever been invoked on two occasions, so it would be  an extremely solemn and exceptional circumstance when a future pope would even consider declaring doctrine ex cathedra. Popes have many ways of leading the Church to a position, without the sledgehammer approach that unnecessary use of papal infallibility would involve.

Take the example of human evolution, which Catholics are now permitted to believe in, but which would have been a minority position within the Church hierarchy only a few decades ago. No pope made any doctrinal pronouncement, but gradually, pope by pope, the papacy led the Church towards accepting evolution as fact, until the possibility of evolution of our species is no longer a minority position within the Church ranks.

It is not possible to predict what all future popes will do, but if a pope ever wants to declare a minority position to be infallible doctrine, I am sure he would first set out to convince the cardinals.  With support of the cardinals, he perhaps could speak ex cathedra on the matter, but more likely would call an ecumenical council to determine the matter.


What were the advantages of a monarchy system that Israel wanted?

Some students of the Bible may be quick to judge Israel for her desire to conform to the nations around them by asking for a king, and perhaps their negative judgment is at least partially deserved. In Israel's favor, however, is that the prophet Samuel's sons did not walk in the ways of their father and his God. First Samuel chapter 8 tells us they

  turned aside after dishonest gain and took bribes and perverted justice (v.3b).

"Then," the following verse begins, "all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel . . . and they said to him, 'Behold, you have grown old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint a king for us to judge us like all the nations" (vv.4-5).

As good a prophet and judge as Samuel was, his fathering skills may have been lacking. The Scriptures do not tell us one way or the other. From the elders' perspective, perhaps they were justified, in a sense, in asking for a king to rule over them. On the other hand, during Samuel's day there was a school of prophets which provided a pool from which God could select a suitable candidate to replace Samuel when he died (see 10:5 and 10). The elders, however, were evidently not willing to wait.

To Samuel's credit, the first thing he did after hearing the request of the elders was to pray to the LORD for guidance (v.6). God then said to Samuel,

  Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them (v.7; cf.10:17-19).

Furthermore, in obedience to God, Samuel laid out for the people exactly what they could expect from a king, and it wasn't all good (which is an understatement!). The phrase Samuel iterated again and again in the hearing of the people was, "He [the king] will take . . . he will take . . . he will also take . . ." and so on (vv.10-18).

In other words, an earthly king asks a great deal of the subjects of his kingdom, since he needs to raise an army from the pool of eligible young men, hire (or impress into service) staff to serve him and his family, confiscate the best fields to provide for the needs of his family and staff, and the list goes on and on.

Did Israel heed Samuel's advice? No. Instead they said,

  No, but there shall be a king over us that we also may be like all the nations, that our king may judge us and go out before us and fight our battles (vv.19b-20).

After talking things over again with the LORD, the LORD said to Samuel,

  "Listen to their voice and appoint them a king." So Samuel said to the men of Israel, "Go every man to his city."

An unspecified time later, the prophet Samuel

  took the flask of oil, poured it on [Saul's] head, kissed him and said, "has not the LORD anointed you a ruler over His inheritance?" (10:1).

The rest of the story, as they say, is history. Saul started out his reign well enough. God gave him the gift of prophecy, at least initially (10:9-12). As Constable observed, God also gave Israel in the person of Saul,

  a man with great personal strengths: wisdom, humility, sensitivity, physical attractiveness, and wealth. His gift of Saul was a good gift, as are all God’s gifts to His people (Luke 11:9-13). God did not give Israel a time bomb just waiting to explode. Saul failed because of the choices he made, not because he lacked the qualities necessary to succeed.

Constable also quoted G. Coleman Luck, author of “The First Glimpse of the First King of Israel,” (Bibliotheca Sacra 123:489 (January-March 1966):51):

  It remains very clear that God did not choose this king for Himself, but rather for the people. In other words, though God actually appointed Saul, Saul did not in the final analysis represent God’s choice, but the people’s choice.”

The old saw about being careful what you ask for is apropos. Israel (not to mention Samuel) would live to rue the day she asked for a king. King Saul, unlike his successor King David, was not a man after God's own heart (Acts 13:22), and though Saul did manage at times to lead Israel in victory against their oppressors, he wound up disobeying God, consulting a medium for guidance, and falling on his own sword in battle.

In conclusion, there were no advantages for Israel to have a king. The advantages were purely imaginary, and at the heart of their vain imaginings was a spiritual stupor which caused them to forget that God and God alone delivered Israel from the hand of the Egyptians and from the power of all the kingdoms that were oppressing them. Evidently, optimistic and confident-in-their-God visionaries like Joshua and Caleb were not to be found in Israel during this dark period in the history of Israel.


What is the origin of "cruciform theodicy"?

Here is an early writing which may have been part of what influenced Bonhoeffer in the direction of cruciform theodicy.  It comes as part of a letter from Ambrose of Milan to the Christian congregation at Vercellae in 396 AD.  In staunch opposition to Epicurean Philosophy (from whence comes the Problem of Evil in it's original formulation) Ambrose points out that pleasure cannot reinstate us to Paradise because pleasure alone has caused us to lose it.

  But Holy Scripture refutes this, for it teaches us that pleasure was suggested to Adam and Eve by the craft and enticements of the serpent. Since, indeed, the serpent itself is pleasure, and therefore the passions of pleasure are various and slippery, and as it were infected with the poison of corruptions, it is certain then that Adam, being deceived by the desire of pleasure, fell away from the commandment of God and from the enjoyment of grace. How then can pleasure recall us to paradise, seeing that it alone deprived us of it?

If pleasure cannot avail us of it, perhaps the unspoken opposite of suffering is implied as the cure.


Did God create man to worship and praise Him?

Actually, the answer to that question is longer than one should post on a question and answer site, but I would recommend the book "Desiring God" by John Piper. He explains it excellently , but in summary he says this:

  God is the greatest thing that exists, ever has existed  or ever will exist. Therefore, for us to glory anything else, would be sin, as there is nothing greater than God, there is no calling greater than praising God. This is true not only for us, but surprisingly also for God himself, he being the greatest , to glory in anything else would be idolatry. Therefore, if the greatest thing God can do is give himself glory, and no created thing does can be greater than God, the greatest thing we can do (our purpose, you might say) is to glory him.


What, if any, are some first-millenium mentions of prohibitions or approval of interracial or international marriages?

Prohibitions by the Church of the sort you suggest would have appeared in the canons (or "rules") of the Church councils - either of local councils, convened by bishops in specific regions; or Ecumenical Councils, at which bishops from all five ancient Church Sees (Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem) attended.

The Church was more or less united for the first 1,000 years of its existence, with the exception of the Nestorian and Monophysite schisms  in the 5th century.

During the first millennium, the so-called "Chalcedonian" Church on the other side of these schisms held seven Ecumenical councils, from 325 to 787.  In addition, numerous local councils were held within the individual sees (e.g. Council of Carthage in 397).  The canons of all seven Ecumenical Councils and a number of important local councils have been translated from Greek into English as part of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Church Fathers series.

There are almost 200 canons that came out of the Ecumenical Councils and an even greater number that arose from the various local councils.  There are no canons from any of these councils that expressly forbid marriages between a man and a woman of different races or nationalities.


If faith without deeds, or actions, is dead, then what are these concrete actions?

In the Protestant belief, works are a sign of faith, and the Holy Spirit working in the life of the believer.

The ESV commentary elaborates on this interpretation thusly:

  Faith without Works Is Dead. James continues the theme that hearing/faith must lead to doing/works. It may seem that James contradicts Paul’s “by grace you have been saved through faith . . . not a result of works” (Eph. 2:8–9). In reality there is no contradiction between faith and works. Paul and James agree that the basis of salvation is grace alone through faith. Works are not the basis of salvation but the necessary result (Eph. 2:10).

Similarly, from the HCSB Study Notes:

  2:15-17 Giving a blessing to someone in need without offering tangible aid is useless. If faith is not accompanied by works, it is dead by itself. 2:18 The argument turns to the relationship between faith and works. Beginning in this verse James answered a “straw man” argument (but someone will say) against his assertion that faith without works is dead. 2:19-20 The demons also believe—and they shudder is an answer to the mistaken assertion that belief in God by itself is sufficient for salvation. Demons believe, but it is impossible for them to be saved. Saving faith entails more than mere knowledge. It includes trust and obedience, for faith without works is useless.

As to what specifically the good works are, James cites 2 historical examples of works as a result of faith in Abraham, and Rahab.

From the ESV published commentary:

  James 2:21 Abraham . . . justified by works. James may seem to contradict Paul here (compare Rom. 4:2–3). However, while Paul cites Gen. 15:6 to show that Abraham was justified by faith, James bases his claim on Gen. 22:9–10, where Abraham was willing to offer Isaac as a sacrifice. Thus James apparently has a different sense of the word “justify” in mind here. Paul uses “justify” to express being declared righteous by God through faith, on the basis of Jesus’ atoning sacrifice (Rom. 3:24–26). James seems to use “justify” to stress the way in which works demonstrate that someone has been justified (compare Matt. 12:33–37). Paul emphasizes how one is justified; James focuses on what justification looks like in practice.

But to your question, about application, I would start broadly with the Great Commandment.  Jesus tells his disciples:

  37 And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.
  38 This is the great and first commandment.
  39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
  40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets." - Matthew 22:37-40 ESV

And similarly:

  34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another.
  35 By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another." - John 13:34-35 ESV

So, worship is loving the Lord with all your heart and your actions, and good works is the love and actions you show one another.  To drill down deeper to see what some examples of these works of love might look like, there are a couple of verses in which Jesus elaborates:

  34 Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
  35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me,
  36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.'
  37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink?
  38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you?
  39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?'
  40 And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.' - Matthew 25:34-40 ESV

Another example given by Jesus is in Luke:

  29 But he, desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?"
  30 Jesus replied, "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him and departed, leaving him half dead.
  31 Now by chance a priest was going down that road, and when he saw him he passed by on the other side.
  32 So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side.
  33 But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was, and when he saw him, he had compassion.
  34 He went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he set him on his own animal and brought him to an inn and took care of him.
  35 And the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, 'Take care of him, and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back.'
  36 Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?"
  37 He said, "The one who showed him mercy." And Jesus said to him, "You go, and do likewise." - Luke 10:29-37 ESV

These are a few of the biblical examples of the good works of those of faith, but they are by no means intended to be complete or exclusionary.  We are commanded to love our neighbors and seek ways to be servants to others as Christ served and lived on Earth.


How do soul sleep adherents explain 1 Peter 3:18-20?

Most likely the reason this question is not getting much traction is because no one who believes in the unconscious state of the dead prior to Jesus' second coming actually use the term "soul sleep". We believe the spirit returns to God upon death (Ecclesiastes 12:7), and the person is only figuratively sleeping in the grave without consciousness. Moving on...

Often this passage gets quoted to prove that souls are conscious after death, however this interpretation  is a contradiction of another popular parable often quoted for the same purpose, the Rich man and Lazarus. If the common interpretation that Jesus went and preached to the antediluvian souls in hell after death is true, then the whole point of the parable of the Rich man and Lazarus becomes mute.

"If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." Luke 16:31

Therefore, obviously this cannot be the interpretation. Did they not have Noah preaching to them for who knows how many years? Was not even the Garden of Eden still on earth back then as a testimony against them?
Rather this verse has a spiritual meaning in reference to spirits in prisons. Consider what Jesus states here:

"The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;" (Isaiah 61:1)

Now to quote some preachers. Uriah Smith, a founding father of the Seventh Day Adventist church has an article on this very verse, writes "The whole idea is forced, unnatural, and absurd. The preaching that was given to them was through Noah, who, by the power of the Holy Ghost (1 Peter 1:12), delivered to them the message of warning. And on the meaning of spirits in prison, "But in what sense were they in prison? - In the same sense in which persons in error and darkness are said to be in prison. Isaiah 42:7: “To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison-house.”"
Doug Bachelor, a popular Adventist preacher today, addresses it in a video here.
Finally, consider the straight forward reading of 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 and 1 Corinthians 15:51-52. It is simple, and makes no conflated points of conscious souls descending from heaven to retrieve their physical bodies.

"For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord."(1 These 4:16-17)
"Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed." (1 Cor 15:51-52)


Which virtue did only Jesus teach and practice?

Through the Sermon on the Mount and the Parables, Jesus taught people to practice the same virtues that they already knew about, but with differences.

What - The same virtues, but to a greater extent. Go the extra mile. (Matthew 5:41)
Who - Show love not only to friends, but to enemies. (Matthew 5:43-48)
When - Pray without ceasing. Recall the neighbor who came at night for bread (Luke 11:5-8) and the Ten virgins, only some of whom were prepared. (Matthew 25:1-13)
Where - Both locally and to the Ends of the Earth. The Great Commission.
Why - Motive to glorify God, not self. Give in secret, pray in a closet. (Matthew 6:1-8)
How - Not by human effort, but by God's power through His indwelling spirit. (John 15:1-17)

From the reaction of the disciples, this widening and deepening of virtue appeared hardest to acccept concerning two of them: forgiveness and generosity.
Forgiveness
17 Jesus said to his disciples: “Things that cause people to stumble are bound to come, but woe to anyone through whom they come. 2 It would be better for them to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around their neck than to cause one of these little ones to stumble. 3 So watch yourselves.

“If your brother or sister sins against you, rebuke them; and if they repent, forgive them. 4 Even if they sin against you seven times in a day and seven times come back to you saying ‘I repent,’ you must forgive them.”

5 The apostles said to the Lord, “Increase our faith!”

6 He replied, “If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, ‘Be uprooted and planted in the sea,’ and it will obey you. (Luke 17:1-6)

Generosity
18 A certain ruler asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

19 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. 20 You know the commandments: ‘You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.’”

21 “All these I have kept since I was a boy,” he said.

22 When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

23 When he heard this, he became very sad, because he was very wealthy. 24 Jesus looked at him and said, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God! 25 Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

26 Those who heard this asked, “Who then can be saved?”

27 Jesus replied, “What is impossible with man is possible with God.” (Luke 18:18-27)

Perfection
Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matthew 5:48)
Jesus' insistence that no one will enter Heaven unless they are morally perfect was his most significant statement.


What is the Catholic teaching on technology and faith?

Catholic Church believes that Faith does not contradict science.

  Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth. Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are."- CCC 159

Guided by our faith does not mean if Science disagrees with Faith we should throw science away. It means that the ethical part of Science should be always guided by faith.

For example just because we have technology that finds out a Human fetus has some disability, we cannot use technology to murder that baby. You may also know that the theory of evolution in wrong hands gave rise to eugenics. Science cannot or does not have any explanation on why these are Good or Bad, Right or Wrong. Only Faith does.


When does the bread and wine become Body and Blood?

Transubstantiation occurs during the consecratory thanksgiving during the single act of worship called the liturgy of the Eucharist.

1377 The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P41.HTM

During Mass the liturgy of the Eucharist begins a particular time and follows this structure:

1346 The liturgy of the Eucharist unfolds according to a fundamental structure which has been preserved throughout the centuries down to our own day. It displays two great parts that form a fundamental unity:

the gathering, the liturgy of the Word, with readings, homily and general intercessions;
the liturgy of the Eucharist, with the presentation of the bread and wine, the consecratory thanksgiving, and communion.
The liturgy of the Word and liturgy of the Eucharist together form "one single act of worship";170 The Eucharistic table set for us is the table both of the Word of God and of the Body of the Lord.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P40.HTM

The consecratory thanksgiving is the moment when the priest holds up the bread and repeats the words of Christ: "This is my body ..." and so on. Likewise, he says the same for the wine "This is the cup ... " and so on.

1412 The essential signs of the Eucharistic sacrament are wheat bread and grape wine, on which the blessing of the Holy Spirit is invoked and the priest pronounces the words of consecration spoken by Jesus during the Last Supper: "This is my body which will be given up for you.... This is the cup of my blood...."
1413 By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P44.HTM

Now one might ask: what if the priest does not finish the consecration for some reason? Say he faints. The wording of the Catechism does not address this directly except it does simply say this in the canon law:

Can. 927 It is absolutely wrong, even in urgent and extreme necessity, to consecrate one element without the other, or even to consecrate both outside the eucharistic celebration.
http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/__P39.HTM

Seemingly, then, the consecration must be finished despite any circumstances. This bit of canon law also implies that it is possible to consecrate the bread but not the wine, however serious a sin it might be.
This further leads to another question: suppose communion, the last part of the liturgy, is not achieved -- is the bread and wine still Body and Blood? It seems yes because of what is stated in 1376. The "presence of Christ ... endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist." Once transubstantiated the Body and Blood are Body and Blood so long as they exist. I assume then their destruction by eating or rot or other leaves them as not Body and Blood. However, not finishing the eucharistic celebration may be 'absolutely wrong' as well in light of the Canon Law quote above (I really cannot speak authoritatively on that).
Why does it occur at that moment and not some other? 1376 (below) states that it is "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread" at the last supper. So this statement argues both why transubstantiation occurs and when, and, subsequently, why it occurs at that time.
The definition of transubstantiation:

1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P41.HTM

I don't have easy access to older items, however, 1376 is a quote from the Council of Trent (1500 something).

SOURCES
Catechism of the Catholic Church
Code of Canon Law


If "the Kingdom of God comes not with observation", how can it be "taken by violence"?

The verses cited, when taken in the broader context of the pericopes to which they belong, both emphasize the importance of believers taking an active role in preparing themselves for the Kingdom of Heaven.

What Matthew reports Jesus to say in 11:12 relates to what He had just said to the multitude:

  Matthew 11:11

    Verily I say unto you, among them that are born of women, there has not arisen a greater than John the Baptist.  Notwithstanding, He that
    is less, in the kingdom of Heaven is greater than he.

The eastern Church Fathers (e.g. John Chrysostom, 4th century) understood Christ to be referring to Himself in Matthew 11:11.  He, Christ, was not born of woman - i.e. a married woman, gyne in Greek - but of a virgin (parthenos).  He, Christ, is "less" than John the Baptist in years (the Greek microteros also means "younger"), but He is greater in the Kingdom in Heaven.  The Kingdom of Heaven suffering violence and the violent taking it by force refers to what His followers must do to attain the Kingdom of Heaven:  leave one's father and mother (Matthew 19:29, Mark 10:29, Luke 18:29); despise one's own life (John 12:25); etc.  (See Chrysostom's Homily XXXVII on Matthew).

Similarly, I think we must consider Luke 17:20 in the context of the verse that follows:

  Luke 17:20–21 (KJV 1900)

    And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not
    with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for,
    behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

Here He is admonishing the Pharisees not to sit passively and wait for the Kingdom to come, but rather to attend to themselves in order to prepare to receive it.  Cyril of Alexandria (4th/5th c.) comments on this passage:

  For ask not, He says, about the times in which the season of the
  kingdom of heaven shall again arise and come, but rather be in
  earnest, that ye may be found worthy of it, for it is within you, that
  is, it depends on your own wills, and is in your power whether or not
  you receive it.  For every man who has attained to justification by
  means of faith in Christ, and is adorned by all virtues, is counted
  worth of the kingdom of heaven.

  Commentary Upon the Gospel of St. Luke, Part II, Sermon CXVII (translated from the Syriac by R. Payne Smith, Oxford University
  Press, 1859), pp. 541-542.

The Greek phrase translated as "is taken by violence" in the King James Version is βιαζεται (biazetai), a passive form of the verb βιάζω (biazo).  In the Greek, Matthew 11:12 and Luke 16:16 use the same word, βιάζω, conjugated differently.   It conveys the meaning of achieving something by force.  Both the KJV and RSV (the versions coincidentally recommended within the Greek Orthodox Church) use the word "violence" in their translations, but other versions choose something more mild.  The the NIV, NASB, and ESV omit translating the phrase βιαζεται altogether, even though it appears in all available Greek manuscripts.  Although the image of the Kingdom of Heaven being "taken by violence" may seem somewhat incongruent, the Lord Himself said that He came not to bring peace, but a sword (Matthew 10:34).  The Russian Orthodox monk and writer Theophan the Recluse provided the following exegesis of Matthew 11:12, which, although written for Russian faithful living in the late 19th century could perhaps also be applied today:

  The Kingdom suffereth violence - that is, it is attained with
  violence, with labor, force, and difficult spiritual struggles.
  Therefore, only those who lead a labor-filled ascetic life attain it.
  Thus, every sort of comfort is renounced along the path to the
  Kingdom.  Pleasures of all types distance us from the Kingdom.  But
  these days we have concern only for pleasures - sometimes emotional,
  but more often fleshly: to eat, drink, have fun, make merry, and
  luxuriate in everything.  We have said to the Kingdom, "I beg you to
  excuse me," although there is a feast in the Kingdom - a royal feast -
  one so sumptuous that we could not even conceive of it, because we do
  not have the taste for it.  What is considered sweet there is bitter
  to us, what is pleasant there is repulsive to us, what gladdens one
  there is a burden to us.  We have gone totally separate ways.  And the
  Kingdom, together with the violent who take it by force, withdraws
  from us.  We are glad about this, and are even ready to drive them
  away more quickly.  Indeed, we have already started talking about it,
  but the evil one has not yet managed to arrange this*.

  Thoughts for Every Day, p. 133

* Theophan, writing in 1881, may have been referring to the revolutionary movements - all intensely secular - that were starting to take hold in Russia at the time.  The editors note, "He identified the spiritual sickness of the modern West, with its symptoms of materialism, naturalism, deism, atheism, neopaganism, hedonism, and other antichristian belief systems."


Why do Roman Catholics show devotion to the Sacred Heart and Immaculate Heart?

Ok.  I don't know if this will be an appropriate answer, because I have not had the time to dig deeply into finding any expert Catholic writings on this specifically.  Pope Pius XII's Encyclical HAURIETIS AQUAS on devotion to the Sacred Heart is about the closest I can find in the near term, but I have not read it fully to see if it addresses your question sufficiently.

By my own reason though, I think of the analogy to understanding a very complex subject, design, etc. in our earthly life or to understanding any given person.  If you contemplate a very complex thing as a whole, as humans, it is hard to understand it at a very deep level.  If we narrow our focus of the subject in our contemplation, then we start to develop a deeper understanding of the larger subject.  I believe that is a large reason that the Catholic Church recognizes various titles, roles, and view points on Jesus, Mary, God the Father, the Church, and even ourselves.  It is to allow our limited human perception to penetrate the hugely complex (infinitely complex in the case of God) to understand them much more fully.


What is the breath of life spoken of in Genesis 2:7?

In Hebrew thinking/usage "breath" is what separates animals from plants. Plants have no "breath," but animals do.
This same phrase is used in the account of the flood.

Genesis 7:15 (KJV)
And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.

This phrase is used of everything that got on the ark (Ge 7:15), as well as the animals and humans that didn't get on the ark (Ge 7:22).
Hebrew writers liked to employ parallelism, and it seems that the way things are phrased in Genesis 2:7 is little more than an example of that: saying two things that essentially mean the same thing but are stated in different ways.

Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path. (Ps 119:105)
O LORD, who may abide in Your tent? Who may dwell on Your holy hill? (Ps 15:1)


This depends on what your church services provide for you and your own life situation.

As a Catholic, I can't really do that because I cannot receive Eucharist at home, unless a priest comes over, in which case I could. But this doesn't lend itself well to internet services.

Another common reason people go to a service is because of fellowship and community worship. You may fellowship via the internet with others but you don't get the day-to-day interaction online that you may in person. The dynamic is different. Also, it is a different experience worshiping in a group vs. alone. It is very important for a Christian to build relationships with other Christians because it provides some support and an avenue for growth in your faith. Church services are a major way to fill that need.

I would say that if you don't have any better options, or you physically are unable to make it to your service on Sunday, having an online service may fill that void. Many elderly even watch church services on TV if they are homebound.

I personally do them in addition to going to a physical church. They can be worth it. But I would only replace a physical service with an online one out of necessity, myself.


What exactly was the earliest start time of a Catholic mass before 1957? - What means aurora?

"Aurora" in Latin means "dawn", as opposed to "sunrise" (which is "ortus solis", the rising of the sun). This would mean, more or less, the period at which the sky was visibly bright.

The reason for selecting this time was undoubtedly so that Mass would not fall before celebration of Lauds, that part of the Divine Office which was intended to open the day. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, "The office of Lauds was supposed to be recited at dawn." It seems likely that this general directive could be interpreted differently by various priests, and surely some priests celebrated Lauds quite early in the morning. Hence the directive in the 1917 Code made sure that no matter how early Lauds was celebrated, Mass would come after it. (In convents or monasteries which celebrate the Divine Office, the first Mass of the day is often celebrated immediately after, or at least very shortly after, the end of Lauds.


Were the scriptural readings at Mass ever other than Vulgate read at mass pre-Vatican II?

Were non-Vulgate Scriptural readings ever used at the pre-Vatican II Mass?

I believe the answer to this question to be yes.

If we count the lawful liturgical variants of the Tridentine Mass such as the Dominican Rite and the Carmelite Rite and permission given to some Religious Orders, we able to see that the Holy See has given various indults for the Tridentine Mass to be celebrated in various languages.

The use of the Greek language Scriptures in itself predates Jerome’s translation of the bible into Latin. The first three or four centuries the Mass at Rome was in Greek not Latin.

I strongly doubt the Hebrew was a Vulgate translation of Scriptures within the following examples:

  Although Latin prevails in the West as a unified liturgical language, in the face of certain circumstances the Roman church has made exceptions to provide a language in the Liturgy more familiar to the people. It is in the ninth century among the Slavic nations that we find a departure from liturgical Latin in divine worship. A privilege was first granted to Sts. Cyril and Methodius, by Pope Hadrian II in 869, and again by Pope John VIII in 880 to use the vernacular (Slavonic) in the Liturgy.

  Another example of the flexibility of which the Roman rite is capable is the privilege granted for the use of Chinese as a liturgical language. History records in the fourteenth century that the first Franciscan missionary to China, John of Monte Corvino, used the vernacular in the Liturgy.26 Pope Paul V, in a brief of June 27, 1615, granted the same privilege to Jesuit missionaries. As recently as 1949, the privilege to use the Chinese literary language in the Liturgy was granted by the Holy Office.

  Still further concessions have been granted:

  a) During the fourteenth century the Roman Liturgy in its Dominican variant was translated into Greek for use by the Dominican missionaries in Greece.

  b) Permission had been granted to celebrate the Dominican Liturgy in the Armenian classical language in Armenia.

  c) At the end of the sixteenth century missionaries of India of the Latin rite were allowed to celebrate Mass in Syriac.

  d) In the seventeenth century the Discalced Carmelites were granted permission to use Arabic in their mission foundation in Persia.

  e) In the seventeenth century the Theatine Clerics were granted permission to use Georgian or Armenian in their mission foundation in Georgia.

  f) In the nineteenth century the Franciscans in the Holy Land were granted permission to use Arabic.

  g) In 1958, an indult was granted India to use Hindi.

  h) Five Latin priests in the Holy Land were granted permission to use Hebrew.

  i) In 1959, the Holy See renewed Germany's privilege to use the vernacular (German) in the Epistle and Gospel after they are recited in Latin. - Liturgical Languages

As noted in point ”i”, Rome renewed Germany’s privilege to use to the German vernacular at Mass, in essence doubling the Epistles and the Gospels. When the original indult first came into effect is unknown (to me) at the moment.

The following may be of interest here:

  After the invention of the printing press, prior to Luther's Bible being published in German, there had been over 20 versions of the whole Bible translated into the various German dialects (High and Low) by Catholics. Similarly, there were several vernacular versions of the Bible published in other languages both before and after the Reformation. The Church did condemn certain vernacular translations because of what it felt were bad translations and anti-Catholic notes (vernacular means native to a region or country). - Did the Catholic Church forbid Bible reading?

What is more is that Missale Romanum of 1965, allowed the vernacular, but did not state it had to be the Vulgate translation. There was no need if it were Greek.

  The official text of the Ordinary is from the Roman Missal with English translations approved by the National Conference of Bishops of the United States, published by authority of the Bishops' Commission on the Liturgical Apostolate.

  NOTE: This was the official English version of the Order of Mass from the 1965 Roman Missal, published directly after the Second Vatican Council ended in 1965. This was the English Mass used from 1965 until 1969-70, when Paul VI promulgated the New Order of Mass (Novus Ordo Missae), and imposed it on the Latin Rite (the Novus Ordo is the current normative Mass of the Latin Rite). This interim Mass is much closer to the intended fruit of Vatican II's Sacrosanctum Concilum than the New Mass of 1970. It is essentially the Tridentine Latin Mass in English with minor modifications.

  Many rubrical similarities exist between the 1965 Missal and the New Mass of 1970. Obviously, an option for use of the vernacular exists in the1965. Furthermore, as in the Novus Ordo, it is at the discretion of the celebrant to either face the East ("ad orientem") or the people ("versus ad populum"). An option for concelebration was also introduced in the 1965 (this was formerly restricted to Ordination Masses).The required Mass vestments were also simplified (e.g., optionality of the maniple).In 1967, the cope was supressed in the Asperges (rite of aspersion at High Mass). The chasuble was worn in its stead. The Canon was still required to be read in Latin until 1967, when it was permitted in the vernacular. - The Interim Missal


What is the background of the verse Heb 10:25

Why did the author make this statement? By reading before and after this verse, we can get an idea of his mindset when he wrote it.

The beginning of the chapter tells us that the worshipers in the OT had to keep sacrificing animals every year, having no consciousness that their sins were forgiven. But we may come to church with the sense that the blood cleanses us from all sins. Perhaps some were staying away because they felt too sinful to come.

v14 tells us that we have been perfected forever, especially those who are being sanctified, who have set themselves apart for Christ's purposes. Perhaps some are staying away from church because they are filled with their own purposes. By participating in church activities, we'll find Christ's church-building purposes fulfilled through us.

in v26-ff, we find that we can be deceived by sin and stay away from church, and forget that we were cleansed from sin, and therefore set ourselves up for an awful judgment. The church is a place to hear the preaching of the Word, which can point out our sins and keep us repenting of sins. Perhaps some Hebrews could have been recovered from their sin if they had continued.

These are several situations the author may have had in mind when he wrote the passage; he encouraged the Hebrews to continue attending and strengthening other believers while there.


Do Baptists consider immersion baptisms of adults performed to be valid if performed by other denominations?

I’ve searched high and low to find an answer to this question, but the best I could come up with was this statement from the Baptist Union of Great Britain:

Many Baptists will want to welcome and affirm those who have a different story to tell of how they have been baptised and come to faith, while still declaring our conviction that believer’s baptism is the pattern that is set out for us in scripture:  https://www.baptist.org.uk/Groups/220594/Believers_Baptism.aspx

The Baptist Union has no problem in welcoming and affirming a Christian who wasn’t baptised in the manner proscribed by the Baptist church, but says nothing specific regarding the situation where an adult Christian was baptised by full water immersion within another denomination.
One U.K. Baptist church said this: “Because Baptists do not accept infant Baptism or christening as true baptism, then there is normally no objection to the baptism of a believer who has been christened as an infant.”  Again, this does not address the specific situation you ask about.
When I became a Christian 23 years ago I understood that I could not become a full member of the Baptist church unless I studied, understood and accepted their core tenants of belief and, as an adult, confessed Christ Jesus as my Lord and Saviour.  I had been baptised (full water immersion) as a 13 year old but I did not consider that baptism to be valid.  The minister had no problem with my request to be re-baptised.  Neither did he ever say he thought my original baptism was invalid.  He just waited for me to make up my own mind and after he was assured that I knew what I was doing, I made a public confession of my faith and was baptised by full water immersion.
In all the years of my association with the Baptist church I have never read any statement about the validity (or otherwise) of full immersion baptism of an adult performed by another denomination.  Of course, each Baptist church is an independent entity and each local Baptist church appoints its own ministers.  https://www.baptist.org.uk/Groups/220484/Who_are_Baptists.aspx
The question of full membership within the Baptist church may be dependent upon having submitted to believers’ baptism as performed by the Baptist church.  But nobody has to be a member of a church in order to be saved.  Becoming a member simply means you get to participate in the election of ministers/deacons and to vote when changes are put forward.  The importance of believer’s baptism within the Declaration of Principle of the Baptist Union of Great Britain may shed some light on your question:

The Basis of the Baptist Union is:

That our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, God manifest in the flesh, is the sole and absolute authority in all matters pertaining to faith and practice, as revealed in the Holy Scriptures, and that each Church has liberty, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to interpret and administer His laws.

That Christian Baptism is the immersion in water into the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, of those who have professed repentance towards God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ who 'died for our sins according to the Scriptures; was buried, and rose again the third day'.

That it is the duty of every disciple to bear personal witness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and to take part in the evangelisation of the world. https://www.baptist.org.uk/Groups/220595/Declaration_of_Principle.aspx

Given the flexibility and independence within U.K. Baptist churches, I suspect that the Baptist Union does not take a hard and fast stand about the validity of full water baptisms performed by other denominations on consenting adults.  No doubt the subject is covered in theological college, but I’ve never seen anything in literature that can be accessed by laypersons.
The minister in the Baptist church I attended even performed a baptism by sprinkling water on the head of a very old lady who had been coming to the church for decades, and finally got round to confessing that she had been putting it off for too long.  Full water immersion would not have been an option, so any “rules” about baptism were waived.  Let’s face it, the point of salvation is to confess Christ Jesus as your Lord and Saviour and although Baptists have a firm view on how baptism should be done, they also reject the notion that salvation depends on that.


Protestants, why do some Christians suffer so much more than others?

Jesus warned his disciples that following Him would not be easy:

Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.  For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it. What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul? (Matthew 16:24-26)

Jesus knew that many of his followers would be persecuted for righteousness’ sake:

I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world (John16:33).

Even the Apostle Paul had difficulties in his life – he was beaten, falsely accused, imprisoned and eventually killed because of his faith in Christ Jesus.  He also had a personal affliction which he had to bear.  Yet his faith never faltered:

Indeed I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as refuse, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own, based on law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God depends on faith; that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his suffering, becoming like him in his death, that if possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead” (Philippians 3:8-11).

Does Satan just have a major vendetta towards them?  I think it’s fair to say that Satan hates all Christians and his aim is to destroy their faith and get them to renounce Christ Jesus.  He certainly tried his best to turn Job – but failed.
Are they not "truly" saved?  Satan would like Christians to question their salvation, to cast doubts into their minds, to make them stumble and fall.  But Satan is a liar, and the father of the lie.  Jesus promised that all who confess that He is the Son of God can be assured that He abides in them.
Are persecuted, suffering and tormented Christians cursed by God?  Is God punishing them for small sins, hates them, or what?  No.  God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in Him.

Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God. So we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. By this is love perfected with us, so that we may have confidence for the Day of Judgment, because as he is so also are we in this world. There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love.  We love because he first loved us. If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. And this commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother (1 John 4:15-21).

Christians suffer in this world, but this world and all that is in it will pass away; the kingdom of God is eternal. Jesus said His kingdom was not of this world (John 18:36).
Christians who follow Christ do not see the things of this life, good or bad, as the end of the story. Even the sufferings we endure, as terrible as they can be, “are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us (Romans 8:18).

Blessed is the one who perseveres under trial because, having stood the test, that person will receive the crown of life that the Lord has promised to those who love him (James 1:12).

And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him (Hebrews 11:6)

A final word of encouragement: God has removed sin from all who have repented and turned to Him “as far as the east is from the west” (Psalm 103:12). This promise stands forever: “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9).  https://www.gotquestions.org/salvation-doubt.html
Conclusion: We do not know why some Christians suffer more than other Christians, but we know this:

In all things God works for the goodof those wholove him, who have been called according to his purpose...  If God is for us, who can be against us?  ...No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us.  For I am convincedthat neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord (Romans 8:28, 31,37-39).


For a <60 second list of excerpted chapter titles, sure.
Without any mention of what the "blood" mentioned at the cross acomplished or why Jesus was for sake -- without any mention of faith or repentence? No not hardly. Of course our salvation is not based on knowledge or amount of information we have anyway and God could choose to convict somebody of their sin and instill in them a faith that the things mentioned (resurrection was in there) were somehow on their behalf, but it's a bit of a stretch.

That is a Bible presentation, not a Gospel presentation.


Why was the gift of the Holy Ghost not operative during Christ's mortal ministry according to LDS doctrine?

Note that the entry in the Bible Dictionary specifically states, "among the Jews" Implying that the Holy Ghost was operating in it's fulness elsewhere at that time. So why wasn't the comforter with the Jews during Christ's ministry? I've always been under the impression that it was because Christ himself was with the Jews instead.

Christ is the second comforter (see John 14:16-21). In Moroni Chapter 10, Moroni says that the gifts of God come from Christ, by the power of the Holy Ghost and by the Spirit of Christ. In other words, the gifts come by the power of that Spirit who is the Holy Ghost, but the Spirit of Christ (or light of Christ) is the agency through which the Holy Ghost operates.1

While Christ was with the Jews, those gifts, normally given by the Holy Ghost, we given by Christ himself. It was only after his mortal ministry that there was a necessity for the Holy Ghost to return to the Jews in its fulness.

1 Mormon Doctrine: Gifts of the Spirit.


Who is Jesus referring to when he is speaking to the daughters of Jerusalem?

Jesus was speaking prophetically of what would occur to His people Israel--not just women--in both AD 70, when the Roman general Titus sacked Jerusalem, and in an unspecified time when the whole world, including Israel, would experience the wrath of God during the Great Tribulation, which is described in detail in the Revelation of Jesus Christ.

In other words, "daughters of Jerusalem" is a synecdoche:  a part (daughters) for the whole (Israel).  Whether the women Jesus was addressing were hired mourners or actual disciples of Jesus whose tears and gestures were heartfelt, Jesus' words to them had a double significance.

First, within a generation of His ascension, Rome would invade Jerusalem, and the second temple ("Herod's temple) in Jerusalem would be destroyed.  Jesus prophesied about this earlier in Matthew 24:2.  The huge stones of the temple that were "torn down" in such a way that not one would be left standing on the other are still visible today in Jerusalem.

Second, during what has been called The Great Tribulation (again, see Matthew 24, especially vv.9 and 21) Satan's "false prophet" and "antichrist" will deceive not only Israel, but the entire world, and during the various calamities that befall the world during those days (viz., the judgments of the seven seals, seven trumpets, and seven bowls of Revelation 6-16) the unbelieving inhabitants of not only Jerusalem but of the entire world  will prefer death over life.

Their cries (taken from Hosea 10:8 and repeated in Revelation 6:16) reflect their panic, helplessness, and hopelessness in the face of "the wrath of the Lamb."  Remarkably enough, however, they will still not repent and turn to God (Revelation 9:20, 21); rather, they will plead for a quick end to their suffering through death.

Jesus' words in Luke 24:31 comprise a proverb.  As the NET Bible points out in its notes, "The green tree stands for good conditions resulting from God’s blessing and the dry tree for bad conditions resulting from divine judgment. If God allowed innocent Jesus to perish in times of His blessing, what would happen to guilty Jerusalem when God judged her?"

This proverb is characterized by the "how much more" line of reasoning; that is, if something bad happens in the best of conditions (the green), how much more will something even worse happen in the worst of conditions (the dry).

As terrible as the destruction of Jerusalem was for her inhabitants in AD 70, the destruction that occurs during the Great Tribulation will make General Titus's invasion look like a romp in the park by comparison.

In other words, “If the Romans condemned to death the one they admitted to be innocent, how would they deal in the future with those whom they found guilty?”  That future, again, had a double aspect, the first aspect would be fulfilled in AD 70, and the second  during the ruthless seven-year reign of the man of sin (the antichrist), whose power, not unlike that of Rome, will be manifest, and not just in part of the world as in Rome's heyday, but in the entire world.


Where do dead in Christ rise from if they're with Jesus?

So if the dead are already with Jesus where are the dead in Christ rising from?

Those who died in faith in the Old Testament are to be raised at the second coming of Christ.

  Daniel 12:2  And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth
  shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and
  everlasting contempt.

  Hebrews 11:40  God having provided some better thing for us, that they
  without us should not be made perfect.

  Revelation 20:6  Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first
  resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall
  be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand
  years.

Those who become Christians after Christ get their new life right away.

  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.

Because Christians have this new life in Christ while we are still alive, when the body dies, it remains here on earth, but the soul is with Jesus.

  2 Corinthians 5:8  We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be
  absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

This is how when Jesus returns for the rapture and brings with him the souls of dead Christians so that they are reunited with their resurrection bodies and we who are alive will be joined with them in bodies that are changed rather than resurrected.

  1 Thessalonians 4:14-17  For if we believe that Jesus died and rose
  again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
  For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are
  alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them
  which are asleep.   For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven
  with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of
  God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:   Then we which are
  alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds,
  to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

  1 Corinthians 15:51-52  Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all
  sleep, but we shall all be changed,   In a moment, in the twinkling of
  an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead
  shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.


In Protestant Christianity, it is understood that Mary was a virgin until the birth of Jesus, but not after.

  24 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord
  commanded him: he took his wife, 25 but knew her not until she had
  given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.  Matthew 1:24-25
  ESV

After the birth of Jesus, then, Joseph and Mary were like any other married couple and would have likely had other children.

Paul refers to someone named "James" whom he refers to as "the Lord's brother".

  But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother.  Galatians 1:19 ESV

Later in Matthew, Jesus arrives in Nazareth, and he is rejected there because that is where he grew up, and people refused to believe he was anything special.  They specifically say that we know his father (who was actually only his stepfather), his mother Mary, and four named brothers.

  Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And
  are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things? Matthew 13:55-56 ESV

So, Jesus appears to have had four brothers, namely James, Joseph, Simon and Judas.  It also indicates that Jesus had sisters, but it does not give a specific number.


If the Geneva Bible was the Bible of the English reformation, then why did the KJV become so widely used?

Wikipedia gives a summary of the history.

The Geneva Bible translation was produced about 50 years before the King James, and was used by most English-speaking Protestants for much of the Reformation. However the Geneva Bible incorporated "annotations which are an important part of the Geneva Bible [and] were Calvinist and Puritan in character, and as such they were disliked by the ruling pro-government Anglicans of the Church of England, as well as King James I".

King James therefore commissioned an alternative translation (which also did not include the notes). The KJV was adopted by the Church of England, which constituted by far the majority of English-speaking Protestants. This adoption caused the translation to be by far the most widely available English translation over the next 300 years, and accounts for its enduring popularity.


From a Calvinist perspective, if Adam refused the fruit what would happen to their descendants?

The question of the descendants of Adam if there had been no fall has actually be discussed a great deal among Calvinists in the disciplines of Biblical and Covenant theology. This question is a lot less speculative than is immediately apparent.

The answer, in summary, is that Adam would have gained eternal life through his obedience and become glorified, and since the commission to have children was given prior to the fall, it would still have been in effect if there were no fall. Therefore he would have fathered children in a similar nature to his own. Since the commands concerning the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil were negative in nature, reformed theologians refer to an implicit doctrine of a "probationary period," in which Adam could prove his obedience and merit eschatological advancement: glorification. The need for this glorification is demonstrated in their nakedness (which in the salvation context is addressed by glorified clothing), and the fact that the Tree of Life is presented as being efficacious for this advancement.

Geerhardus Vos, the reformed biblical theologian, is known for coining the phrase, "Eschatology precedes soteriology." In short, with or without the fall, there needed to be a greater end-game for mankind, at a minimum to prevent the constant threat of a fall, but also to enjoy better communion with Jesus Christ. Soteriology became necessary due to the fact of the fall, but eschatology would have been present regardless. He addresses this topic directly in chapter 3 of Biblical Theology. There is an excellent podcast that discusses this question.

This is especially significant to understand the doctrine of the active obedience of Christ. If there were not a merit-based eschatological advancement available to one under the Covenant of Works, it becomes difficult to understand how exactly Jesus earned that advancement for Christians. He could be a perfect sacrifice and forgive our sins, but it doesn't make sense why that would bring us even beyond life in the Garden of Eden. Why be saved unto glorification instead of saved back into nakedness unless you factor in that Christ personally merited this through his obedience? This also explains some of the parallelism between Adam (the first man), the nation of Israel (God's firstborn), and Jesus (the only begotten), who was tempted by the devil in Matthew 4. The devil as his temper (like Adam was tempted) and in the wilderness (like the children of Israel). It also explains the "Tree of Life" references in the Bible in post-lapsarian contexts, Revelation 2 and 22.

We also find references to a probationary period before Geerhardus Vos.

Hermann Witsius (1677)

  ... That man was not arrived at the pitch of utmost happiness, but to
  expect a still greater good, after his course of obedience was
  over. This was hinted by the prohibition of the most delightful
  tree, whose fruit was, of any other, greatly to be desired; and this
  guard some degree of imperfection in that, in which man was forbid the
  enjoyment of some good. (via Puritan Board)

It is also in John Owen. (See same link above).

This is seen as the outworking of being faithful to the biblical text, not a speculation!


What is the relationship between the mass and the cross in precise terms?

Point 1.  Does Jesus "Die" During the Mass

No, he does not, Jesus is in his Glorified State sitting at the Right hand of the father constantly interceding in our behalf, the one true intercessor between Man and and God the Father.

Point 2. Does Jesus die "Again" during the Mass

No, Jesus died for our sins once and for all (time) 2000 years ago. In his one sacrifice he died for all men who ever lived, whoever is living and who ever will live. His sacrifice and his alone made Satisfaction for all man kind and has not limit in it's Merit.  Christ died once for everyone, wether or not you accept this free gift, he died for you only the once.

Point 3. Is the sacrifice of Christ repeated during the mass?

No, despite what many anti-catholic Christians state, Christ is not re-sacrificed during the Mass.  Through the liturgy Catholics enter into the once true sacrifice at Calvary, they enter into the what is identified as the New Covenant, The Eucharistic Celebration.  "This is my blood of the covenant which is poured out for many." "For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come."  I Think the Eucharist is celebrated about every 4 minutes around the Globe.  That's often.

Point 4. Is the one sacrifice of Christ performed once for all 2000 years ago merely packaged up and "offered to the father again" during mass, or is the sacrifice of the cross literally performed before our eyes during a mass?

Yes and No.  During the Mass the sacrifice is re-pressented not represented.  Its s a spiritual reality but that does not mean it is not real. At mass we biblically unite ourselves to the one and only sacrifice that is before the father at all times. It is a un-bloody Sacrifice but a sacrifice non-the-less, we are offering up to the father that very same sacrifice, uniting ourselves to it along with our thanks, praise and charity, with the angels in heaven and every other mass that has happened in the past present and future with every Catholic Christian that ever lived, are living or will live. Unlike Protestants who worship a risen Christ, we, as Saint Paul says "Preach Christ Crucified".  Each and every Eucharistic celebration.  Bishop Fulton Sheen once said "The Gospel that has removed Christ from the Cross is demonic" The Cross is the Ultimate example of Love.

Point 5. Is the sacrifice of the mass a different and completely separate sacrifice to the sacrifice of Christ on the cross?

No.  It is the one and same sacrifice.  Christ is not suffering again, as anti-catholics like R.C. Sproul and others separated from the Truth like to say.  The Mass is a Participation in that one Sacrifice.  This is what we are called to "do".  Christ says "Do This"  many times in scripture.


What Prayer/words are associated with the solemn sign of the cross?

Growing up, I was taught that it was tradition to silently say while making the Threefold Sign of the Cross just before the gospel is read with these words: "May the words of the Gospel be on my mind, on my lips, and in my heart."

  The origin of the sign of the cross on the forehead and the heart is Frankish or German, and it probably entered into the Roman liturgy sometime between the years 800 and 1000. The sign of the cross on the lips was added rather later, but it is not clear when it became standard practice.

  The words we are taught accompany the gesture (besides "Gloria tibi, Domine") are "May the words of the Gospel be on my mind, on my lips, and in my heart." The middle element, "on my lips," seems liturgically proper for the minister proclaiming the Gospel, but is it liturgically appropriate for the congregation? EWTN

Here is a little more on this practice:

  Concerning the making the sign of the cross at the proclamation of the Holy Gospel, after the deacon or priest says, “A reading from the Holy Gospel according to ….,” he and the faithful make the sign of the cross with the thumb on the forehead, lips, and breast over the heart.  (The deacon or priest also makes the sign of the cross on the Lectionary or Book of the Gospels.)  The first recorded instance of making the sign of the cross at the proclamation of the gospel is found in the ninth century:  Regimius of Auxerre (d. c. 908) in his Expositio recorded how the people in the congregation would sign their foreheads, and the deacon would sign his forehead and breast.  By the eleventh century, as attested to by Pope Innocent III, the deacon would make the sign of the cross on the Lectionary or Book of Gospels, and then both he and the congregation would sign the forehead, lips, and breast.  The significance of the threefold signing is that we want to hear the Holy Gospel with an open mind, proclaim it with our lips, and cherish and safeguard it in our hearts.  We are imploring the Lord for the grace to receive, acknowledge, and then profess the faith that has been received in the Holy Gospel through our Lord, Jesus Christ, the Word of God incarnate. - What is the origin of the sign of the cross at the gospel, bowing at the Creed, and shaking hands for the sign of peace?


What is the Reformed perspective on "All people are called by God to salvation in Christ"?

A typical reformed response on this statement would be like that found in Matthew 22:14 “For many are invited, but few are chosen.”

A typical reformed expositor writes:

  The gospel call goes forth far and wide. It reaches ever so many. Most of them are like the man in the parable: they hear but do not heed. In comparison with those many that are lost there are but few that are saved, that is, few that are chosen from eternity to inherit life everlasting. Salvation, then, in the final analysis, is not a human accomplishment but the gift of God’s sovereign grace. Cf. Luke 12:32; John 6:39, 44; Eph. 1:4. (NEW TESTAMENT COMMENTARY, WILLIAM HENDRIKSEN
  Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew)

Regarding the article on Justification that is linked in your question, historical reformed teachers would most likely find it intellectually dishonest. The Protestant view of Justification occurs in a 'single moment' prior to any kind of moral ability to be had.  A Catholic view of justification is that it is a life time process similar to what a Protestant calls sanctification. The article entirely glosses over this division, while grouping statements which both agree to under vary different senses. The Reformers would condemn this article and probably accuse the authors of deceit. The Reformers were not that interested in unity when it came to the central doctrine of the gospel which they believed the Catholic church to have utterly corrupted by denying the justification of a sinner 'in a moment' prior to sanctification.


How is Acts 7:48 reconciled with omnipresence doctrines?

'Dwelling' does not simply mean to 'be present'. It means to reside or inhabit. If you go into a shop, you are not 'dwelling' in the shop, but you are present there. If you say "I do not dwell in the shop" it doesn't mean you never go in there, or that you are not there now.

The point is that God is above 'dwelling' in places that humans have made. He has his own 'dwelling places (in so far as he dwells anywhere), but has no need of human temples.


The most complete collection of texts on Arianism I know of is listed on the FCC website, but they are Mostly letters from and to Arian Auxentius. Most of the texts have links in the translation column.

The online book "Arianism: Historical and Theological Reassessments: Papers from The Ninth Century" contains source texts and commentary on the liturgy AFAICS from the search function:

The letter of Arian Auxentius regarding the Arian missionary Ulfilas, gives the clearest picture of Arian beliefs. The creed of Arian Ulfilas (c. 311 – 383), which concludes a letter praising him written by Auxentius, distinguishes God the Father ("unbegotten"), who is the only true God from Son of God ("only-begotten"), who is Lord/Master; and the Holy Spirit (the illuminating and sanctifying power), who is neither God nor Lord/Master:

  I, Ulfila, bishop and confessor, have always so believed, and in this, the one true faith, I make the journey to my Lord; I believe in only one God the Father, the unbegotten and invisible, and in his only-begotten son, our Lord/Master and God, the designer and maker of all creation, having none other like him. Therefore there is one God of all, who is also God of our God; and in one Holy Spirit, the illuminating and sanctifying power, as Christ said after his resurrection to his apostles: "And behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you; but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be clothed with power from on high" (Luke 24:49) and again "But ye shall receive power, when the Holy Ghost is come upon you" (Acts 1:8); Neither God nor Lord/Master, but the faithful minister of Christ; not equal, but subject and obedient in all things to the Son. And I believe the Son to be subject and obedient in all things to God the Father

A letter from Arius (c. 250–336) to the Arian Eusebius of Nicomedia (died 341) details the  core beliefs of the Arians:

  Some of them say that the Son is an eructation, others that he is a production, others that he is also unbegotten.   These are impieties to which we cannot listen, even though the heretics threaten us with a thousand deaths. But we say and believe and have taught, and do teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor in any way part of the unbegotten; and that he does not derive his subsistence from any matter; but that by his own will and counsel he has subsisted before time and before ages as perfect as God, only begotten and unchangeable, and that before he was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, he was not. For he was not unbegotten. We are persecuted, because we say that the Son has a beginning, but that God is without beginning.


Are there disadvantages to Chronological Study Bibles?

From my theological vantage-point, I always wish to emphasize that the Bible is not a single book, but a collection of many books written by different people, at different times, and with differing opinions. When you jumble all that together, you effectively uproot every verse of the Bible from its literary context and risk taking verses out of context. This is the same reason that I personally don't find "harmonization" (e.g. of the Gospels) very helpful, because each Gospel has its own particular emphases and literary style.
Moreover, these Bibles only consider the narrative chronology and don't pay heed to compositional chronology. For instance, much of Chronicles runs parallel to Samuel–Kings, but Chronicles hails from the Persian period, whereas Sam–Kngs hails from the Babylonian period—but both talk about events from the Monarchy. Likewise, the narratives of Daniel (Babylonian per.) and Jonah (Assyrian per.) were most likely written well into the Persian (Jonah) or Hellenistic (Daniel) periods.
That said, there are certainly advantages to getting a "birds-eye" view of the chronology of the Bible—and a chronological study Bible may be helpful in that respect. You may also consider buying a good single-volume commentary (Like this one) or an accessible introduction to each testament.
N.B. on Canonical Order
The New Testament Canon
The New Testament Canon follows this order: 1) Gospels (earliest-to-latest), 2) Acts, 3) The Letters of Paul to Churches (arranged longest-to-shortest), 4) Letters of Paul to individuals, 5) Catholic Epistles (longest-to-shortest), 6) the Apocalypse of John.
The Hebrew Bible/Old Testament:
The Hebrew Bible/Old Testament varies depending on the church/religious group. Jews follow their traditional order of 1) Torah, 2) Prophets, 3) 'Writings' (Where the Torah is the Pentateuch, the prophets are the 'historical books' [minus Chronicles] and the Major prophets, and the 'writings' are the Psalms, minor prophets and the rest [including Chronicles, which is at the end]). Protestants use the same books as the Jews, but put them in order by genre: 1) Pentateuch, 2) Historical Books, 3)Major Prophets, 4) Minor Prophets. Note that the Christian OT always ends with Malachi, because it dovetails so nicely with Matthew. Catholic and Orthodox Christians follow the same basic order that the Protestants do, but include books that the Protestants removed from their Bibles (Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Ben Sirah, etc.).


Prior to the scientific consensus regarding the age of mankind, were there any theologians who argued that the date of Adam's creation was unknowable?

Between AD 389-417 Augustine wrote three commentaries on Genesis and discussed the early chapters of Genesis in The City of God.  Augustine believed the genealogies given in Genesis to be literal chronologies and that the pre-Flood patriarchs lived to be around 900 years.  He stated:

  “Unbelievers are also deceived by false documents which ascribe to history many thousand years, although we can calculate from Sacred Scripture that not 6,000 years have passed since the creation of man.”

Augustine believed that the original creation happened in an instant of time and that Genesis 6–8 describes a literal, global Flood.  Augustine clearly had old-earth views to contend with in his day—from the Greeks and from other pagans—but he did not accept them and did not try to fit those ideas into Genesis.

Although Augustine reckoned it was possible to calculate the time from the creation of Adam based on biblical chronology and genealogies, he was not an orthodox young-earth creationist, rejecting the seven-day creation beliefs of Ambrose, who was instrumental in Augustine’s conversion to Christianity.

On the patriarchs’ ages see Augustine, The City of God, Book 15, Chapters 11–12, pp. 436–440.

Augustine. The City of God, translated by G. G. Walsh and G. Monahan (1952), Book 12, Chapter 11, p. 263. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press.

Augustine. The City of God, Book 12, Chapter 10, p. 263; Chapter 11, pp. 264–265.

Primeval Chronology by Dr. William Henry Green (1825-1900) Professor of Old Testament at Princeton Theological Seminary Published in Bibliotheca Sacra April, 1890 (pp. 285-303):

  “On these various grounds we conclude that the Scriptures furnish no data for a chronological computation prior to the life of Abraham; and that the Mosaic records do not fix and were not intended to fix the precise date either of the Flood or of the creation of the world.”

Source: http://www.genevaninstitute.org/syllabus/unit-two-theology-proper/lesson-5-the-decree-of-creation/primeval-chronology-by-dr-william-henry-green/

While doing research into this subject, I came across an article about the concept of a pre-Adamic race. The idea is that God created a race of humans who lived on the Earth before He created Adam, the first man. This hypothesis has been promoted by various scholars at various times throughout history. Roman Emperor Julian the Apostate (circa A.D. 331–363) and Calvinist theologian Isaac de La Peyrère (1596-1676) are two notable examples.

It is perhaps not directly related to your specific question, but allow me to leave you the link to the article: https://www.gotquestions.org/pre-Adamic-race.html

Although I am unable to do justice to your question, I have learned new things while looking into it so my time has not been wasted! I hope someone else will come forward with insights into the views of theologians prior to Ussher regarding the biblical genealogies being used to fix a date for the creation of Adam.


Why is rejection of the Trinity heresy, and not just wrong? (Protestant perspective)

A famous quote from Christian history is:

  In Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty, In All Things Charity

In Essentials Unity

The Apostle Paul talks about "another gospel" that was being preached to the Galatians, and he uses very strong words regarding those who bring such a gospel:

  6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you
  by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really
  not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to
  distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from
  heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have
  preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so
  I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary
  to what you received, he is to be accursed!  Galatians 1:6-9 NAS

The concept is that there is one true gospel that leads to eternal life.  As Jesus said in Matthew 7, there is one narrow road that leads to life and one wide road that leads to destruction.

So, we only have unity with those who hold to the essentials of true gospel of Jesus Christ.  To put it another way, we only have unity among those with whom we will spend eternity.  We do not have unity with those who preach another gospel that does not lead to life.  We have charity, but not unity.

So, the question becomes centered on what are the essentials.  From an evangelical perspective, the essentials typically include the nature of God (including the Trinity) and salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.  Thus, whatever departs from that is considered heretical.

John's first epistle speaks about the necessity of correct Christology and Theology:

  I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but
  because you do know it, and because no lie is of the truth. 22 Who
  is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This
  is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. 23
  Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses
  the Son has the Father also.  1 John 2:21-23

Specifically, the "liar" is the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ.  The antichrist is the one who denies the Father and the Son.  This is understood by many to deny the nature of Jesus as the eternal Second Person of the Trinity.

Additionally, John also writes that anyone who denies Jesus as having come in the flesh is antichrist:

  For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not
  acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver
  and the antichrist.  2 John 1:7 NAS

In Non-Essentials Liberty, All Things Charity

We may disagree with others about election or the end times, and there is freedom in that.  I personally disagree with my pastor about a few things, primarily, but not limited to eschatology.  Yet we still have unity.

I am exhorted to oppose those who hold beliefs I consider heretical, but I do so with charity.


Magnitude of the earthquakes of the Book of Revelation

In the Seventh Day Adventist Church*, there is no shortage of making connections to real historical events and the seals and other events in Revelation. Particular to your question, the SDA church has made connections to real earthquakes (and other "cosmic events") and a few of the seals. With that, we can infer "how big" the earthquake should be, or rather, was.

Adventists have an historic view of eschatology. That means that they think the book of Revelation is a prophetic record of the entire history of the Church from its writing to the Second Coming of Christ. They also believe that seals represent an era in Christian history; they are not exact, shortly executed events (typically). So they do have some opinions on actual historical earthquakes being events that Revelation was indeed talking about. These events are often quoted to show that a certain point in history was in a particular seal era.see video Source 1

Among them are the 1755 Lisbon Earthquake, New England's Dark Day of 1780, and A meteor shower in 1833. [Wikipedia source] see video Source 2

Now the Lisbon Earthquake is estimated at about 8.7 magnitude. The Lisbon Earthquake, by measure of how many people and lands were affected, was certainly no small event; countless people were affeted by it and tens of thousands perished because of it. It was a massive earthquake no matter where you live and what you are used to. With this in mind, you might infer that the SDA would say that a "massive earthquake" should be in this range.  However, to SDA's, it is not necessarily the severity of the event itself that signal the event as a "cosmic sign".

A "cosmic sign" is better recognized by people's reaction to it. In general, they look to see if the event caused a turning to God (out of fear). The Adventists quickly recognize that the time frame they mark as the era of the 6th seal was also a time of heightened religious interest. Some of those eras are called by secular historians The Enlightenment and also the Great Awakening. see video Source 4 & 6

Video Sources

I was lucky enough to find this lecture on YouTube that supports what I have said about SDA doctrine and belief.

Starting about 14 minutes in: "The seals are a countdown to God [The Second Comming]". He describes the seals as eras.
Starting about 17 minutes in: He Justifies that the 6th seal cannot be an instanteaneou event.
Starting about 20 minutes in: The speaker just finished reminding the listeners that the "time, times, and half a time" from Daniel is the Dark Ages Church, which they say officailly ended its reign in 1798 (according to SDA's) then says that they should begin seeing the signs described in the sixth seal. He then explicitly states the Lisbon Earthquake of 1755 as on of the signs.
Starting about 25 minutes in: Mentions that people ran to the Churches for protection during the Lisbon Earthquake, but perished anyway. He then begins to discuss New England's Dark Day.
Starting about 30 minutes in: He beings to discuss the Lionid Showers in 1833.
Starting about 32 minutes in: He says that the opening of the 6th seal was a time during which people's religious interests were excited and awakened (The Enlightment). Also, he states explicitly that the 6th seal was not an instantaneous event.
Starting about 35 minutes in: He mentions an earthquake in Chile (thought you might be personally interested).

Additional lecture source

*Disclaimer: The SDA is quite unique in a great deal of it's doctrines, especially eschatology. The greater portion of Christianity would either disagree with the above or weigh in no opinion at all.