what differentiates virtuous faith from the faith of extremists

Taking an action based on your belief is not the same as acting in faith, if the thing you are placing your faith into has criteria which do specify the requirements for being a true member of that faith.

The Christian faith sets out the criteria which will indicate if the follower is truly faithful. These criteria are set out in the words and example of Jesus and the nature of God as set out in the bible.

The words and actions of Jesus are easier to recognise because they are obvious and require far less understanding that does the nature of God. For example when Jesus says,

  'Love your enemies'

It is hard for me or for any person to interpret that as, 'go and blow up that woman and her child over there'. That is obvious. There are many examples where Jesus demonstrates how we should be operating as followers.

The nature of God explanation is very difficult to explain, but there is a kind of 'knowledge' which can be used to attain the criteria, but as I said it is difficult and I am not sure I can explain very well here but I will try.....

For a while my wife and I had been contemplating how Judas, one of Jesus's original disciples, could spend 3 years in the very presence of God being taught by the greatest person that ever lived in every respect and yet still betray Him and all that had been taught.

How can that happen, to someone in the privileged situation that Judas had found himself in, could I end up the same? These were the questions we posed to ourselves and our pastor.

From what I have read about God and His nature, I have learnt that God is gracious, loving; Ex 34:6

  6 Then the Lord passed by in front of him and proclaimed, “The Lord,
  the Lord God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding
  in lovingkindness and [a]truth;

How can God be compassionate, slow to anger and gracious yet still in the Bible we see many examples where whole cities are wiped out, Jericho, Gomorrah etc?

Well, the fact is God does satisfy all those attributes, but the Bible says He is slow to anger, not without anger. God does give opportunity to individuals and cultures alike, which is why Judas had the greatest opportunity, but Judas also demonstrates human weakness at its very lowest. Judas had the opportunity but he refused it (there are a multitude of theologies about this).

On a cultural level there are examples of God giving opportunity, take Jonah for example, God actually had Jonah swallowed by a sea creature, all because Jonah refused to obey God when he was commanded to preach to the Ninevites, because Jonah knew if he did so the Ninevites would repent. God went to great lengths to provide opportunity for people to turn their hearts back to Him. This message and similar messages serve to point us, mere men, to also afford people the same kindness to give an opportunity to change their heart attitude both in how they treat us and how they treat God.

My point is, when man or entire cultures/nations are confused and have their backs to God, He does not seek to wipe them out, He gives every opportunity, going to the nth degree to give them chance after chance to see the error of their ways. He does not conscript men to kill in His name and even when people knowingly turn their backs on Him, God is still patient until it is their time to answer for their attitude toward Him.

Take this example with the example of Gal 5:22:

  19 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: [i]immorality,
  impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife,
  jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, [j]factions, 21
  envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I
  forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice
  such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.22 But the fruit of
  the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness,
  faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there
  is no law.

In verse 21, the ones that choose not to accept these opportunities will have their punishment in that they will by no means inherit the kingdom of God. It does not instruct anyone to seek vengeance on God's behalf.

On another note, why would we need to defend God; He is omnipotent enough to do that Himself, but He exercises great patience before doing so, as He did when He gave Noah time to try and persuade people to join Him on the ark, or when Moses persuaded God not to wipe out the Israelites after they escaped from Egypt. God went to massive lengths to give opportunity to people and ultimately gave His own Son.

Moreover, there are specific commands:

Luke 6:31

  31 [a]Treat others the same way you want [b]them to treat you.

What right do we have in passing judgement by our actions:

Romans 3:23

  23 for all [a]have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

John 3:17

  17 For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but
  that the world might be saved through Him.

Deuteronomy 5:17

  17 ‘You shall not murder.

Romans 12:14-21

  14 Bless those who persecute [m]you; bless and do not curse. 15
  Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep. 16 Be of
  the same mind toward one another; do not be haughty in mind, but
  [n]associate with the lowly. Do not be wise in your own estimation. 17
  Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. [o]Respect what is right in
  the sight of all men. 18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, be
  at peace with all men. 19 Never take your own revenge, beloved, but
  [p]leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is
  Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. 20 “But if your enemy is hungry,
  feed him, and if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in so doing you
  will heap burning coals on his head.” 21 Do not be overcome by evil,
  but overcome evil with good.

"Respect what is right in the sight of ALL men".

Overcome evil with good is the last line I quoted, God gives opportunity, but in the end it is not for us to seek vengeance, for vengeance belongs to God, not man. God promises to repay those who wrong Him, He never asks us to do it for Him.

What makes the difference? One acts purely from their convictions without actually knowing the will of the Father, the other has an understanding of how Jesus would operate in the same situation and chooses to follow the example of Jesus.


According to Catholicism, why do we worship Christ?

The fact that Jesus is our creator is the main reason why we worship Him.

  "Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for
  thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were
  created" (Rev 4:11)

  "Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is
  come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and
  the fountains of waters." (Rev 14:7)

  "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
  Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things
  were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was
  made." (John 1:1-3)

The fact that He chose to take on our nature and save us is a demonstration of His infinite love and makes us even more capable of rendering Him worship.


What is the religion of the Midian people?

This is only partially answered Scripturally.

  Genesis 25:1-2 (KJV)

  25 Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah.

  2 And she bare him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and
  Ishbak, and Shuah.

The significance of this passage is that the Midianites were descendants of Abraham, and as such would have shared the knowledge of the God of Abraham.  They aren't in the line of Isaac and Jacob, and clearly not in the chosen line, but they would at least have knowledge of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

I'm not overly fond of Wikipedia as a source, but from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midian:

  Religion

  The Midianites were the descendants of Midian, who was a son of
  Abraham through his wife Keturah. This can be seen in the following
  Biblical passages. Genesis 25:1-2 1Then again Abraham took a wife, and
  her name was Keturah. And she bare him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan,
  and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah. (King James Version)[7]

  The Midianites through their apparent religio-political connection
  with the Moabites[8] are thought to have worshipped a multitude of
  gods,[9] including Baal-peor and the Queen of Heaven, Ashteroth. An
  Egyptian temple of Hathor at Timna continued to be used during the
  Midianite occupation of the site. However, whether Hathor or some
  other deity was the object of devotion during this period is
  impossible to ascertain.

Therefore, even though the Midianites didn't worship the God of Israel, enough knowledge of Him must have existed among them for Jethro, Moses' Father-In-Law, to make the following statement after hearing about the Exodus, and God's miraculous freeing of the Jewish People from their Egyptian bondage:

  Exodus 18:9-11 (KJV)

  9 And Jethro rejoiced for all the goodness which the Lord had done to
  Israel, whom he had delivered out of the hand of the Egyptians.

  10 And Jethro said, Blessed be the Lord, who hath delivered you out of
  the hand of the Egyptians, and out of the hand of Pharaoh, who hath
  delivered the people from under the hand of the Egyptians.

  11 Now I know that the Lord is greater than all gods: for in the thing
  wherein they dealt proudly he was above them.

Based on the combination of these facts, it would appear that the Midianites, like all other cultures, turned away from the God of Abraham, unto false gods.  Jethro, however, appears to have been made a believer in the God of Abraham after hearing of His miraculous works.


When was the name of Sinai first applied to the Sinai peninsular?

According to R. El. Pirke, Sinai received its' name "only after God had appeared to Moses in the bush."

  Different Names.

  —In Rabbinical Literature:

  The Rabbis consider "Sinai" and "Horeb" to be two names of the same mountain, which had besides three other names: (1) "Har ha-Elohim" (= "the mountain of God"), the Israelites having received there the knowledge of the divinity of God; (2) "Har Bashan," the latter word being interpreted as though it were "beshen" (= "with the teeth"), that is to say, mankind through the virtue of this mountain obtains its sustenance; and (3) "Har Gabnunim" (= "a mountain pure as cheese"). The names "Horeb" and "Sinai" are interpreted to mean, respectively, "the mountain of the sword," because through this mountain the Sanhedrin acquired the right to sentence a man to capital punishment, and "hostility," inasmuch as the mountain was hostile to the heathen (Ex. R. ii. 6). Shab. 89a, b gives the following four additional names of Sinai: "Ẓin," "Ḳadesh," "Ḳedomot," and "Paran," but declares that its original name was "Horeb" (comp. Midr. Abkir, quoted in Yalḳ., Ex. 169); according to Pirḳe R. El. xli., it acquired the name "Sinai" only after God had appeared to Moses in the bush ("seneh"; comp. Sinai, Biblical Data).

What does the Bible say:

  Mount Horeb.

  —Biblical Data:

  Mountain situated in the desert of Sinai, famous for its connection with the promulgation of the Law by God through Moses (Ex. xix. 1-xx. 18). The general opinion of modern scholars is that the name "Sinai" is derived from the name of the Babylonian moon-god Sin. Mount Sinai is often referred to as "the mountain" (that is, the mountain par excellence), "the mountain of Elohim" (Hebr.), and "the mountain of Yhwh" (Hebr.; Ex. iii. 1, iv. 27, xviii. 5, xix. 2, et passim; Num. x. 33), and in many other passages it is called "Horeb" (Ex. iii. 1; Deut. i. 2 et passim). The Biblical text, indeed, seems to indicate that this last was its proper name, while "Sinai" was applied to the desert. According to one theory, Sinai and Horeb are the names of two eminences belonging to the same range; if this be so the range became prominent in the history of the Hebrews some time before the promulgation of the Law. When Moses led the flocks of his father-in-law to the desert and came "to the mountain of God, even to Horeb," an angel appeared to him from a flaming bush, and then God Himself spoke to Moses, telling him that where he stood was holy ground, thus foreshadowing the great event that was to occur there. From that mountain God persuaded Moses to go to Pharaoh and deliver the Israelites from his yoke. After the Exodus, when the Israelites who had encamped at Rephidim were suffering with thirst, Moses, by command of God, smote water from a rock in Horeb (Ex. xvii. 6).

As for as the etymology is concerned here is what some scholars say:

  According to biblical scholars, Sinai most likely derives from the name of Sin, the Semitic lunar deity.2[3] In the Hasidic tradition, the name Sinai derives from "sin-ah," (meaning hatred), in reference to the other nations hating the Jews out of jealousy, due to the Jews being the ones to receive the divine laws.[4]

  Additionally, classical rabbinical literature also mentions the mountain having other names:

  Har ha-Elohim, meaning the mountain of God or the mountain of the gods[3]

  Har Bashan, meaning the mountain of Bashan; however, Bashan is interpreted in rabbinical literature as here being a corruption of beshen, meaning with the teeth, and argued to refer to the sustenance of mankind through the virtue of the mountain[3]

There is nothing written in stone on this subject!


Not in the slightest. The Incarnation does not involve the assumption of contingency. The Incarnation adds nothing to the person of God the Son, only to creation (inasmuch as the human nature of Jesus is a creature).

That is, the soul created for Jesus, is Jesus' soul, but in not too dissimilar a way to how creation is God's own also, created for Him. When God creates souls, He by so doing, or perhaps simultaneously, creates a new person that this soul is the soul of. However, in the Incarnation, God created a soul for Jesus, which assumes His Person, instead of a created person.

The very fact that Monophysitism is a heresy proves that contingency is not affected, for the divine and human nature of Christ are not mingled, and there is absolutely no admixture or confusion of natures (Monophysitism meaning, 'One-natureism,' referring to the heretical idea that Christ's divine and human nature melded into one Supernature).

Truly, the human nature of Christ is a Tabernacle: "the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us" (John 1:14). (I don't intend to give the impression it was a puppet for the Son, but rather a vehicle for His Person, or a mode of living on earth; the former would be heretical.)

In other words, in the Incarnation, nothing is added or which, taken away, changes Who or What he was before. That is, the Hypostatic Union (meaning the unity of natures in the one person of Christ) could theoretically be undone, and Christ's human nature destroyed; inasmuch as it was not necessary for Him to be incarnate in the first place).

Also, Christ's human nature still exists. It didn't get destroyed.


On what basis did Mary Queen of Scots first reject the Scots Confession?

It is not clear that Mary made the decision entirely by herself; at the time, she was in France with her husband King Francis II, and they were both young (in August of 1560, she was 17 and he was 16). Mary's regent, her mother Mary of Guise, had only just died, and their court was dominated by the "Guise faction". The official reply to Parliament was in the name of Francis II, who wrote:

  Mais nous trouvons ... que votredite résolution est fort eslongnée de ce que vous devez faire en nostre endroict : ce qui ne nous a pas grandement pleu.
    1

  (My translation:) But we find that your said resolution is much removed from what you ought to do in our place, and this has not greatly pleased us.

The records of William Cecil contain a summary of this letter:

  FRANCIS II to the ESTATES OF SCOTLAND.
  Has heard the message of the Chevalier of St John2. Is very much displeased with their proceedings, and hopes to see them return to the good path which they have left. Will send two noble persons as deputies to assemble the Parliament legitimately. He, for his part, is willing to forget past offences, as he has declared to the Chevalier of St John. - Orleans, 16 Nov. 1560. 3

In any case, the legal issue was the legitimacy of Parliament to pass laws on religion. According to the agreement of 8 July which led to its meeting, any religious matters were to be deferred to a later meeting between Mary and a parliamentary delegation. They were also not meant to take any action against Church estates for the time being - but instead, they did start the process of breaking up large property holdings, regulating tithes, and denying the authority of the Pope or the Crown to make appointments to ecclesiastical office. All of this was part of the package of legislation that Mary and Francis were asked to ratify. It was a huge step for a Parliament that historically had left religious affairs to other authorities.

Other legitimacy concerns related to the procedure and membership of this parliament, as the Protestant faction was able to arrange a particularly strong representation for themselves. This group was strongly in favour of alliance with England instead of France, and was trying to marry the Earl of Arran - Mary's heir - to Elizabeth I, as part of a plan to unite the two crowns under a Protestant. Clearly, this was unacceptable to France and to Mary (it eventually happened with her son James VI). The Archbishop of St Andrews, who was also the Earl of Arran's uncle, requested Francis and Mary to withhold ratification, in the hopes that more moderate Protestants than Knox would then be willing to seek a compromise - some sort of religious tolerance, as opposed to the Protestant absolutism of the Confession. We also know that they were lobbied by Pope Pius IV to stand firmly on the Catholic side, and make no concessions.

Doctrinally, the action of Parliament was held (by Knox) to be founded not on royal authority, but on divine law, making any procedural problems irrelevant. In the same way, the Confession and the First Book of Discipline (also 1560) envisage that the state has no role of governance over the church. The rejection of the 1560 Parliament's acts, founded on legitimacy concerns, is not only a political statement but has a doctrinal dimension, regarding what the relationship between church and state ought to be.

Moreover, the monarch is expected to be faithful to Christian doctrine in the form expounded by Knox, meaning that Mary, for example, could not attend Mass even in private. So it's not a question of whether she would agree that her Protestant subjects could follow the Confession, but more of her denying that everyone in Scotland, including her when she returned, had to abide by it. As a matter of conscience, she was unwilling to resolve the sectarian crisis in the way Knox preferred (everybody becomes Protestant, problem solved), preferring a model where she and others could remain Catholic.

Further reference:

History of the Scottish Parliament (3 vols). Edinburgh University Press (2004-2010). See especially the chapter by Keith Brown on the Reformation Parliament, at the end of volume 1.
For more on politics and legitimacy: Le crépuscule de l'Auld Alliance : la légitimité du pouvoir en question entre Écosse, France et Angleterre (1558-1561). Eric Durot. *Histoire, économie et société 27(1):3-46. 2009.
William Robertson's History of Scotland (1759) contains a brief account of Sandilands getting a frosty reception from the royal couple.

1. Négociations, lettres et pièces diverses relatives au règne de François II, Louis Paris, Paris: Imprimerie Royal, 1841, at p692. Found thanks to the article of Durot (his note 229, on p39)
2. James Sandilands, Lord of Calder, head of the Order of St John of Jerusalem in Scotland, was the official messenger sent by Parliament to Mary and Francis.
3. No. 712 in Calendar of State Papers, Foreign series, Elizabeth vol. 2 (1560-1561). ed. Joseph Stevenson. London: Longmans, Green, Reader and Dyer (1865).


What is the difference between holiness and righteousness?

"Holy" means "set apart", as in set aside for a particular purpose, and implies being "special" and acting accordingly. In particular it means "set aside for God's service".

"Righteous" means "made right" (justified), or "being right", not in the sense of "correct", but as in "not wrong" - being pure, honest, sinless. Perhaps a better way of putting it would be "not guilty" or "blameless".

The two should go hand in hand.


Why did God change Jacob's name to Israel?

Names were considered to be meaningful in some way.  For example, the younger of Isaac's twin sons with Rebekah was named Jacob ("supplanter") because when he was born he was holding on to Esau's heel, as if attempting to overtake him.  (Genesis 25: 24-26)

After Jacob's wrestle with the angel, when he demanded a blessing from the Lord, the angel pronounced a blessing upon him, and a new name to go with it: Isra-El, which can mean "He who prevails with God," or "May God prevail," depending on the context.

Likewise with Abram ("Exalted father"), when he was blessed by the Lord in Genesis 17, he was given the name Abraham ("Father of a multitude"), in keeping with the promise of the Lord:

  5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall
  be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.

  6 And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of
  thee, and kings shall come out of thee.

So we see that these different names are given to people as a blessing from the Lord, to signify that something about them, their nature or their life, has changed in some way.


Is there a 'correct' pattern for Anglicans and/or Roman Catholics when crossing yourself?

For Catholics, it's using the right hand, forehead-chest-left shoulder-right shoulder.

  The Sign of the Cross  (from the Fountain of Catholic Knowledge,
  OFFICE OF CATHOLIC PUBLICATIONS, Imprimatur, 1877; and from THE
  CATECHIST, by the Very Rev. Canon Howe, Imprimatur, 1898)

  MAKING THE SIGN OF THE CROSS

  The Sign of the Cross is a sacramental if we make it with the right
  hand by touching the forehead (showing our belief in the Cross), the
  breast (showing our love of the Cross), and the shoulders (showing our
  readiness to bear the Cross). Sometimes a triple Cross is made with
  the thumb for example at the reading of the Gospel. It is made on the
  forehead, on the heart, and on the lips in order to show our readiness
  to profess the Cross.

See also the Baltimore Catechism (1064).

  Q. 1064. How do we make the sign of the cross?

  A. We make the sign of the cross by putting the right hand to the
  forehead, then on the breast, and then to the left and right
  shoulders, saying, "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of
  the Holy Ghost, Amen."

It is worth noting that the sign of the cross (for a Catholic) is a sacramental1.

That isn't how it was always done

The above sequence is comparatively new.  The previous tradition had lasted for over a thousand years.

  The early Church Fathers attested to the use of the sign of the cross.
  Tertullian ((De corona, 30, ~ A.D 250) described the commonness of the
  sign of the cross:  “In all our travels and movements, in all our
  coming in and going out, in putting on our shoes, at the bath, at the
  table, in lighting our candles, in lying down, in sitting down,
  whatever employment occupies us, we mark our foreheads with the sign
  of the cross”

As described by Pope Innocent III2 it includes an explanation as to what each motion signifies.  This is how the Greek Orthodox still do it: head, breast, right shoulder, left shoulder.

D.D. Emmons offers an explanation

  For more than 1,200 years most Catholics made the Sign of the Cross in
  a like manner — that is, people in the Eastern and Western Church
  touched their forehead, their breast, and their shoulders, going right
  to left, with three fingers. Before he became pope, Innocent III wrote
  in The Sacred Mystery of the Altar, “The Sign of the Cross is made
  with three fingers, because it is imprinted under invocation of the
  Trinity… so that it descends from the upper part to the lower, and
  crosses over from the right hand to the left because Christ came down
  from the heaven to the Earth and crossed over from the Jews to the
  Gentiles.”

  By the end of the Middle Ages, however, Western Catholics were making
  the Sign of the Cross using the hand in place of the fingers and
  touching the left shoulder first.  Among the sources documenting this
  method and the rationale is a 15th-century devotion used by the nuns
  of the Brigittine Monastery of Sion in Isleworth, England, which
  stated that one should begin with the head and move downward, then to
  the left side, and then to the right. The devotion supported this
  form, saying that Jesus came down from the Father (forehead), was born
  as man (breast), suffered on the Cross (left shoulder), and ascended
  into heaven to sit at the right hand of the Father (right shoulder).
  This method became the standard in the Western Church. It is not clear
  why the changes took place or why they did not also take root in the
  Eastern Church, which continues using three fingers to make the Sign
  of the Cross and from right to left.

Anglicans are "a Western Church"

The Anglican confession uses the same form as the Catholics (see the origin of this practice, per Emmons).  (The source is a current website article written by an Anglican Pastor, Greg Goebel3).

  How do I make the sign?

  The hand and finger traces Christ’s cross upon one’s head, heart
  (center of chest), left shoulder and right shoulder.  In the East it
  is right, then left shoulder. In some traditions, the finger is kissed
  after making the sign, or returned to the heart.  When a priest or
  bishop is blessing the people, he makes the sign as if signing them.
  This means that rather than signing himself, he moves from their left
  to their right.

  1The characteristics of sacramentals

  1668 Sacramentals are instituted for the sanctification of certain
  ministries of the Church, certain states of life, a great variety of
  circumstances in Christian life, and the use of many things helpful to
  man. ... They always include a prayer, often accompanied by a specific sign, such as the laying on of hands, the sign of the cross, or the sprinkling of holy water (which recalls Baptism).

  1670 Sacramentals do not confer the grace of the Holy Spirit in the
  way that the sacraments do, but by the Church's prayer, they prepare
  us to receive grace and dispose us to cooperate with it.

2 (Innocentius III, De sacro altaris mysterio, II, xlv in Patrologia Latina 217, 825C--D.)

3  "Greg {Goebel} is the founder of Anglican Pastor and serves as editor and one of the writers. He is an Anglican Priest of the Anglican Church in North America."


In the Bible, have "good men" often set their hand against each other?

I think part of the answer here is to deal with your concept of "Good Men". According to the Bible, all men are sinful, and so all men deserve death. No one is Good by himself, except God.

  Luke 18:19 NIV
  "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone.

Part of the purpose of the Bible is to show that we all need help, that none of us is good enough to make it on our own, and it's only because of the blood of Jesus that any of us has hope. For this reason the Bible shows flaws even in its heroes.

If you're looking for heroes in the Bible, the only person you need is Jesus Christ. He is the only man in the Bible that we can say is Good.


What is the significance of shouting "Hosanna" by the people of Jerusalem?

Many of the people of Jerusalem indeed thought that Jesus was the Messiah. There were so many prophecies that were fulfilled by Jesus, and the common person at least had knowledge of some of these prophecies, as they were what many of them had to look forward to.
On Palm Sunday, Jesus fulfilled one more prophecy (Zechariah 9:9) that many would not have missed:

Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion!
Shout in triumph, O daughter of Jerusalem!
Behold, your king is coming to you;
He is just and endowed with salvation,
Humble, and mounted on a donkey,
Even on a colt, the foal of a donkey.

When the Jewish people shouted "Hosanna", regardless of which specific meaning the word had, the intent of the people was clear. They wanted a political or military Messiah, not a religious one. They wanted an earthly King.The article here goes into this in a little more detail, but in summary:

[There was a] switch in public opinion. At the Triumphal Entry, Jerusalem rejoiced. But then Jesus failed their expectations. He had come to defeat sin and death, not Rome. His kingdom was in hearts, not on a throne (at least not yet). They began to reject Jesus as the campaign of lies by the religious leaders had its effect. Finally, by the time Jesus stood before Pilate, there had been a dramatic shift in public opinion.


Forgiveness Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit

To put these Scriptures in proper perspective. The first thing we have to do is to understand what Jesus meant by blaspheming.
According to Merriam Webster blaspheming is defined as:
BLASPHE'ME, v.t. [Gr. The first syllable is the same as in blame, blasme, denoting injury; L. loedo, loesus; The last syllable is the Gr.,to speak.]

To speak of the Supreme Being in terms of impious irreverence; to revile or speak reproachfully of God, or the Holy Spirit. 1 Ki 21. Mark 3.

To speak evil of; to utter abuse or calumny against; to speak reproachfully of.

BLASPHE'ME, v.i. To utter blasphemy.
He that shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven. Mark 3.

To arrogate the prerogatives of God.

This man blasphemeth. Who can forgive sins but God? Math.9. Mark 2.
So let's break it down and see if we can determine exactly what blaspheme meant to Jesus and the circumstances under which it was used.
Starting with the definition of blaspheme we see that it has two parts. The first part is to blame to the point of injury, while the second part denotes speaking. We also note that it is both a transitive to transitive verb, and that in the instance in which Jesus stated that is in the intransitive form a of the verb.
So let's look at the situation and find out what the circumstances were when Jesus made this statement. This

Matthew 12:22 through 24  Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil, blind, and dumb: and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw. And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David? But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.

We find here that Jesus had just cast out a devil from a dumb and blind man. They are attributing his ability to cast out the devil to being possessed by Satan.

Matthew 12:25 through 27  And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?   And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges.

Jesus having the ability to read their thoughts understood what they were saying was embedded deeper than just the surface. Then he says that they're not making sense, since it is Satan's desire to take people away from God why would he get rid of a devil which was doing exactly what he wanted. Finally he says if that's what I'm doing how can you expect that you and those following you could ever overcome Satan and take people to heaven?

Matthew 12:30  He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.

Jesus further says that if they're not helping him to get people saved what they are doing is aiding Satan. It appears then that what Jesus is doing is, he is warning him that they are very very close to condemning themselves before God by causing someone to not Believe. This becomes more clear when we consider the following Scriptures.

Matthew 18:6 and 7 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!
Matthew 18:10 and 11 Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven. For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
Luke 11:10  For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
Luke 11:13  If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?


How do Protestants answer the Catholic accusation of historicity?

Protestant reformers were at pains to argue that all they sought to do was restore the church to purity which had become corrupted in medieval times. They wanted to ensure that their teachings were not just in line with Scripture but with many of the church fathers e.g. Augustine. You will find that the writings of the reformers are full of quotes to many early church fathers.
Just to give one example, the first homily from the first Anglican book of homilies ("A fruitful exhortation to the reading and knowledge of Holy Scripture") quotes seven times from ancient writers - Chrysostom, Augustine, and Fulgentius.
John Calvin says this in his reply to Cardinal Sadeleto:

But here you bring a charge against us. For you teach that all which has been approved for fifteen hundred years or more, by the uniform consent of the faithful, is, by our headstrong rashness, torn up and destroyed. Here I will not require you to deal truly and candidly by us, (though this should be spontaneously offered by a philosopher, not to say a Christian.) I will only ask you not to stoop to an illiberal indulgence in calumny, which, even though we be silent, must be extremely injurious to your reputation with grave and honest men. You know, Sadolet, and if you venture to deny, I will make it palpable to all that you knew, yet cunningly and craftily disguised the fact, not only that our agreement with antiquity is far closer than yours, but that all we have attempted has been to renew that ancient form of the Church, which, at first sullied and distorted by illiterate men of indifferent character, was afterwards flagitiously mangled and almost destroyed by the Roman Pontiff and his faction. [My emphasis]

So the Protestant reformers did not believe their understanding of Christianity only started in the 16th century. They believed they were doing away with the corruptions of the faith which had come into the church in medieval times to a more pure Scriptural faith. They quoted from the Fathers to support what they were saying.


What evidence do we have that the book of Enoch was translated correctly?

To directly answer your question Wikipedia dates the oldest copy of the book of Enoch as being from 300BC. Parts of it like the section called the Book of Parables were not found in the Qumran.

I agree with AffableGeek. If we were to go back in time and mystically derive from Plato a perfect translation of the Republic it would not be canonical. If we were to modify it and cross reference it with Bible verses and give it the name of a supposed Saint it still would be Platonism. If the Book of Enoch was predestined to be used by God as canon it would have been re-written by Moses or one of the other ancient inspired writers very similar to the Book of Job and and we would have it available just as if we had traveled back in time and heard the heart of God concerning the topics contained therein. However the Book of Enoch was not deemed fit enough to be rewritten and preserved by God through Moses (or other inspired writers) so we know that it failed in some (if not all) crucial areas. As per the supposed two sentences referencing it in the New Testament, like Plato, having some similarity or parallel to a Bible truth expressed in inspired writings doesn't validate the whole.


Where was God prior to creating the ***Heavens*** and the Earth?

Several good questions being asked here:

Regarding the word "heavens", Paul makes mention of visiting the "third heaven" (2 Corinthians 12:2). It was common for Jews to use the word heaven to mean the sky, outer-space, or spiritual heaven where God dwells. So "in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" may have meant the creation of earth and its atmosphere, and the immediate universe around it.

Spiritual heaven and angels likely existed before the creation of earth. We see this in Job where God asks "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? ... When the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy." (Job 38:4-7)

But no matter what order you think things were made, God existed before anything was made:

"For by Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him, and for Him" (Colossians 1:16)


Why did Paul want God to repay Alexander the metalworker?

In asking this question, you have added a layer of interpretation onto the text that I do not see there. You introduce the word "want" which does not exist in the text.

In fact I don't see any indication in the text that Paul has a desire for personal vengeance or that he wants Alaxander to get what's coming to him. In fact is is quite likely based on what we know of Paul's responses to other people and his consistent teachings on related subjects that he would actually want the opposite for him.

However Paul is under a charge and has a responsibility here.

He must warn the congregation about a real danger to its health. We are sent out as lambs among wolves, but we are also told to be wise as serpents. That includes identifying the wolves. By name if need be. As a shepherd Paul had to guard the congregation against somebody who would damage it.
He must also warn Alexander that the consequences of his actions are eternal. People must be informed that while they may not experience punishment in this live, that does not excuse their actions and they stand under God's judgement. In phrasing his warning this way, he also makes it clear that it is not he (Paul) who will seek or meter out justice while still making it clear that justice will be served.

This seems consistent with everything else we know from Scripture -- that vengeance is God's and that those who oppose his work on this earth will find themselves opposed by God. Paul can at once long for ultimate justice to be done and God's people set free from their persecutions and even rejoice in the knowledge that the wrong will be set right -- while not having a personal desire to see somebody punished and not raising a finger against them.

Protecting the church and warning those in the world that they will be judged by God is not the same thing as what you imply. There is nothing here to indicate that Paul "hates a man" or "wants him to suffer" and his response is not outside the bounds of Christian Love.

Particularly in the West, we often compromise truth in the name of something we call "love", yet it is no love that does not proclaim the truth including making clear the severity of God's anger against those who oppose him.


According to the doctrine of Trinity, was Jesus always co-equal to the Father?

The Chalcedonian Definition (AD 451) was a key christological statement of the early church, and is respected throughout trinitarianism.  The first portion of the part relevant to this question emphasizes that Jesus is "truly God and truly man":

  Following, then, the holy Fathers, we all unanimously teach that our Lord Jesus Christ is to us One and the same Son, the Self-same Perfect in Godhead, the Self-same Perfect in Manhood; truly God and truly Man.

But perhaps his divinity was reduced?  The creed continues:

  [Jesus is] acknowledged in Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each Nature being preserved and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis; not as though He were parted or divided into Two Persons, but One and the Self-same Son and Only-begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ.

So no, your understanding is decidedly not trinitarian – Jesus was simultaneously 100% God and 100% man while on earth; his divinity was not compromised.


Does the Anglican Use have the capacity and resources to celebrate daily mass and if so, are there any Ordinariate communities which do?

My question is, does the Anglican Ordinariate also have it's own
  exhaustive liturgical calendar, with set readings and prayers for
  every day of the year?

Yes.

Information about the ordinariate's missal is here.

  Such that an Anglican Ordinariate Community could celebrate mass in
  the Anglican Use on any day of the week on any day of the year and
  still have their own unique set of readings and prayers for that
  particular day of the week?

It's worth noting that this is a relatively recent innovation. The Extraordinary Form (Traditional Latin Mass) of the Roman Rite does not have a daily lectionary with different readings for each day of the week.

  are there any Anglican Ordinariate communities who do indeed celebrate
  mass every day of the week, every day of the year according to this
  cycle of readings?

Yes, some have daily liturgy. You can see a list of parishes and their liturgy times here.


What is the role of the Holy Spirit in Swedenborg's soteriology?

I work for the Swedenborg Foundation and can provide this answer from Rev. James. F Lawrence, D.Min., Ph.D. Dean of the Center for Swedenborgian Studies and also Assistant Professor of Spirituality and Historical Studies at the Graduate Theological Union. We hope this helps!

  I would say the Holy Spirit in Swedenborg is simply the divine proceeding and provides a way to understand how God as the Lord moves within us. The Holy Spirit isn't an entity unto itself, but is the active dimension of God in the present tense and refers specifically to human affairs. Thus, for soteriology (salvation) the Holy Spirit is the divine presence and force of love and wisdom available to the soul in its daily living of making choices of how to live. The sum will ultimately shape the direction and destination, but no matter where that is going the Holy Spirit is never absent. The extent to which an individual responds affirmatively to the divine will have an effect as to how intimate the Holy Spirit becomes or not, but that force field that integrates with the divine or repels the divine is determined by the individual.

Here are some passages from Swedenborg's own writings on the topic in True Christianity #142–145:

  142

  Generally speaking, the divine actions and powerful effects meant by the Holy Spirit are the acts of reforming and regenerating us. Depending on the outcome of this reformation and regeneration, the divine actions and powerful effects also include the acts of renewing us, bringing us to life, sanctifying us, and making us just; and depending on the outcome of these in turn, the divine actions and powerful effects also include the acts of purifying us from evils, forgiving our sins, and ultimately saving us.

  These are the powerful effects, one after the other, that the Lord has on people who believe in him and who adapt and modify themselves in order to welcome him and invite him to stay. Divine truth has these effects. Among Christians the Word has these effects because the Word is the only means by which Christians can go to the Lord and the Lord can come to them. As I said before, the Lord is absolute divine truth; so is everything that emanates from him. It is important to take this to mean the divine truth in connection with goodness, which is the same as faith in connection with goodwill; faith is nothing but truth, and goodwill is nothing but goodness.

  The divine truth in connection with goodness, that is, faith in connection with goodwill, is the force that reforms and regenerates us; then renews us, brings us to life, sanctifies us, and justifies us; and, depending on our level of growth and forward movement, purifies us from evils. (Being purified from our evils is the same as having our sins forgiven.)

  All these actions of the Lord cannot be explained here one by one, however. Each one would need its own analysis with support from the Word and illustrative reasoning. This is not the place for that. The reader [who wishes to know more about them] should turn instead to the topics that come later in the book: goodwill [§§392–462], faith [§§336–391], free choice [§§463–508], repentance [§§509–570], and reformation and regeneration [§§571–625].

  It is important to know that the Lord is carrying out these salvation processes in every single one of us all the time. They are the steps to heaven. The Lord wants to save everyone; his purpose is to save all people. Anyone who has a purpose desires the means to achieve it. The Lord’s coming, his redeeming humankind, and his suffering on the cross were for the sake of our salvation (Matthew 18:11; Luke 19:10). Because saving people was his purpose and is his purpose forever, it follows that having the powerful effects on us that were just listed is his intermediate purpose, and saving us is his ultimate purpose.

  143

  The producing of these powerful effects is the “Holy Spirit” that the Lord sends to those who believe in him and who modify themselves to receive him. The producing of these powerful effects is also meant by “the spirit” in the following passages:

    I will give a new heart and a new spirit. I will put my spirit within you and I will make you walk the path of salvation. (Ezekiel 36:26, 27; 11:19)

    Create a clean heart in us, O God, and renew a firm spirit within me. Restore to me the joy of your salvation, and let a willing spirit sustain me. (Psalms 51:10, 12)

    Jehovah forms the human spirit within us. (Zechariah 12:1)

    In my soul I awaited you at night. In my spirit, which is within me, I awaited you in the morning. (Isaiah 26:9)

    Make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. Why should you die, O house of Israel? (Ezekiel 18:31)

  And so on.

  In these passages, “a new heart” means wanting what is good and “a new spirit” means understanding what is true. The reference to God’s giving a soul to those who walk the path of salvation makes it clear that the Lord has these powerful effects on those who do what is good and believe what is true—those who have a faith that is connected with goodwill. This is also clear from the mention of a “willing spirit.” The necessity for us to do our part of the work is clear from the following words: “Make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. Why should you die, O house of Israel?” [Ezekiel 18:31].

  144

  We read that when Jesus was baptized the heavens opened and John saw the Holy Spirit coming down like a dove (Matthew 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22; John 1:32, 33). This happened because baptism means regeneration and purification, and so does a dove.

  Surely anyone can see that that dove was not the Holy Spirit and that the Holy Spirit was not in the dove. In heaven doves appear quite often. Every time they appear, the angels know that they correspond to feelings and thoughts in other angels nearby about regeneration and purification. As soon as the angels go to those other angels and start a conversation on a different subject than the one being pondered when the doves appeared, the doves immediately vanish.

  The situation is similar with many things the prophets saw. John, for example, saw a lamb on Mount Zion (Revelation 14:1 and elsewhere). Surely everyone realizes that the Lord was not that lamb and was not in that lamb. The lamb was instead a representation of the Lord’s innocence. This highlights the error of those who deduce the existence of three persons in the Trinity from the dove seen above the Lord when he was baptized and the voice heard from heaven saying, “This is my beloved Son” [Matthew 3:16, 17].

  The Lord uses faith and goodwill to regenerate us. This is the meaning of John the Baptist’s saying, “I baptize you for repentance with water, but the one who is coming after me will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire” (Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16). Baptizing with the Holy Spirit and with fire means regenerating through the divine truth that is in faith and the divine goodness that is in goodwill. The following words of the Lord also mean the same thing: “Unless you have been born of water and spirit you cannot enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). “Water” in this passage, and elsewhere in the Word, means truth in our earthly or outer self, while “spirit” means truth connected with goodness in our spiritual or inner self.

  145

  Now, the Lord is absolute divine truth from divine goodness—this is his very essence. We all do what we do because of our essence. It is clear then that the Lord constantly tries (and cannot help trying) to implant truth and goodness, or faith and goodwill, in everyone.

  Many things in the world could be used to illustrate this [connection between essence and action]. For one thing, we all will and think, and as much as possible speak and act, on the basis of our essence. Faithful people, for example, have faithful thoughts and intentions. People who are honorable, honest, godly, and religious have thoughts and intentions that are honorable, honest, godly, and religious. On the other hand, people who are arrogant, cunning, deceitful, and greedy have thoughts and intentions that are one with their essence. Jokers want only to joke around, and fools want only to babble their opposition to anything wise. In a word, an angel focuses and works only on what is heavenly, and a devil only on what is hellish.

  As this is true of every bird, animal, fish, and winged or wingless insect, so it is true of every creature in the animal kingdom down to the lowest level: everything is known by its essence or nature. Every creature has its instincts accordingly.

  Likewise in the plant kingdom, every tree, every bush, and every plant is known by its fruit and its seed. Its essence is bred into its fruit and its seed. It cannot produce anything that is unlike itself and its own kind. In fact, every type of soil or clay, every type of stone both precious and common, and every type of mineral and metal is recognized by its essence.


What is the Church attitude to the belief that Jesus had a biological father?

All Christians that subscribe to the doctrine of the Virgin Birth believe that Joseph was Mary's husband and Jesus' guardian, but that he had no biological material from Joseph.  It is a very, very widely held belief - most Evangelicals (including myself), Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox subscribe to it, but it is not accepted by many more liberal denominations.

The idea is suggested by Isaiah, in which it was (posibly mis-)translated "Behold a Virgin shall conceive."  The famous phrasing of 7:14 is "Behold, a virgin shall conceive."  The immediate context, however, is a King who is being told that his enemies shall be defeated very, very soon - so soon in fact, that if a young girl gets pregnant, she will be "delievered" before the child is born.  That said, by the time of the early Christians, it was popularly accepted that this also spoke of the birth of the Messiah, who would be of a girl who had not had intercourse.  The Hebrew of the OT could be young maiden, but the Greek of the NT clearly presupposes a girl who had never lain with a man.

In any case, the narratives of Matthew (1:18) and Luke explicitly say that the child was put in her by the Holy Spirit, not Joseph.


Where can I find the original scanned BCP printed in 1662?

A lot of sites have the text of the 1662 BCP (or at least they claim to) but I couldn't see any sites with accessible scans.

Your best bet is probably to buy a paperback facsimile.


How did James Orr's view of the inspiration of the Bible differ from B. B. Warfield's?

Professor of didactic and polemic theology at Princeton Seminary was B.B. Warfield. He upheld the view that a strong emphasis on the divine inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture was fundamental to orthodox theology.  During his tenure at Princeton (1887 – 1921) there was

“sustained divisive controversy over the nature of Scripture and the
newer methods of biblical scholarship known as ‘higher criticism’…
There was no question where Warfield stood – firmly against higher
criticism and any lessening of Princeton theology’s high view of
Scripture.”  The Story of Christian Theology by Roger E. Olson, p
560 (Apollos, 1999)

Warfield wrote various articles and books arguing that (ibid.)

“anything less than full belief in the complete inerrancy of the
original autographs of Scripture (the nonexistent original
manuscripts) would result in a slippery slide of theology into
liberalism and sheer relativism, for, Warfield argued, ‘we cannot
modify the doctrine of plenary inspiration in any of its essential
elements without undermining our confidence in the authority of the
apostles as teachers of doctrine,’ (14) and inerrancy is a necessary
ramification of inspiration.” (14 – The Inspiration and Authority of
the Bible p 181 ed. Samuel G. Craig, Philadelphia: Presbyterian &
Reformed, 1948)
Ibid. p 561 – “Inspired by the great revivals of evangelist Dwight
Lyman Moody (1837-1899), dismayed and appalled by the growing
influence of liberal theology, and energized by the resurgent
Protestant orthodoxy of Warfield and others, two wealthy Christian
businessmen sponsored the publication and free distribution of twelve
collections of essays by leading conservative Protestant scholars. The
Fundamentals were sent free of charge to thousands of pastors,
denominational leaders, professors and even YMCA directors all over
the United States. The first volume contained defenses of the virgin
birth by Scottish theologian James Orr and of the deity of Christ by
Warfield, as well as a critique of higher criticism of the Bible by a
Canadian Anglican canon.”

This is where we see Warfield and Orr conjoined (spiritually speaking). But on the matter of dealing with higher criticism, we might detect some desire on Warfield’s part to be slightly distanced when we read the following statements of Orr in his tome, The Problem of the OT Considered with Reference to Recent Criticism, by James Orr D.D. The Bross Prize, 1905 – book published by Charles Scribner’s Sons, N.Y., 1907, 627 pages
In his ‘Introductory : The Problem Stated’, on page 9 Orr says that current higher criticism of the Bible is the basic problem as the name

“has unfortunately come to be associated all but exclusively with a
method yielding a certain class of results ; but it has no necessary
connection with these results. “Higher Criticism” rightly understood
is simply the careful scrutiny, on the principles which it is
customary to apply to all literature, of the actual phenomena of the
Bible, with a view to deduce from these such conclusions as may be
warranted regarding the age, authorship, mode of composition, sources,
etc. of the different books ; and everyone who engages in such
inquiries, with whatever aim, is a “Higher Critic,” and cannot help
himself.”
pp 48-50  chapter **‘The OT from its own point of view’: subheading’ VI.
Revelation in Relation to its Record’: “If we thus let the Bible – Old
Testament and New – speak for itself, and compare it part with part :
still more if we yield ourselves to its power, and strive faithfully
to follow its directions, the conviction will irresistibly grow upon
us that it is right when it claims to be based on divine revelation.
Out of that revelation, the literature of revelation, which we call
the Bible, grows.  If this fact be firmly apprehended, particular
questions about the dates or placing of books will not much trouble
us.  The revelation is there, and no changes in the dates or placing
of books – none at least that are likely to be permanently brought out
– can do anything to alter its fundamental outlines.  If a revelation
has been given, it is surely the most natural thing in the world to
expect that a record should be made or kept of the stages of that
revelation, either by its original recipients, or by those who stood
within the circle of revelation, and possessed in an eminent degree
its spirit.  That such a literature exists, adequate in every respect
for making known to us the revelation, animated and penetrated by its
spirit, though in varying degrees – for the strictest upholder of
inspiration will hardly place the Books of Chronicles on the same
level with the Gospel of St. John – fitted as a whole infallibly to
accomplish its great end of making men wise unto salvation through
faith in Jesus Christ, and of completely furnishing the man of God
unto every good work – that such a literature exists, the only
ultimate proof that can be given is the existence of the book itself ;
and such a book as we have seen even from this brief inspection of its
character, we have in the Bible…
…The subject is taken hold of by its wrong end, when the test of
inspiration is sought primarily in minute inerrancy in external
details, as those of geography, or chronology, or of physical science.
Inspiration does not create the materials of its record: it works upon
them. (1 See Note C on Inspiration and the Materials of the Record.)
The crucial question is – Do the qualities which inspiration is
expressly declared to confer on Scripture – e.g. in such a classical
passage as 2 Tim. iii 15-17 – really belong to it?  We think it will
be difficult for any candid mind to deny that they do.  … The
Scripture fulfils the ends for which it was given ; no higher proof of
its inspiration can be demanded. (2 Cf. Westcott EOL in the Church
p14…)”

In this day and age, it may be questionable if Orr was using a form of words that could hint at less than 100% agreement with Warfield’s uncompromising stance on the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture, but given the heightened state of battle-lines drawn on this issue in the late 1800s, it might have been arguable. Choice of words might (or might not) hint at slight deviations from what was, then, taken as necessary orthodoxy. Semantics, in other words, might have been in play, but in this day and age that is likely to pass us by.
It just might be possible that Orr’s reference to B.F. Westcott D.D., who promoted a Greek Text for the New Testament that deviated from that used in the Authorised Version of the Bible, was sufficient to claim Orr’s descent down the “slippery slide of theology into liberalism and sheer relativism”, as Warfield put it (as quoted by Olson, above).
Of course, it is nonsense to say that Orr slid into liberalism or relativism. But – back in the day – anyone not subscribing to an exact set of words and statements of confession about the divine inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture could be viewed with suspicion. There may well be a few phrases Orr used that Warfield would have objected to – not necessarily with warrant.


Can a child presented by a same sex couple be validly baptized in the Catholic Church?

Here's the current practice in the USA:

  Baptism of children in the care of same-sex couples presents a serious pastoral
  concern. Nevertheless, the Church does not refuse the Sacrament of Baptism to these children, but there must be a well founded hope that the children will be brought up in the Catholic religion. In those cases where Baptism is permitted, pastoral ministers should exercise prudential judgment when preparing baptismal ceremonies. Also, in preparing the baptismal record, a distinction should be made between natural parents and adoptive parents.

  cf. Ministry to Persons with a Homosexual Inclination:
  Guidelines for Pastoral Care | USCCB.

these circumstances arose not too long ago in my diocese any Bishop Morlino was quoted

  “If the gay couple were to come forward and present the child for baptism and somehow sincerely intend that the child be brought up Catholic, and if an arrangement could be made such that the child being brought up a Catholic was a reasonable hope, then we would strongly favor the baptism of the child,” he said.

  If the same-sex couple could not provide that reasonable hope themselves, “then we would try to direct them to choose godparents who could intervene and bring the child up Catholic.”

  “We’re not looking for a reason to exclude the child from baptism. We’re looking to create the conditions so that the child can validly and licitly be baptized,” he said.

  “That is pastoral service.”

  cf. New Pastoral Frontier: Baptisms of Children to Same-Sex Couples | NCR.

Here are some of they ways the synod identified that folks in "Irregular Situations" can get help:

  Still another reality on all continents is the existence and activity of Catholic schools and Catholic colleges, in which the children of parents in irregular situations can enroll without any distinction being made.

  Instrumentum Laboris - 145

  Many times the children are the ones who evangelize their parents.

  ibid. 146

  new initiatives are being enacted, including opportunities for formation in prayer and retreats, intended for parents and often taking place simultaneously with their children’s catechesis in preparation for the sacraments; “schools for parents”; catechetical programs on sexual morality and moral issues related to the family;

  ibid. - 147

and it is important to remember that:

  Particular Churches are well aware that children or young people are not to blame for the choices and living situation of their parents. Consequently, children are welcome everywhere, without distinction with respect to others and with the same love and attention.

  ibid. - 149

but this might be the optimal solution:

  In other cases, children of families with irregular situations receive Baptism after three or four years of catechesis, at an age when their peers are admitted to First Communion, as mentioned by some episcopal conferences in Africa.

Like most traditional minded Catholics, I can't see how parents committed to their Irregular Situation (which is my new favorite euphemism) can profess what they need to profess at their children's baptism.  (something about rejecting "all Satan's works").  Not that you can stack a remarried Irregular Situation somewhere higher than a same sex Irregular Situation and twice as high as a single parent Irregular Situation,  but, there is a certain extra amount of scandal that comes in to the church when considering two fellows telling the congregation a bald-faced lie vs a remarried couple telling a lie one death apart from normalization and a single mother not even remotely telling a lie, but actually needing support from the church community that she's probably not getting.

The only reason I write that is because as you may know, there are only four kinds of ordinary Baptism.  (this isn't doctrine, it's just reality).  You can be Baptized before Mass, during Mass, after Mass or not at Mass.  If I were going to do something that was potentially scandalous, but somehow valid, then I would opt for doing with with the congregation not present.

But, I found this note:

  Finally, to prevent the scandal of the weak we are sometimes obliged to sacrifice some temporal good of less importance, but we are not bound to do this when the goods are of greater importance.

interesting when looking up the meaning of the word scandal in the old Catholic Encyclopedia.  I'd say Baptism is a good of greater importance (and not a temporal one).  So it can't be forsaken to prevent scandal.

And lastly, apply what the Synod folks are saying about the feelings of divorced and remarried Catholics who are unable to receive the Sacraments.  One of their major gripes is that it seems like a public punishment.  That's not what the sacraments are for, they're medicine if anything. Medicine that can kill you (through Blasphemy) if you receive them unworthily.  So perhaps that's why the Synod is finding that they only real confounding factor in allowing children from same sex unions to be baptized is ensuring that they get proper formation in the Faith (and morals) but should not go against what their parents teach because that (undermining the rights of parents to form the their children) is also not what the Church is for as it is not in harmony whatsoever with the Natural Law.

But now we've circled back around and that's why they're called Irregular Situations.


Are St. Maximilian Kolbe's writings available in English?

The writings of St. Maximilian Maria Kolbe are now available in English, published by Nerbini International. See the official web site of the MI: http://mi-international.org.

In the U.S. the two-volume set is available through Marytown Press. See http://marytown.com


What evidence is there that the New Testament was originally written in Aramaic?

There are several evidences that New Testament was written in Aramaic. First century Israel spoke Aramaic. Not Greek. Jewish Historian and Priest Josephus tells us that Greek wasn't spoken in first century Israel and also "the extreme rarity" in terms of a Jew knowing Greek.

Josephus wrote:

"I have also taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the Greeks, and understand the elements of the Greek language, although I have so long accustomed myself to speak our own tongue, that I cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness; for our nation does not encourage those that learn the languages of many nations, and so adorn their discourses with the smoothness of their periods; because they look upon this sort of accomplishment as common, not only to all sorts of free-men, but to as many of the servants as please to learn them. But they give him the testimony of being a wise man who is fully acquainted with our laws, and is able to interpret their meaning; on which account, as there have been many who have done their endeavors with great patience to obtain this learning, there have yet hardly been so many as two or three that have succeeded therein, who were immediately well rewarded for their pains." - Antiquities of Jews XX, XI (AD 93).

Jewish Wars (Book 1, Preface, Paragraph 1):
I have proposed to myself, for the sake of such as live under the government of the Romans, to translate those books into the Greek tongue, which I formerly composed in the language of our country, and sent to the Upper Barbarians. Joseph, the son of Matthias, by birth a Hebrew, a priest also, and one who at first fought against the Romans myself, and was forced to be present at what was done afterwards, [am the author of this work]."

In New Testament Bible, there are several names with "Bar". They are "Bar"tholomew, "Bar"abbas, "Bar"nabbas, Joseph "Bar"sabbas, Judas "Bar"sabbas, "Bar"Timaeus, Simon "Bar" Jonah, and "Bar" Jesus.

Aramaic word "Bar" means Son.

Jewish Wars Book 5, Chapter 4, Paragraph 2 - This new-built part of the city was called "Bezetha," in our language, which, if interpreted in the Grecian language, may be called "the New City."

"tha" at the end of "Bezetha" is the Aramaic definite article on a feminine noun in an emphatic state (Source - Book "Introduction to Syriac" by Wheeler Thackston, Page 44).

In Acts 1:19, Field of Blood was known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem in their own language as Akeldama which is the transliteration of Aramaic words "Khqel Dama."

Greek NT manuscripts contains several textual variations. According to Greek Scholar Herman C. Hoskier in his book "Codex B and it Allies" (1914) volume 2, there are 3,036 textual variations between Greek NT manuscript "Codex Sinaiticus" and Greek NT manuscript "Codex Vaticanus" in the text of the Gospels alone, enumerated as follows: Matthew: 656, Mark: 567, Luke: 791, John: 1022.

Many of the textual variations and confusions in Greek NT manuscripts are corrected by Aramaic New Testament known as Eastern Aramaic Peshitta. Here are 2 major examples. I want to write more. But it will be too long.

1) Romans 5:7-8 (Translated from Greek NT) - "For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; though for the good man perhaps some one would even dare to die; but God renders his love for us conspicuous in this, that, we being yet sinners, Christ died for us."

Notice the word "righteous." This is confusing, because righteous and good are synonyms.

I believe H T Anderson's English translation of Greek NT manuscript Codex Sinaiticus (4th century AD) is one of the easiest to access on Internet.

Here is Aramaic Peshitta translation of Romans 5:7-8.

Romans 5:7-8 (Etheridge Translation) - "for hardly for the wicked one dieth; for on account of the good one may perhaps dare to die. Nevertheless Aloha hath manifested his love for us, in that, when we were sinners, the Meshiha for us died."

Unlike Greek NT which says "righteous", Aramaic Peshitta says "Wicked." Why is that?

This error in Greek NT happened due to a horrible mistranslation from Aramaic Peshitta which is explained in the below 5 minute youtube video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyJ0WDIvA7w

2) 1 Corinthians 13:3

1 Corinthians 13:3 (KJV) says: “And though I bestow all my goods to feed [the poor], and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.”

The ISV of 1 Corinthians 13:3 says: “Even if I give away all that I have and surrender my body so that I may boast but have no love, I get nothing out of it.”

Versions that say burned or a variation thereof: ALT, AMP, ASV, BBE, CEV*, DARBY, Douay- Rheims, ESV*, Geneva, GodsWord, Holman, KJ21, KJV, LITV, MKJV, MSG, NASB*, NIV*, NIVUK, NKJV*, RSV, TEV, WE (Worldwide English), Webster, Weymouth, WYC (Wycliffe), YLT (Young’s Literal Translation).

The versions marked by an asterisk, *, have footnotes that mention that early mss (manuscripts) have boast or a variation thereof, rather than burn. It is noteworthy that the Alexandrian NU Text says boast also.

Versions that say boast or a variation thereof: ISV, NLT (New Living Translation), Rotherham.

The reading (kauchswmai, “I might boast”) is in Greek manuscripts like Ì46 Í A B 048 33 1739*.

The competing reading, (kauqhsomai, “I will burn”), is found in Greek manuscripts such as C D F G L 81 1175 1881* and a host of patristic writers. A few other Byzantine Greek readings include: (kauqhswmai) (“I might burn”) and καυθη∋ (“it might be burned”) read by 1505.

Now, it just so happens that the Aramaic root yqd can mean “to burn”, but can also mean “to boast”. It is clear that the disagreement in the Greek texts points to the Aramaic original.

Here is the verse from Aramaic Peshitta, translated by Aramaic scholar Paul Younan:

“And if I give all my possessions to feed {the poor,} and if I surrender my body so that I may boast, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.”

You may ask why would Apostle Paul write to Jews & Gentiles in Aramaic in Greek or Turkish regions? Through Josephus, we know that Jews knowing Greek were extremely rare in first century AD.

We also know that Jews took their Aramaic language wherever they went. In Acts 21, when Jews who came from Asia (Turkish regions) saw Paul at temple of Jerusalem, they called "Men of Israel" for help in Aramaic. Asia refers to Turkish region in first century AD. Here is the link to the map - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1stMithritadicwar89BC.png

You can get more information from the below video and also through video description below the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdP3sOqY2hc

Here is another difference between Greek NT manuscripts and Aramaic NT manuscripts.

In Acts 16:1 and Galatians 2:3 (of Greek NT manuscripts) point out that many of the important early Christians were Greek, such as Timothy and Titus.

But Acts 16:1 and Galatians 2:3 of Aramaic NT (Aramaic Peshitta) tell us that they were Arameans. Arameans are Aramaic speaking Gentiles in Syria. Greeks called Arameans "Syrians." This was mentioned by Greek Historian and Geographer Strabo (64 BC- 23 AD) in his book Geography.

That is why Laban the Aramean (in Genesis 31:24 of Hebrew Masoretic Text) is called Laban the Syrian (in Genesis 31:24 of Septuagint), "Aram" and "Arameans" (in 2 Samuel 8:6 of Hebrew Masoretic Text) are called "Syria" and "Syrians" (in 2 Samuel 8:6 of Septuagint).

That is why NIV translates "Aramean language" in (2 Kings 18:26 of Hebrew Masoretic Text) as "Aramaic" and Douay Rheims Bible translates "Syrian language" in 2 Kings 18:26 of Septuagint and "Syriace" in 2 Kings 18:26 of Latin Vulgate as Syriac.

But you may ask how is it possible that Jesus could not have spoken Greek since we see a Greek woman born in Syrian Phoenicia begging Jesus to drive the demon out of her daughter in Mark 7:26?

In Greek NT manuscripts, we read that the woman is Greek. But in Aramaic Peshitta, it says the woman was heathen.

Mark 7:26 (Greek NT and NIV Translation of Greek NT) - "The woman was a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia. She begged Jesus to drive the demon out of her daughter.”

But in Mark 7:26 of Aramaic NT says this - "But the woman was a heathen, from Phoenicia in Syria; and she besought him to cast out the demon from her daughter.”

I want to write more informations. But the post is too long already.


What is the significance of changing the names of Abram to Abraham and Sarai to Sarah?

Abram to Abraham
God had promised Abram that he would have a son and that it would be through his wife Sarai.  Abram's name means "Exalted Father", which may have proven to be an embarrassment as he aged without children.  This fits with God's promise, but he didn't receive that name from God but from his father.
God gives him the name "Abraham", which means "father of many".  This reinforces God's promise to Abraham that he would not only have a son through Sarai, but also that he would be the father of many nations.  This is true through Ishmael, Isaac, and the sons of Keturah--the wife he took after Sarah died.
Sarai to Sarah
As for Sarai changing to Sarah, the difference is more subtle, being from "princess" to "princess of many".  This does not apparently refer to many nations per se, but to many people.  This is significant, because Sarah was the mother of one nation, while Abraham was the father of many nations.  Still, the name comes from God and is a sign of the promise God had made to her.
Abram's Call to Be Blameless
It is interesting that Abram receives a call to walk righteously.  Previously, Adam was created in the image of God and Noah was found to be a righteous man, blameless among the people of his day.  Abraham, however, did not initially measure up to that standard.  He lied about his wife on more than one occasion.
However, God had already blessed Abram in many ways by now, so he had the assurance that God was with him.  He had yet to perhaps surrender fully to God, though.  It was not that he was full of blame, but was not blameless either.  Thus, Abraham, whom God had chosen to be the recipient of a new covenant through which God would reveal Himself to the world, was called to holy living prior to God's fulfillment of the promise.
New Name for Believers
The implication is that we all receive "names" from the world--the rich kid, the smart kid, the fat kid, the slow kid, the jock.  However, God has a promise for our lives as well, and His name for us is different.  It expresses our personal relationship with God and the high value He places on us.

For I know the plans that I have for you,’ declares the Lord, ‘plans for welfare and not for calamity to give you a future and a hope.  Jeremiah 29:11 NAS
Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who is victorious, I will give some of the hidden manna. I will also give that person a white stone with a new name written on it, known only to the one who receives it.  Revelation 2:17 NIV


How are 3 days/nights in grave prophecy reconclied if Jesus died on Good Fri & arose Sun?

A hebrew idiom - any part of a day or night constituted a full day per traditional Jewish teaching (and the Talmud).

So - Jesus died Friday before sundown (before the Sabbath) and was burried (1 day), Jesus remains buried Friday through Saturday sundown (2 day), Jesus is resurrected on Sunday morning ("on the third day" - which per the idiom is a day and night (a full day).

This actually is what harmonizes the verses which say Jesus arose "on the third day" with "three days and three nights".

Note: night is actually morning and morning is part of the day.

Friday day(12am - 6pm) and Friday evening(6pm - 12am) = 1st day
Saturday morning(12am - 6am) and Saturday day(6am - 12am) = 2nd day
Sunday morning(12am - 6am) and Sunday day is part of the morning(12am - 12am) = 3rd day


Does The Bible Say God Created Evil (Sin)?

  KJV: I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these [things].

This generates some confusion, because the "evil" God creates does not necessarily match our definition of "evil" (more on this in the next section). We can try reading other translations and commentaries on the verse to gain some insight. A good source for comparison and commentary of individual verses is biblehub.com. The Hebrew word ra` (Strong's H7451), there translated as "evil" in KJV  is translated as "calamity" (in NKJV, KJV 2000, ESV, and NASB), "disaster" (in NIV, HCSB, and ISV), "woe" (in RSV)  and "bad-times" (in NLT). It is commonly believed to be referring to punishment, and not unrighteousness (see Matthew Henry Commentary for Isaiah 45:5-10).
An example of a similar usage can be found in Genesis 19:19, where ra is again translated as "evil" in KJV but in more modern translations (including ESV, NASB, NIV, and others) the word is often translated as "disaster" (the context being Lot fleeing the impending judgement and destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah).

  KJV: Behold now, thy servant hath found grace in thy sight, and thou hast magnified thy mercy, which thou hast shewed unto me in saving my life; and I cannot escape to the mountain, lest some evil[H7451] take me, and I die:
  NIV: Your servant has found favor in your eyes, and you have shown great kindness to me in sparing my life. But I can't flee to the mountains; this disaster[H7451] will overtake me, and I'll die.

I hope this points out that "evil" does not equal sin in all cases, especially in older translations/versions of the Bible. And in particular, "evil" does not equal sin in Isaiah 45:7, and the Bible does not say that God created sin.

But If God Created All Things Doesn't That Include Evil?
For a non-doctrinal answer (at least as far as possible), first consider the definition of evil. What is evil? If we are talking about evil as sin, then we can define evil to be unrighteousness.

Evil (by Biblical definition of sin) is unrighteousness, the absence of righteousness, just as darkness is the absence of light. Darkness and evil are not anything, and cannot be created, they are by definition the absence of their "opposites". Therefore, God did not create evil (sin and unrighteousness), evil simply exists wherever God is absent (not followed).

For further reading check:  What is the definition of evil?

Why Does God Allow Evil?
The answers to this differ fundamentally based on doctrinal beliefs, mainly dependent on the view of free will.

Assuming that we have free will, evil (unrighteousness) is a byproduct of our free will whenever we choose to do something contrary to the nature of God.
So the question then becomes "why do we have free will?" This is yet another source of doctrinal differences, but one common reason is because when we choose to do God's will, we give honor and glory to God. This honor is all the more meaningful because it was our choice, we were not compelled like a marionette puppet to do it. Furthermore, without the option of unrighteousness and sin, there would be no point to Christ's sacrifice, and no need for forgiveness and redemption.


What are the current guidelines for Jehovah's Witnesses regarding blood use in medical treatment?

Indeed there have been adjustments in the no blood stance of JWs that correspond with the advancing medical processing of donated blood.
At first blood was transfused with no processing at all (whole blood). That was and is still rejected as a violation of biblical directives.
However blood can now be separated into all of its many components. Once that process goes beyond the 4 major components ( red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets , plasma ) the use of blood fractions becomes a conscience matter for each individual to contemplate prayerfully before deciding yes I will accept that or no I will not accept that.

In the book "Keep Yourselves in Gods Love"
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102008086

there is the following information that lays out the current guidelines regarding Jehovah's Witnesses and the medical use of blood and blood fractions:

  Blood Fractions and Surgical Procedures
  Blood fractions. Fractions are derived from the four primary blood components—red cells, white cells, platelets, and plasma. For example, red cells contain the protein hemoglobin. Products developed from human or animal hemoglobin have been used to treat patients who have acute anemia or massive blood loss.

  Plasma—which is 90 percent water—carries scores of hormones, inorganic salts, enzymes, and nutrients, including minerals and sugar. Plasma also carries clotting factors, antibodies to fight disease, and such proteins as albumin. If someone is exposed to a certain disease, doctors might prescribe injections of gamma globulin extracted from the plasma of people who already had immunity. White blood cells may be a source of interferons and interleukins, used to treat some viral infections and cancers.

  Should Christians accept therapies incorporating blood fractions? The Bible does not give specific details, so each one must make his own conscientious decision before God. Some would refuse all fractions, reasoning that God’s Law to Israel required that blood removed from a creature be poured “out on the ground.” (Deuteronomy 12:22-24) Others, while refusing transfusions of whole blood or its major components, might accept treatments involving a fraction. They may reason that at some point fractions that have been extracted from blood cease to represent the life of the creature from which the blood was taken.

  When making decisions about blood fractions, consider the following questions: Am I aware that refusing all blood fractions means that I will not accept some medications that include products to fight diseases or that might help the blood to clot in order to stop bleeding? Could I explain to a physician why I reject or accept the use of one or more blood fractions?

  Surgical procedures. These include hemodilution and cell salvage. In hemodilution, blood is diverted from the body, replaced with a volume expander, and later returned to the patient. Cell salvage captures and returns blood lost during surgery. Blood is recovered from a wound or a body cavity, washed or filtered, and then reinfused into the patient. Because the methods of applying these techniques can vary from physician to physician, a Christian should find out what his doctor has in mind.

  When making decisions about these procedures, ask yourself: ‘If some of my blood will be diverted outside my body and the flow might even be interrupted for a time, will my conscience allow me to view this blood as still part of me, thus not requiring that it be poured “out on the ground”? (Deuteronomy 12:23, 24) Would my Bible-trained conscience be troubled if during a medical procedure some of my own blood was withdrawn, modified, and directed back into my body? Am I aware that refusing all medical procedures involving the use of my own blood means that I would not accept a blood test, hemodialysis, or a heart-lung bypass machine?’
  A Christian must decide for himself how he will allow his own blood to be handled in the course of a surgical procedure. The same applies to medical tests and current therapies that involve extracting a small amount of one’s own blood, perhaps modifying it in some way, and then reinjecting it.


Has the Church of England responded on the latest comment of its "Head"?

Michael Nazir-Ali, former Anglican Bishop of Rochester, published a Comment on page 16 in today's Daily Telegraph regarding the Queen's speech.  He made a plea for Churches to reopen for Easter in order to give people hope and to allow Holy Week processions.

With regard to prayer, he said this:

  Numerous studies have shown the importance of the spiritual in the healing process.  Prayer is known to increase confidence in the possibility of being healed, and others praying for us gives us a sense of a social net when we are feeling alone and threatened.  At this time of stress, the presence of chaplains in hospitals, visiting wards, is most important."

No mention from the Anglican Church that I can find as to the specific direction of prayers and petitions.


What is the basis for saying that Adam was created without sin?

Before the fall, when Adam and Eve disobeyed God there was no sin in the world:

  Romans 5:12 through 14 NKJV  Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13  (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14  Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

These Scriptures tell us that when Adam and Eve disobeyed God Death came into the world and so did sin, however; sin was not attributed to mankind until God gave Moses the law.

If this sounds confusing try to think of it this way God originally gave Adam instructions not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil lest they die. Adam by eating from the tree then brought death to mankind. Adam and Eve sinned when they disobeyed God and ate from the tree God told Adam not to eat thereof. However; from the time of their sin until God gave the ten Commandments to Moses no other humans ate from the tree, therefore no others were disobeying God's commandment. Sin is disobeying God. After God punished Adam and Eve, he sort of put man on a trial basis to see if they would use their free will for good or for evil, and that is why God regretted that he had made man and destroyed the World with a flood.

Then after the Flood even though he had chosen righteous Noah to repopulate the World man still gravitated toward evil.

So the answer to your question must be yes the original man, who we call Adam was created without sin, and did not disobey Cod until they ate from the tree which was the first sin.


What is the status of "The Will to Believe" among contemporary philosophers?

I am unsure whether other Christian philospohers have taken this farther, but I have heard several preachers say something of similar effect when talking about faith and believing.
They say that we don't understand then believe, we believe then we begin to understand.

  Pro 9:10  The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.

"James' central argument in "The Will to Believe" hinges on the idea that access to the evidence for whether or not certain beliefs are true depends crucially upon first adopting those beliefs without evidence."

This is seen in scripture When God speaks to Moses

  Exo 3:12  And He said, I will be with you, and this shall be the sign for you that I have sent you, when you bring out the people from Egypt: You shall serve God on this mountain.

The sign that it was indeed Him was the accomplished task. Moses had to believe then see.
Echoed in Romans 12

  Rom 12:2  And be not conformed to this age, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, in order to prove by you what is the good and pleasing and perfect will of God.

Your transformation proves the will of God.

All that to say there is more in scripture if you are looking to research that idea more.
Also you could look into Bill Johnson at Bethel in Redding CA.
Possibly Kris Vallotton from same.
I believe they were some that I heard speak on this idea.


Do Jehovah's Witnesses believe in annihilation?

Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe that there is a soul that survives the death of the body. We believe that, at death, a person ceases to exist, since the body simply returns to the "dust". (Genesis 3:17-19) This makes sense if you think about people who have brain damage (a damaged body): their consciousness is affected by this. Our consciousness is not an independent system from our body that mysteriously survives the death of the body. God created the first man and woman to have a physical body formed from the "dust". (Genesis 2:7) This is different from the angels he created which are spirits. (Ezekiel 3:12) God is also a spirit. (John 4:24)

Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe in hellfire as it would not represent divine justice from a loving God. (1 John 4:8) He wants us to serve him out of love, not fear of torture. (2 Corinthians 9:7) Some who die will receive a resurrection, but some will not. If God sees that someone has already shown that there is no chance they will conform to his righteous standards, he will simply leave them in a state of non-existence. (Matthew 5:30) They have already paid for their sins with death, and he has no desire to torture them. Those whom God chooses to preserve in his memory will at a future time receive a resurrection to life on this earth. (John 5:28, 29) They will be given a new body that will be perfect and not die over time. (Revelation 21:4) In the meantime they are simply "asleep" in death, resting safely in God's memory. (John 11:11-14; Acts 7:60)

The exception is those who are resurrected to spirit life, but this is only a relatively select few who will serve as kings and priests.

Here are some references from official websites of Jehovah's Witnesses. I hope that these links remain pointing to the right content, but I really don't know if it may change or not:

Hellfire — Is It Part of Divine Justice?

That is from a small tract so don't expect tons of detail. It is well written, easy to read, and easy to understand.

If you are interested in learning more, I recommend requesting a free Bible study.

For that they normally use the Bible study aid What Does the Bible Really Teach? You can also view this book online and download it in EPUB or PDF format. It has several chapters and appendix sections related to your question. The first chapter is called "Is This What God Purposed?"

If you want to do some deeper research, here is some heavier stuff from the book Insight on the Scriptures:

Death
Hell
Sheol
Hades
Soul
Spirit
Resurrection


How can we understand Jesus's omniscience?

The theological term for what you are describing is called Kenosis- from "an emptying." As you suggest, Philippians 2, in which the Scripture says that "though He was God, he thought equality with God was not something to be grasped," so he emptied himself and became obedient unto death, even the death on a Cross.

That God himself would choose to empty himself of the privileges of divinity is both a mystery (in that the mechanics and even motivation could be some what obscured) and a reminder of how much God loved us.

John 1 says that he chose to dwell among us - Exodus 33 says that man cannot see God and live. In order to reconcile these two facts, some accommodation necessarily had to be made.

Likewise, the true fullness of the glory of God is something that is simply so awesome, that had he not emptied himself, we would have necessarily been overhwhelmed. Like Henry IV who famously dressed up us a commoner so that he could go out and speak with his men as one of his men, so too did God necessarily become like men in order to be with men.

For this reason, Jesus' human nature was thus the dress in which his fully Divine nature was "pleased to dwell." He gave up the powers of God in order to be with us.


What first century Jews were claimed to have risen from the dead?

Jesus raised the daughter of Jarius (a synagogue ruler). By the time Jesus got to the house of Jarius, his daughter had died:

  "He took her by the hand and said to her, "Talitha koum!" (which means "Little girl, I say to you, get up!").  Immediately the girl stood up and walked around (she was twelve years old). At this they were completely astonished" (Mark 6:41-42).

Thunderforge mentioned an incident (in Acts 20:7-12) where a young man called Eutychus was listening to Paul preach in an upstairs room late at night:

  Seated in a window was a young man named Eutychus, who was sinkinginto a deep sleep as Paul talked on andon.  When he was sound asleep, he fell to the ground from the third storey and was picked up dead.  Paul went down, threw himself on the young man and put his arms around him. "Don't be alarmed," he said. "He's alive!" Then he went upstairs again... The people took the young man home alive and were greatly comforted."

There is also an incident in Acts 9:36-43 where Peter raised Tabitha, a disciple, from the dead.

I am unaware of any reference in the Bible to John the Baptist being resurrected. Where did that idea come from?

Of course, the difference between the resurrection of Jesus and any other person is that Jesus still lives, whereas Lazarus and the daughter of Jarius died later.  Likewise with the dead who came to life after the resurrection of Jesus (Matthew 27:52-53), as mentioned by D J Clayworth.


Where can I learn about Catholic terms and phrases?

The Catholic Encyclopedia is a public domain Encyclopedia compiled in the early 20th century.  Since not a lot has changed in the last hundred years, it's a pretty excellent resource.

Beyond that, if you want something that'll overload your senses, you can check out the intratext search of the Catechism of the Catholic Church

The other thing that might come up (and hopefully not here) is that we'll use awful acronyms like LG (Lumen Gentium), DV (Dei Verbum) and CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church) or CCCC (Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church) to reference some important texts or encyclicals.   For these I've only seen good glossaries for these in the backs of print books, like the Catechism, and not a complete list, just the ones referenced within, but in the Catechism that's like everything from the Apostolic Father's on.

Finally, I just found this site http://www.catholicreference.net/ so I'm super glad you asked because I'm going to link to it all the time from now on!


Why is “faith” omitted as a doctrinal consideration in TULIP (five point) Calvinism?

The important thing to remember is that each of the items in TULIP was a response to the (Arminian) Remonstrants own five point rejection of Calvinism. Thus the simple reason why faith is omitted is because the Remonstrants weren't critiquing the place of faith, per se, but the place of grace in salvation. Because TULIP is a response to a critique, the debate was framed by the Remonstrants, not the "Calvinists."

Reformed theology has always closely affirmed the "five solas," including sola fide (solely by faith). Faith is assumed an absolutely essential part of Reformed belief. For example, Westminster Confession of Faith 14.1:

  The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts, and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word, by which also, and by the administration of the sacraments, and prayer, it is increased and strengthened.

As you can see, and this is worked throughout the Westminster Standards, faith is seen as a part of God's grace. However, grace is obviously more than just faith -- it is also God's grace that "the rain falls on the just and the unjust," for example (Mt. 5.45). But, directly to your question regarding TULIP, the issue is simply that neither Calvin nor the later Reformed theologians were the ones to frame the five point debate, they were only responding, and thus the fact that faith isn't in TULIP only speaks to a particular Reformed-"Arminian" controversy and not Reformed belief in general.